AVALON PRINCETON, LLC VS. PRINCETON, ETC.(L-1228-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1992-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Princeton adopted a 2013 resolution authorizing Avalon Princeton LLC's 280-unit rental project with 56 affordable units, requiring compliance with COAH and UHAC standards and a deed restriction review.
- April 2014 developer's agreement stated no residential affordable housing development fees and that 13% of units would be affordable to very low income households, with deed restrictions for 30 years.
- Plaintiff submitted a draft deed restriction proposing a 30-year controls term; Princeton proposed language saying covenants run with the land for at least 30 years, commencing upon first occupancy and continuing until terminated by the Municipality.
- Plaintiff argued the language allowed perpetual affordability controls; defendant argued UHAC requires at least 30 years and a municipal ordinance to release units after that period.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding UHAC §26.11 preempts the municipal ordinance and developer's agreement, and requires a 30-year minimum with release by ordinance.
- On appeal, the court upheld the trial court, concluding UHAC preempts the fixed 30-year term and that the municipality cannot bypass UHAC or rely on developer's agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does UHAC preempt the municipality's ordinance and developer's agreement? | Avalon: UHAC allows specified term and does not permit fixed 30-year municipal control. | Princeton: UHAC sets minimum 30 years but requires ordinance for release; ordinance and agreement mirror UHAC language. | Yes, UHAC preempts. |
| Does UHAC require a 30-year minimum before release, or can the term be fixed by the municipal ordinance? | At least 30 years is not fixed; terms align with ordinance and deed restrictions. | UHAC imposes a 30-year minimum and requires an ordinance to release afterward. | UHAC requires 30-year minimum; release by ordinance. |
| Is the developer's agreement enforceable when it conflicts with UHAC? | Developer's agreement aligns with UHAC and local ordinance. | Developer's agreement cannot override UHAC; it cannot impose a fixed 30-year term. | Enforceability of the developer's agreement is rejected; UHAC controls. |
| Did the trial court properly rely on regulatory history to interpret UHAC? | Court should limit to plain language, not history. | Regulatory history supports UHAC interpretation and agency deference. | Regulatory history properly cited; deference applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35 (2012) (standard for summary judgment; de novo review of legal issues)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (when reviewing legal conclusions on summary judgment)
- Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87 (2015) (five-factor preemption test for state law vs. municipal ordinance)
- Toll Bros. v. Burlington Cty. Freeholders, 194 N.J. 223 (2008) (developer's agreement as ancillary to municipal conditions)
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 198 N.J. 511 (2009) (interpretation of statutory language and de novo review)