[Corrected Copy]

SENATE, No. 1499

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

209th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED JUNE 29, 2000

Sponsored by:

Senator JOHN H. ADLER

District 6 (Camden)

SYNOPSIS

Encourages consistency of municipal planning documents with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

As introduced.

An Act encouraging the consistency of municipal master plans with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, amending P.L.1977, c.467 and supplementing P.L.1985, c.398 (C.52:18A-196 et al.), P.L.1991, c.431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) and P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.).

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. (New section) a. Any municipality may petition the Office of State Planning for an endorsement of its planning portfolio. For the purposes of P.L. , c. (pending before the Legislature as this bill), "planning portfolio" means the municipal master plan, implementing zoning ordinances, other implementing development regulations and capital improvement program. The Office of State Planning shall endorse the planning portfolio upon finding that the plan, ordinances, regulations and program which constitute the portfolio are consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, as provided in subsection b. of this section.

In the case of a municipality assigned a fair share housing obligation pursuant to P.L.1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-301 et al.), the Office of State Planning shall not endorse the planning portfolio unless the municipality has demonstrated that it has received substantive certification by the Council on Affordable Housing and that it is in substantial compliance with the terms of substantive certification.

b. For the purposes of subsection a. of this section, the Office of State Planning shall determine that the planning portfolio of a municipality is consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan whenever the petitioning municipality has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the office:

(1) that the planning portfolio is in full compliance with the provisions of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.);

(2) that it has complied with the provisions of section 19 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-28), and indicates that the proposed development of the municipality, as envisioned in the planning portfolio, is consistent with the master plans of contiguous municipalities, the master plan of the county in which the municipality is situated, the district solid waste management plan, and any redevelopment plan adopted for any portion of the municipality pursuant to the "Local Redevelopment and Housing Law," P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et seq.);

(3) that its master plan contains the policy statement required under paragraph (3) of subsection d. of section 19 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-28), and that the proposed development of the municipality, as evidenced in the planning portfolio, is consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, by explaining: (a) how the proposed development is consistent with State planning goals and strategies and Statewide policies enunciated in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan; (b) how the planning portfolio encourages development in those planning areas recommended for future growth and discourages development in environmentally sensitive planning areas; and (c) how the municipality's infrastructure planning, as evidenced in the planning portfolio, is consistent with and supports the pattern of growth envisioned in those planning documents; and

(4) that the various components of the planning portfolio have been developed with the benefit of public participation and in consultation with relevant civic groups, private for profit and non-profit development groups, and other governmental entities within and outside the jurisdiction of the planning entity, as appropriate to further the goals and implementation of those planning documents.

c. Upon the completion of the general reexamination of the master plan, as required pursuant to section 76 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-89), or the revision or readoption of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, as the case may be, the Office of State Planning shall reexamine any planning portfolio submitted by a municipality to ensure that the constituent planning documents remain consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

2. Section 7 of P.L.1977, c.467 (C.46:3B-7) is amended to read as follows:

7. a. There is hereby established a new home warranty security fund to be maintained by the State Treasurer and administered by the commissioner. The purpose of the fund is to provide moneys sufficient to pay claims by owners against builders participating in the fund for defects in new homes covered by the new home warranty. The amounts payable by participating builders shall be established and may be changed from time to time, as the experience of the fund shall require, by the commissioner, and shall be sufficient to cover anticipated claims, to provide a reasonable reserve and to cover the costs of administering the fund. Amounts paid by participating builders shall be forwarded to the State Treasurer and shall be accounted for and credited by him to the new home warranty security fund.

Notwithstanding any provisions of P.L.1977, c.467 (C.46:3B-1 et seq.), as amended, or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, participating builders shall not be liable for any amounts payable in any municipality whose planning portfolio has been endorsed by the Office of State Planning pursuant to section 1 of P.L.    , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill). A new home owner of a home for which a participating builder has been forgiven payment pursuant to this section shall be covered for claims against defects in the same manner in which any other new home purchaser would otherwise be covered under P.L.1977, c.467.

b. The State Treasurer shall hold, manage and, through the Division of Investment, invest and reinvest moneys in the fund and credit all income earned thereon to the fund in the same manner as provided by law for the investment of pension and retirement funds administered by the State. The department shall keep the State Treasurer advised of anticipated cash demands for payment of claims against the fund.

c. Prior to making a claim against the fund for defects covered by the warranty, an owner shall notify the builder of such defects and allow a reasonable time period for their repair. If the repairs are not made within a reasonable time or are not satisfactory to the owner, he may file a claim against the fund in the form and manner prescribed by the commissioner. The commissioner shall investigate each claim to determine the validity thereof, and the amount of the award that shall be made thereon, and shall hold a hearing if requested by either party, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (P.L.1968, c.410, C.52:14B-1 et seq.) applicable to contested cases. Reasonable hearing fees shall be assessed against the unsuccessful party. The amount of the award shall be sufficient to cover the reasonable costs necessary to correct any defect or defects covered under the warranty, but the total amount of awards from the fund for any new home shall not exceed the purchase price of the home in the first good faith sale thereof or the fair market value on the home on its completion date if there is no good faith sale. All claims submitted by an owner shall first be reviewed through a conciliation or arbitration procedure by the department, and in the event that the owner is found to be in the right, then the builder shall be required to correct such claims as determined through the conciliation or arbitration procedure. If a builder is unable or willfully refuses to correct such deficiency, then an amount sufficient to cure the problem shall be paid from the fund to the owner. In such cases, the commissioner may then proceed against the builder in accordance with section 6b of this act. Upon certification from the commissioner of the amount of an award, the State Treasurer shall make payment to the claimant from the fund.

d. If at any time the moneys available in the fund are insufficient to satisfy outstanding awards and anticipated awards for the succeeding year, the commissioner shall, by regulation and after public hearing upon reasonable notice to all interested parties, require participating builders to pay additional amounts to replenish the fund, except for those builders who are not liable pursuant to subsection a, of this section. The commissioner may also provide for surcharges against those participating builders who are responsible for a significant number of awards against the fund, and may discontinue the participation in the fund of any builder who is responsible for an excessive number of awards against the fund after a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (P.L.1968, c.410, C. 52:14B-1 et seq.) applicable to contested cases. At no time shall the State be required to contribute any moneys to the fund, nor shall the State have any liability to any person having any right to or claim against the fund over and above the amount therein.

(cf: P.L.1977, c.467, s.7)

3. (New section) To foster the implementation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Legislature determines, in accordance with the New Jersey Constitution, including without limitation, Article VIII, Section III, paragraph 1, that a municipality whose planning portfolio has been endorsed by the Office of State Planning may provide for a tax abatement within the municipality as provided hereunder and for a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, in accordance with P.L. 1991, c.431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.).

Any municipality whose planning portfolio has received the endorsement of the Office of State Planning pursuant to P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of declaring any section of the municipality as an area in need of redevelopment, as otherwise required under subsection b. of section 6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-6), and may grant tax exemptions within the municipality without making individual declarations of blight and collect an annual service charge in lieu of taxes to be paid on the improvements of the project, pursuant to subsection b. of section 12 of P.L.1991, c.431 (C.40A: 20-12). Notwithstanding this waiver, however, a municipality seeking to grant tax exemptions under the "Long Term Tax Exemption Law," P.L.1991, c.431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) shall otherwise be subject to the provisions of that law.

4. (New section) In any case challenging the development ordinances filed against a municipality whose planning portfolio has been endorsed by the Office of State Planning pursuant to section 1 of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), there shall be a presumption of validity attaching to those development regulations. To rebut the presumption of validity, the complainant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the development regulations which are being contested are not consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

The Office of State Planning shall be made a party to any suit challenging the development ordinances filed against any municipality whose planning portfolio has been endorsed by the Office of State Planning, and shall be empowered to present to the court its reasons for endorsing that municipality's planning portfolio.

5. There is appropriated to the Office of State Planning in the Department of Community Affairs from the General Fund the sum of $250,000 to enable that office to perform the determinations required pursuant to section 1 of this act.

6. This act shall take effect on the 60th day next following enactment.

STATEMENT

This bill would encourage municipalities to plan in a manner which furthers the Statewide planning goals and policies enunciated in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

The bill would establish a process through which municipalities would submit their planning portfolios to the Office of State Planning for endorsement. A "planning portfolio" is defined in the bill as the municipal master plan, zoning ordinance, any other implementing development regulations, and the capital improvement program.

The bill sets forth guidelines to govern the Office of State Planning in making its consistency endorsement. In order for a planning portfolio to be endorsed, it shall be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Office of State Planning, that:

(1) in the case of a municipality assigned a fair share housing obligation pursuant to the "Fair Housing Act," the municipality has received substantive certification and that it is in substantial compliance with the terms of that substantive certification;

(2) the planning portfolio is consistent with the "Municipal Land Use Law";

(3) the proposed development of the municipality, as envisioned in the planning portfolio, is consistent with the master plans of contiguous municipalities, the master plan of the county in which the municipality is situated, the district solid waste management plan, and any redevelopment plan adopted for any portion of the municipality pursuant to the "Local Redevelopment and Housing Law," P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et seq.).

(4) the proposed development of the municipality, as envisioned in the planning portfolio: is consistent with State planning goals and strategies and Statewide policies enunciated in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan; encourages development in those planning areas recommended for future growth and discourages development in environmentally sensitive planning areas; and the municipality's infrastructure planning, as evidenced in the planning portfolio, is consistent with and supports the pattern of growth envisioned in those planning documents; and

(5) the planning portfolio has been adopted with the benefit of public participation and consultation with relevant groups in order to further the goals and implementation of those planning documents.

The Office of State Planning would reexamine any planning portfolio for endorsement upon the completion of the periodic reexamination required under the "Municipal Land Use Law" or any revision or readoption of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

The benefits of seeking the endorsement of the Office of State Planning under this bill are three:

(1) participating builders under the "New Home Warranty and Builders' Registration Act," would be exempted for those amounts payable under that act in any municipality which has received the endorsement of the Office of State Planning under the bill, though new home owners would continue to be covered for claims against defects in the same manner in which any other new home purchaser would otherwise be covered;

(2) endorsement by the Office of State Planning would be tantamount to declaring any section of the municipality as an area in need of redevelopment otherwise required under subsection b. of section 6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-6), thereby promoting long-term redevelopment within those municipalities; and

(3) the development regulations of any municipality whose planning portfolio has received the endorsement of the Office of State Planning shall be presumed valid and in order to rebut that presumption of validity, the complainant shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the development regulations which are being contested are not consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The Office of State Planning shall be made a party to any such suit challenging the development ordinances filed against any municipality whose planning portfolio has been endorsed thereby, and shall be empowered to present to the court its reasons for endorsing that municipality's planning portfolio.

The bill appropriates the sum of $250,000 to the Office of State Planning to enable it to fulfill the functions assigned to it under this bill.