Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 21 locations" (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-307), against which the municipality's hous- ing element may be designed (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-310), and reviewed for substantive certification purposes (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-313, -314). The court further explained that the FHA "sets forth the framework of a remedy that precludes COAH from taking the liberty to fashion a new growth share methodology" that: (1) "allows for the devising of residen- tial and commercial affordable housing ratios for projected need that are not tied to a regional need for affordable housing"; and (2) "leaves open- ended how or whether projected need for a housing region will be fulfilled." The court found that the FHA was "replete with references ty- ing affordable housing obligations to a region, not obligations fowled on a statewide basis." Also, the court found the FHA "requires a specifically allotted number of units for satisfaction of both present and prospective need based on a housing region." In sum, the court found that the FHA's language was an impediment to COAH's "unilateral decision to devise a wholly new approach to determining fair share." The court said that "COAH may implement the FHA's scheme, not come up with a wholly new one." Finding the COAH regulations were not severable, the court found them wholly invalid, and affirmed the Appellate Division's remand to COAH for a "new adoption of regulations to govern the third round mu- nicipal obligations consistent with the strictures of the FHA." See also: Southern Burlington County.N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp., 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983). See also: Southern Burlington County N.A.A. C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp., 67N.J. 151, 336A.2d 713 (1975). Case Note: The court also found the Third Round Rules' growth share methodology was "at odds with the remedy adopted in Mount Laurel II, which imposed definitive quantitative obligations to be fulfilled within fixed periods" because it was not: premised on region -specific housing data evidencing the region's need; or structured to establish a firm obligation in respect of prospective affordable housing need. Still, the court went on to recognize that "the judicial remedy that was fashioned [in the Mount Laurel decisions] based on a record created thirty years ago should not be viewed as the only one that presently can secure satisfac- tion of the constitutional obligation to curb exclusionary zoning and promote the development of affordable housing in the housing regions of this state." The court stated that, "[a]ssuming that ordered development will continue to be used as a tool in the delivery of affordable housing, the /New Jersey) Legislature should determine how best to utilize that means in the promotion of affordable housing suited for the needs of housing regions" by revising the FHA. More specifically, the court stated that "the Legislature has to enact an alterna- © 2013 Thomson Reuters 7