Opinion ID: 1901249
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fair Share Determination

Text: As we explained above, the developing characterization used by the trial court has been discarded as a remedial standard in favor of the growth characterization contained in the SDGP. Clinton Township, unlike the bulk of Hunterdon County, contains a substantial growth area, and is part of the SDGP's Clinton Corridor. The Current Development Character of this Corridor is defined as follows: This corridor extends westward from the Northeast Area along Interstate 78 to Clinton. The area includes older centers such as Somerville, Raritan and Clinton, but much of the land is either open or developed at very low densities. Many communities are within easy reach of northeastern New Jersey and New York employment centers by improved highways and interstates. [SDGP at 55]. In keeping with the planned growth policies of the SDGP, we hold that Clinton Township has the obligation to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share of the region's lower income housing need. A determination of the extent of that fair share obligation shall be made by the trial court on remand, consistent with the principles and procedures outlined in this opinion. Our remand for a fair share determination does not reflect disagreement with the fair share findings below. On the contrary, those findings were well reasoned and solidly grounded in the evidence at trial. We remand on this issue for the sole purpose of allowing the trial court to determine whether our rulings concerning the SDGP have any impact on what would otherwise be an unassailable holding as to Clinton's fair share. The SDGP placed approximately 40 percent of the township in a growth area, the balance being limited growth and agriculture areas. On remand the trial court should determine whether the fair share can be accommodated completely in the growth area consistent with sensible planning. If it can, then the fair share determination below shall stand; if not, it shall be revised appropriately. The trial court need not be concerned with the general growth pressure that any development in a growth area may exert on the neighboring limited growth or agriculture area, since those pressures are implicit in and presumably acceptable to the State Plan. They are, obviously, inevitable. Such general pressures, however, are to be distinguished from the site specific pressure of locating a large-scale development in such a fashion in a growth area as to make it highly likely that growth will occur where it is intended not to, namely, in the limited growth area. These matters are best left to the municipality and planners in redesigning the zoning ordinance. In that connection, the revised ordinance should obviously be tailored to encourage lower income housing only in the growth area. Once the trial court has determined Clinton's fair share obligation, it must ensure that this obligation will be met, using the remedies and procedures set forth above. We will comment separately here on the builder's remedy and the master.