Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Madison Tp.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1977
• Citation: 72 N.J. 481,371 A.2d 1192
• Parties: OAKWOOD AT MADISON, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Cross-Appellants, v. The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, and The State of New Jersey, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 481

72 N.J. 481

371 A.2d 1192

OAKWOOD AT MADISON, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Cross-Appellants, v.The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent and The State of New Jersey, Defendant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 5, 1973.

Reargued Jan. 8, 1974, April 14, 1975, Nov. 18, 1975.

Decided Jan. 26, 1977.

Frederick C. Mezey, New Brunswick, and Lois D. Thompson, Yonkers, N.Y., a member of the New York Bar, for Oakwood at Madison, Inc., et al. (Mezey & Mezey, New Brunswick, attorneys; Frederick C. Mezey, Lois D. Thompson and Ray Dennison, of counsel and in the brief and Richard F. Bellman, Terrytown, N.Y., on the brief.

Richard F. Plechner, Metuchen, for appellant Madison.

Melville D. Miller, Jr., Trenton, for amicus curiaeState Office of Legal Services(Warren E. Smith, attorney; Melville D. Miller and Steven P. McCabe, of counsel and on the brief).

Carl S. Bisgaier, Trenton, for amicus curiaeDept. of the Public Advocate(Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Advocate, Trenton, attorney; Carl S. Bisgaier, Trenton, Kenneth E. Meiser, Camden, and Peter A. Buchsbaum, Trenton, of counsel and on the briefs).

Joseph M. Clayton Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendantState of N.J. on March 5, 1973(George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney; Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Virginia Long Annich and Jonathan Weiner, Deputy Attys.Gen., of counsel and on the brief).

Gerard Moran, Newark, and Norman Williams, a member of the New York Bar, for amici curiaeSierra Club and Public Interest Research Group of N.J. on March 5, 1973(Gerard Moran, attorney; Gerard Moran, Newark, and Norman Williams, on the brief).

Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, Morristown, appeared for amicus curiae Tp. of Mahwah (Breslin & Breslin, Hackensack, attorneys; E. Carter Corriston, Hackensack, of counsel; Clyde A. Szuch, William C. Slattery, Bethany T. Kadish, Morristown, Armen Shahinian, Oradell, and Sondra V. Lasky, West Orange, on the briefs).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CONFORD, P.J.A.D., Temporarily Assigned.

We today review the decision of Judge Furman invalidating the 1973 amendatory zoning ordinance of defendantTOWNSHIP OF MADISON.128 N.J.SUPER. 438, 320 A.2D 223(LAW DIV.1974)¹.That determination culminated an action instituted by plaintiffs in November 1970 challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance adopted by the township in September 1970 to replace a previous one in effect since 1964.² Judge Furman had invalidated the 1970 ordinance in Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Tp. of Madison, 117 N.J.Super 11, 21, 283 A.2d 353(Law Div.1971), but at the same time rejected an attack by plaintiffs on the constitutionality of the enabling zoning statute, N.J.S.A. 40:55--30 Et seq.Id. at 16.

Defendant obtained a stay of judgment pending its appeal to the Appellate Division, and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal as to that part of the judgment sustaining the validity of the statute.On plaintiffs' motion, and because of the importance of the case, we certified the appeals pending unheard in the Appellate Division pursuant to R. 2:12--2. 62 N.J. 185, 299 A.2d 720(1972).

Oral argument was originally heard by the court on March 5, 1973, and additional argument was requested for January 8, 1974.However, on October 1, 1973 Madison Township adopted a major amendment to the 1970 ordinance.Consequently on January 8, 1974, while retaining jurisdiction, we remanded the action to the trial court for a trial and ruling on the ordinance as amended, with the result stated above.

Oral argument on the present phase of the appeal has been had twice, emphasis being placed on the effect on the issues herein of our intervening decision in So. Burl. Cty. N.A.A.C.P. v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713, app. dism. and Cert. den.423 U.S. 808, 96 S.Ct. 18, 46 L.Ed.2d 28(1975)('Mount Laurel' hereinafter).We have received and considered supplemental beiefs and materials.

Plaintiffs herein comprise two groups.Oakwood at Madison, Inc. and Beren Corporation(hereinafter 'corporate plaintiffs'), both New Jersey corporations, were developers owning a tract of vacant developable land of some 400 acres, the disputed Oakwood-Beren tract.Six individuals were low income persons acknowledged by the trial judge as 'representing as a class those who reside outside the township and have sought housing there unsuccessfully.'Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Tp. of Madison, supra(117 N.J.Super. at 14, 283 A.2d at 354).Plaintiffs alleged, Inter alia, (a) that the exclusionary nature of the ordinance rendered it unconstitutional; (b) that the enabling legislation was unconstitutional in its failure to provide adequate standards for municipal exercise of the zoning power; and (c) that the restrictive effect of the ordinance as applied to corporate plaintiffs' property rendered it confiscatory.

The trial court invalidated the 1970 ordinance, primarily on the grounds that in zoning massive areas of vacant developable land for one- and two-acre single family residences, beyond the reach of 90% Of the population, and in allocating only 'miniscule' acreage for multi-family dwelling units, it ignored the housing needs of the township and the region, and failed 'to promote reasonably a balanced community in accordance with the general welfare.'117 N.J.Super. at 20--21, 283 A.2d at 358.The court upheld the constitutionality of the enabling legislation; it did not reach the issue of confiscation, apparently regarding the invalidation of the entire ordinance as rendering that matter moot.

While the 1973 amendatory ordinance transferred substantial areas from large lot to smaller lot zoning, made more land available for multi-family development and provided for planned unit development (PUD) and 'cluster' zones, the evidence in the case convinced the court that the municipality still was not satisfying its obligation to 'provide its fair share of the housing needs of its region', particularly in relation to the low-income and moderate-income population.128 N.J.Super. at 447, 320 A.2d at 227.The amended ordinance was therefore again struck down in its entirety.Ibid.

The main lines of the Law Division opinion striking down the 1973 ordinance may be summarized as follows.A crisis in housing needs continues, most serious for those of low and moderate income.The region, whose housing needs must reasonably be provided for by such municipalities as Madison, is not necessarily coextensive with Middlesex County.'Rather, it is the area from which, in view of available employment and transportation, the population of the township would be drawn, absent invalidly exclusionary zoning.'128 N.J.Super. at 441, 320 A.2d at 224.Almost all of Madison's employed residents work outside the township, 50% In the county, 15% In New York City, 10% In Essex County, and the remainder in nearby counties, including 7% In Monmouth County.After an analysis of the testimony concerning the number of housing units which could be expected, under the amended ordinance, to be produced and to be affordable by low and moderate income households, the court said:

Of the total 20,000 to 30,000 housing units which may be built in Madison Township under the 1970 zoning ordinance as amended, about 3500 (12% To 17%) at most would be within the reach of households with incomes of $10,000 a year, the upper limit of moderate incomes, and virtually none within the reach of households with incomes of $9,000 a year or less.This contrasts with the present township population, approximately 12% Low income and 19% Moderate income.Id. at 446, 320 A.2d at 227.

The court assessed Madison Township's obligation to provide its fair share of regional housing needs as follows:

Without the rigidity of a mathematical formula this court holds that Madison Township's obligation to provide its fair share of the housing needs of its region is not met unless its zoning ordinance approximates in additional housing unit capacity the same proportion of low-income housing as its present low-income population, about 12%, and the same proportion of moderate-income housing as its present moderate-income population, about 19%.The amended zoning ordinance under review falls palpably short and must be struck down in its entirety.Id. at 447, 320 A.2d at 227.

The court did not specify any absolute numerical quota of low and moderate income units the ordinance would be expected to render possible, but found that annual needs 'into the 1980's were 750 to 1000 units, 500 to 600 of those low and moderate income.'Id. at 442, 320 A.2d at 225.

The court dealt with the defendants' argument that ecological and environmental factors justified the RP, R-80 (2 acre lot minimum) and R-40 (1 acre lot minimum zones by pointing out that such problems had 'no bearing' except in specified limited areas and that 'ample land outside these areas is available' with which the township could meet its obligation to provide its fair share of needed housing.128 N.J.Super. at 447, 320 A.2d at 228.

It should be stated at the outset that the basic rationale embraced by Judge Furman in both of his opinions in the case is substantially that adopted by this court in Mount Laurel, with the qualification that our determination there rested on the state constitutional ground that due process and equal protection are denied if 'substantial segments of the population' are improperly precluded from residing within the municipality because of local zoning regulations.67 N.J. at 175, 336 A.2d 713.The 'substantial' segments thus identified were those low and moderate income people of the region economically unable to afford suitable housing in developing municipalities of the region because of their highly cost-generating zoning restrictions.

General guidelines toward eliminating undue cost-generating restrictions were stated in Mount Laurel (67 N.J. at 187, 336 A.2d at 731...