Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

April 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin abling the enforcement of rights." The court concluded that under the authority of Rule 1:10-3, courts may "resume their role as the forum of first instance for evaluating municipal compliance with [constitutional affordable housing obligations]." The court's order here established a "transitional process" under which municipalities can transition from "COAH's jurisdiction to judicial actions to demonstrate that [their] housing plan satisfies constitutional affordable housing obligations" before allowing exclu- sionary zoning actions against municipalities. In brief summary, the court's order provides as follows: Following a 90 -day delay in the effective date of the implementation of the order, for the first 30 days following the effective date, "the only actions that will be entertained by the courts will be declaratory judgment actions filed by any town that either (1) had achieved substantive certification from COAH under prior iterations of Third Round Rules before they were invalidated, or (2) had `participating' status before COAH." If a town waits and does not file a declaratory judgment action during that 30 -day period, thereafter an action may be brought by a party against that town, "provided the action's sole focus is on whether the town's housing plan meets its [constitutional affordable housing obligations]." "The court's evaluation of a town's plan that had received substantive certification, or that will be submitted to the court as proof of constitu- tional compliance, may result in the town's receipt of the judicial equiv- alent of substantive certification and accompanying protection as provided under 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); Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp., 67 N.J. 151, 336A.2d 713 (1975). Case Note: The relief authorized by this order "present [s] an avenue for low- and moderate -income New Jersey citizens, and entities acting on their behalf, to challenge any municipality that is. believed not to have developed a housing element and ordinances that bring the town into compliance with its fair share of regional present and prospective need for affordable housing." It also provides "a municipality that had sought to use the FHA's mechanisms the opportunity to demonstrate constitutional compliance to a court's satisfaction before being declared noncompliant and then being subjected to the remedies available through exclusionary zoning litigation, including a builder's remedy." Case Note: 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters