Bill > S682

Introduced Session

This bill proposes several amendments to the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.). Specifically: Section 1 of the bill would amend section 2 of the MLUL (C.40:55D-2), the provision which sets forth the "intent and purpose" of the MLUL, to clarify that a current MLUL purpose: to "encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development," includes the cost of processing applications for development. Section 2 of the bill would amend section 8 of P.L.1979, c.216 (C.40:55D-10.1) to require a zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) to grant a non-binding informal review of a developer's concept plan. Current law requires a planning board but not a ZBA to grant a non-binding informal concept plan review. Section 3 of the bill would amend section 5 of P.L.1984, c.20 (C.40:55D-10.3) to specify a 14-day period for the review of a resubmitted application for development during the completeness determination. Specifically, after an applicant has been notified of deficiencies in a prior application for development, the bill would require the municipal agency, or its authorized committee or designee, to either certify a resubmitted application to be complete within 14 days of the date of its submission, or the application would be deemed complete, unless: the application lacks information indicated on a checklist adopted by ordinance and provided to the applicant; and the municipal agency or its authorized committee or designee has notified the applicant, in writing, of the deficiencies in the application within 14 days of submission of the application. Section 4 of the bill would supplement the MLUL by requiring the Department of Community Affairs to adopt model forms for applications for development, and model forms for checklists, for the purpose of providing municipal agencies the option to adopt uniform standardized application forms and checklists. Section 5 of the bill would amend section 13 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-22) to establish timeframes for the review of resolution compliance submissions. Generally, a resolution memorializing the approval of an MLUL application for development sets forth conditions that must be fulfilled before an applicant's site plan or subdivision map can be signed or a zoning permit and building permit can be issued. Current law does not specify a timeframe for municipal agency consideration of an applicant's resolution compliance submissions. The bill specifically would require a municipal agency, or its designee, to review and verify the submitted proof of the fulfillment of conditions, and respond to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of an initial submission, and, if applicable, within 15 days of receipt of a subsequent submission. The bill would allow a municipal agency, or its designee, and an applicant to agree to extensions of time. Under the bill, if a municipal agency or its designee fails to respond, the applicant may institute a summary action in court to compel the municipal agency or its designee to respond, in writing, and to impose costs and attorney fees against the municipality. Section 6 of the bill would amend section 5 of P.L.1993, c.32 (C.40:55D-40.5) to provide that residential parking standards set forth in a redevelopment plan, adopted under the "Local Redevelopment and Housing Law," P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et seq.), control the parking requirements for the redevelopment project rather than the residential parking standards set forth in the Residential Site Improvement Standards. Section 7 of the bill would amend section 13 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-53.2) to require each professional who rendered services to a municipality or approving authority under the Municipal Land Use Law to submit to the chief financial officer of the municipality, prior to March 1 of each year, an annual statement setting forth a compilation of the following information:· the dollar amount billed for services rendered on each application for development over the prior calendar year;· the dollar amount collected for services rendered on each application for development over the prior calendar year;· the total dollar amount billed for services rendered on each application for development between the date of submission of the application for development and the date of submission of the annual statement; and· the total dollar amount collected for services rendered on each application for development between the date of submission of the application for development and the date of submission of the annual statement. Additionally, section 7 of the bill would require the Department of Community Affairs, prior to the first day of the fourth month next following enactment, to adopt a form for each professional to use when preparing and submitting an annual statement reporting the amount billed and collected on each application for development. This section would also require a municipality that maintains an Internet website to post and display thereon each annual statement received by the municipality's chief financial officer from a professional who rendered services to the municipality or an approving authority of the municipality. Finally, section 7 of the bill includes technical amendments to clarify the process for a professional to submit vouchers to the chief financial officer of the municipality when requesting release of payments from amounts deposited by a developer, and held in escrow by the municipality, for payments to professionals. Technical amendments to this section clarify that a professional's voucher is required to identify the personnel performing the service, and for each date of service: the services performed, the hours spent to one-quarter hour increments, the hourly rate, and the expenses incurred. Section 8 of the bill amends section 3 of P.L.1995, c.54 (C.40:55D-53.2a) to address the ability of an applicant to dispute amounts a professional charges for reviewing an application for development, et al. Current law affords a municipal governing body a "reasonable time period" to attempt to remediate disputed charges, and allows an applicant to appeal a professional fee dispute to the county construction board of appeals, if the matter is not resolved by the governing body to the applicant's satisfaction, within 45 days of receipt of the informational copy of the professional's voucher. The bill would delete current law's process, through which a municipal governing body may attempt to mediate a dispute over a professional's fees and charges, and instead allow an applicant to submit a dispute directly to the county construction board of appeals for nonbinding mediation. Current law requires an applicant to file an appeal disputing a professional's charges within 45 days following the applicant's receipt of an informational copy of a professional's voucher, or if the professional has not supplied the applicant with an informational copy of the voucher, within 60 days following the applicant's receipt of the municipal statement of activity against the deposit or escrow account. The bill would amend these provisions to allow an applicant, who was not provided an informational copy of a professional's voucher by the professional, to initiate a dispute of a professional's charges at any time at any time up to the 20th day following the issuance of the permanent certificate of occupancy for the development. Section 9 of the bill would amend section 20 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-69.1) to provide that, if an application for development involves a request for a variance under subsection d. of section 57 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-70), then Class IV members of the planning board shall be called upon to serve until the zoning board of adjustment has a full complement of seven members. Current law provides that if a zoning board of adjustment does not have a quorum, then planning board members are called upon to serve until there are the minimum number of members necessary for a quorum. The bill also makes additional technical changes.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Bob Smith (D)*, 

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee (on 01/13/2026)

Official Document