Toll Bros, Inc. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington
New Jersey Supreme Court
194 N.J. 223, 944 A.2d 1 (2008)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law (land-use law) required a developer to contribute only to the cost of off-site improvements that were necessary as a direct consequence of the developer’s application for a specific subdivision or development under review by a municipality. In other words, a land-use board could not condition site-plan approval for a development on a developer paying for improvements unrelated to its development or, if related, paying a disproportionate amount of the costs of the improvements. If a land-use board implemented a resolution establishing conditions on a proposed development, such as exactions for improvements related to a project, then the developer could file a changed-circumstances application to seek a modification to the resolution based on changed circumstances. Toll Brothers, Incorporated (plaintiff) sought approval for a 1.2 million square-foot development. Toll Brothers voluntarily entered into a development agreement with the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (board) (defendant). The development agreement provided that Toll Brothers was to pay an exaction fee for road improvements related to its development as a condition of site-plan approval. The board passed a resolution that established the conditions of approval for the development. At some point, Toll Brothers reduced its plan for development by 870,000 square feet. Consequently, Toll Brothers filed a changed-circumstances application with the board, seeking a pro rata reduction in its share of the cost of the road improvements. The board denied the request by Toll Brothers for a reduction in the exaction fee, finding that the land-use law’s prohibition on disproportionate exaction fees did not apply because Toll Brothers voluntarily entered into the development agreement. Toll Brothers brought an action against the board for a modification of the exaction fee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the board, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. Toll Brothers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Long, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
