NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM.

This action in lieu of prerogative writs involves land use issues not directly controlled by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to-163. Instead, we are called upon to principally apply the provisions of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.3 to -46.16,1 which permit certain previously-approved age-restricted developments to be marketed instead with no age restrictions in exchange for "the developer of the age-restricted development[`s] agree[ment] that [twenty] percent of the units in the development will be provided as affordable units in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Council on Affordable Housing pursuant to the `Fair Housing Act.'" N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.5(a)(3). Defendant Township of Robbinsville Planning Board (the Board) appeals from the January 23, 2012 final judgment of the Law Division that reversed the Board's denial of plaintiff Sharbell Building Company LLC's (Sharbell) multi-faceted application to convert its age-restricted development into one with no age restrictions pursuant to the statute. We affirm.

I.

The real property at issue consists of over 400 acres located primarily at the intersection of Route 130 and Gordon Road in Robbinsville.2 The land is predominantly located within the municipality's Mixed Use/Age-Restricted Conservation Development zone (MU-ARCD), which was created by ordinance on December 9, 2005.

Shortly thereafter, Sharbell submitted an application for development of a multi-faceted, phased mixed-use project. After four public hearings conducted between July and October 2006, the Board granted preliminary and final major subdivision and preliminary site plan approval for two phases. The Board's October 18, 2006 resolution of approval described the elements of Sharbell's residential component as follows:

There is nothing in the Board's resolution indicating either the specific number of bedrooms proposed for each dwelling unit or the aggregate bedroom count for the residential component, although the resolution stated that the bedroom mix for Project Freedom "has not yet been determined but will be resolved by the time of final site plan application." Conceptual architectural drawings, dated July 10, 2006, of the townhouse units, senior duplex units, and senior single family units, which were entered into evidence by the Board as exhibit A-4, all show floor plans with three bedrooms. Projected water, sewerage, and stormwater calculations appear to have been based upon the assumption that the dwellings would consist of more than two bedrooms each.

In February 2010, the Township adopted an ordinance permitting continuing care retirement communities and communal elderly housing in the MU-ARCD zone. Following this, Sharbell applied to the Board for approvals to build a "four-story, 267,419 square foot ... Continuing Care Retirement Community [] or Congregate and Communal Elderly Housing facility, consisting of 200 independent living units and 48 assisted living residences." The Board granted approval to the project, known as The Pines at Robbinsville, in May 2010.

In August 2010, Sharbell applied to the Board to amend its previously-granted approvals to "convert 150 previously approved age-restricted units to 120 non age-restricted single family units." Sharbell expressly sought this conversion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.3 through-46.16.3 An explanatory letter to the Board stated:

In the hearings that followed, Sharbell presented evidence about the changed circumstances that prompted its request for conversion. After it obtained approvals for phases one and two, it realized that the idea of "active adult housing" was "a failed concept [t]hat is no longer viable. Today [Sharbell is] faced with irreversibly changed circumstances." Jeffrey Otteau, a licensed real estate appraiser and consultant, testified that the total housing market in New Jersey of households with persons aged over fifty-five years is only eighteen percent of the total population, compared to all-age households, which represent sixty percent of the population. In 2008, following the onset of the recession, the number of baby boomers planning to move into age-restricted housing had dropped from six in ten to two in ten. Further, Otteau testified that "there are more people leaving New Jersey to go live somewhere else, [more] than any other place in the United States." More important, "[p]rimary among that group of residents who are leaving are older age households in retirement, and they find they just can't make ends meet with the high cost of living and the high tax of living here in this state." Thus, "[t]his has completely cut the legs out on the active adult market, and why conversions like these are being discussed throughout the state."

In addition to explaining the impact made by the economic downturn on age-restricted housing, Otteau contended that there is no longer a link between "home construction and school enrollment." In New Jersey, he stated, "two-thirds [of all households] are childless, and that is 65 percent compared to 64 percent here in Robbinsville."

Otteau's testimony about the school age population and the overall decline in numbers was strongly disputed by individual Board members, citing personal anecdotal evidence. Otteau countered with a further study that forecasted "85 percent of all future household formations will be childless." After reviewing hypotheticals related to age demographics within the state, Otteau opined, "new construction projects, like this one, as it was previously approved for age-restricted housing, is not financially feasible, and not able to move forward absent [conversion]." A Board member stated, "[i]t sounds like we don't need any new housing," to which Otteau responded:

Ultimately, Sharbell posited that the net gain caused by the conversion would be sixty-seven school age children.4

Mark Cannuli, a licensed professional planner, also testified for Sharbell. Cannuli noted that Sharbell's development furthered the goals of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.3(b) and -46.3(c).5 Additionally, Cannuli testified that the development "provides parking which meets the [Residential Site Improvement Standards], and provides additional water, sewer and infrastructure[, and] the recreational facilities imposed on our project have been revised to meet the needs of the conversion development."

After indicating that he had reviewed the Township's "2000 Master Plan, [the] 2007 Master Plan, [the] 2008 Master Plan revised in January of 2009, and the most recent amendment to the MU-ARCD ordinance," Cannuli opined that the proposed conversion "could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance."6 Because the project would provide "a range of housing opportunities to the conversion of oversupplied, deed restricted units ... and `meet[s] the needs of New Jersey residents who require smaller, more reasonably priced homes,'" Cannuli concluded that "the property is zoned for and suitable for residential construction and development, and is consistent with the Conversion Law."

When addressing the negative criteria, Cannuli noted that the municipality's serial master plans sought to promote a residential neighborhood that provided a village-like environment. In addition, the most recent ordinance amendment indicated that its intent and purpose was to have a "mixed use development of various types of age-restricted housing ... integrated with non-age restricted units combined with appropriate intensities of a commercial and other non-residential uses to create a more blended organic community."

Given the precipitous decline in the already small age-restricted market, Cannuli opined that the conversion of the development would actually provide a "more organic mix of non-residential and residential permitted uses, including the most recently approved The Pines at Robbinsville, which includes 200 Congregant Care and Communal Elderly Housing Independent Senior Living units, and 48 assisted living units."

Cannuli then addressed the municipality's concerns regarding the reduction in age-restricted housing as not being within the "intent and purposes" of the zoning ordinance. Cannuli disagreed, and quoted the statute, which states,

Cannuli concluded that "the construction of the converted units are permissible units everywhere according to the State, and will not impair the Zoning Ordinance and still meet its intent." In addition, Cannuli noted that the proposed conversion leaves the already approved plan substantially unchanged.

Following several more hearings, spanning many months, the Board voted to deny Sharbell's application. Its memorializing resolution, among other things, declared the following:

Sharbell thereafter filed its action in lieu of prerogative writs, seeking summary disposition in the Law Division.

After trial, Judge Linda R. Feinberg rendered an oral opinion determining that Sharbell had satisfied all of the required elements of the statute permitting conversion. Further, Judge Feinberg declared that the Board's conclusion regarding whether there was a substantial detriment to the public good and a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance was animated by improper considerations and was a "net opinion." She stated, "[the Board's resolution] doesn't really identify with any particular[it]y the existence of any negative factors nor that there's a substantial impairment of the zoning plan." On January 23, 2012, the judge entered a final judgment outlining the specific relief granted in favor of Sharbell. This appeal followed.

II.

A.

We start with a fundamental principle of land use control in this state: "The authority of a public entity to plan and zone, and in so doing, to impose conditions on a party's use of its property, is a delegation of the police power." Nuckel v. Little Ferry Plan. Bd., 208 N.J. 95, 101 (2011). "Municipalities do not possess the inherent power to zone, and they possess that power, which is an exercise of the police power, only insofar as it is delegated to them by the Legislature." Riggs v. Twp. of Long Branch, 109 N.J. 601, 610 (1988).

In the context of the present appeal, the Legislature's 2009 enactment of the statutory conversion parameters imposed strictures on municipalities' ability to control age-restricted developments. That statute requires faithful obedience. Disagreements with the policy underpinnings of the statute, although certainly fitting for public discourse in an appropriate forum, were not germane to the Board's administrative review of Sharbell's application and served no useful purpose as part of that process. If anything, the Board's trespass into parsing the rationale for the legislation may have diverted its attention from its central task of reasonably applying the provisions of the conversion law to the development at hand.

B.

Appellate review of actions of a governmental unit, including the Board, ordinarily starts with a recognition that "`a municipal board's action on zoning and planning matters, such as variance applications, [is] limited to determining whether the board's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious.'" Columbro v. Lebanon Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 424 N.J.Super. 501, 508 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp. of Princeton Zoning Bd. of Adj., 343 N.J.Super. 177, 198 (App. Div. 2001)). However, the Legislature tempered that standard by its adoption of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.13, which provides:

Clearly, the Legislature intended conversion applications under the statute to receive accelerated treatment —— i.e., providing for review in a "summary manner" —— and to be reviewed under a lens of "reasonableness." Our examination of Judge Feinberg's analysis of the Board's action reveals that she hewed to the legislative mandate.

C.

The conversion statute requires "[a]pplications seeking amended approval for a converted development [to] include documentation that all the following [seven] site improvement and infrastructure requirements have been met[.]" N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.6(b).7 If those requirements are satisfied and "the conversion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance, the application for the conversion shall be approved." N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.6(c) (emphasis added).

The Board's major grievance8 relates to the number of bedrooms in the proposed project, relying on N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.8(c) to argue that Sharbell had increased the number of bedrooms in its application for conversion. N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.8(c) states: "The size, height, floor area ratio, number of bedrooms and total square footage of buildings established as part of a preliminary or final approval for an age-restricted development shall not be increased[.]"

The full application presented to the Board by Sharbell in 2006 is not part of the record presented in this appeal. However, Sharbell's architectural renderings dated July 10, 2006, submitted as part of the 2006 application, are available for our review. Those drawings clearly show the age-restricted units containing three bedrooms. Additionally, infrastructure and grading plans reflect that the project envisioned more than two bedrooms each for the age-restricted development. The Board's naked claim that Sharbell submitted community impact reports circa 2004 and 2005 with fewer than three-bedrooms is not supported by the record and is belied by the final approval granted in 2006.

D.

The Board framed its ultimate denial of the application by contending that there would be a detrimental fiscal impact to the Township due to (1) a potential increase in the number of school age children and (2) reduced commercial and retail portions of the project. This, the Board argued, was offensive to the intent and purpose of the municipality's zoning ordinance.

The Board further argued that the Township's specially-tailored ordinance providing specifically for age-restricted developments, was being undermined by the conversion application. Even if this were true, that was a purposive decision made by the Legislature when it declared the intent of the legislation to be that "such converted developments are to be considered permitted uses in the zoning district in which they are located." N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.6(a)(1). Judge Feinberg recognized that "the statute supersedes" the Township's ordinance, a proposition with which we agree.9

The Planning Board acknowledged that Sharbell had met the requirements of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.5(a)(1) to -46.5(a)(3). Judge Feinberg found that Sharbell had further satisfied the seven criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.6(b)(1) to-46.6(b)(7). The judge summarized,

Once these criteria are met, the application "shall be approved" if the Board finds the "conversion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance." N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.6(c). These are familiar words in the realm of land use jurisprudence, as they track the negative criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. Public good in this context is a "focus ... on the [development's] effects on the surrounding properties. The board ... must evaluate the impact of the proposed use ... upon the adjacent properties and determine whether or not it will cause such damage to the character of the neighborhood as to constitute `substantial detriment to the public good.'" Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 22-23 n.12 (1987). The Board's unfortunate focus on the project's impact to the public fisc, rather than to land use concerns, renders its decision palpably unreasonable.

"The conversion statute makes it clear that the use as approved, and to be converted, is to be deemed permitted." Heritage, supra, 422 N.J. Super. at 84. Judge Feinberg noted that the "township professionals really did not dispute ... and any objections they had to the converted portions seemed minimal at best." In addition, there is nothing in the record that indicates the conversion will result in a substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Judge Feinberg challenged the Board, stating her assumption "that most age-restricted ordinances that ultimately would be subject to a conversion application would be similar to this, and if, in fact, it is, it would mean that there could be almost no conversions under [its] theory." The circumstance that the municipality created a special mixed-use ordinance with age-restricted uses as one component cannot trump the legislative mandate favoring conversions.

In summary, we conclude that Judge Feinberg realistically applied the law to the circumstances she found in Robbinsville, and rightly upended the Board's improvident denial of conversion relief.10 We affirm the final judgment she entered on January 23, 2012, in its entirety.