NJ Supreme Court Says Municipalities Can’t Force Developers To Contribute Open Space or Payments In Lieu
Posted by Phil Morin on June 25, 2009
In New Jersey Shore Builders Assn. v. Twp of Jackson ___, N.J. ___ (June 25, 2009), the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”) does not authorize municipalities to require, as part of the development approval process, that developers set aside land as recreational or open space within a proposed development as a condition of approval, unless that development is a “planned unit development” as defined within the MLUL. The Court further held that contributions or payments in lieu of providing the required recreational or open space are also not authorized by the MLUL.
According to the Star Ledger, the decision:
puts an end to local ordinances that required builders to pay for open space or include it when trying to construct large residential subdivisions.
In its unanimous decision, the court said that while the towns’ goal to preserve open space “is certainly a laudable one,” the state’s Municipal Land Use Law does not allow it.
The court said the state law only allows towns to force developers to build open space in “planned unit developments” – or communities intentionally constructed with both homes and parks as part of a land parcel.
William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the state law should be changed to preserve towns’ efforts to raise money for open space.
“The court has made it clear that a legislative solution will be necessary,” Dressel said. “We will immediately contact the Legislature on a legislative remedy.”
Dressel said he did not know how many towns had the laws but said he suspects “there are many.”
For the full Star Ledger article, click here.
For the Appellate Division opinion, click here.
League Supporting Bill Allowing Recreational Set-Asides, Fees-In-Lieu As Part of Development Approval « New Jersey Zoning Watch said
[...] this summer, the New Jersey Supreme Court in New Jersey Shore Builders v. Township of Jackson, held that such contributions were not authorized by the [...]