Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2015 I Volume 9. I Issue 18 Meanwhile, developers challenge validity of the ordinance based on its lack of approval from state affordable housing agency Citation: Fair Share Housing Center, Inc. v. Zoning Board of City of Hoboken, 2015 WL 4530656 (N.1 Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) NEW JERSEY (07/28/15)—Generally, this case addressed the enforceability of an affordable housing ordinance adopted by the City of Hoboken (the "City"). More specifically, this case addressed the is- sue of whether the involvement of New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") was required in all matters affecting affordable housing—and thus since COAH had not approved the City's affordable housing ordinance, whether that left the ordinance invalid and unenforceable. It also addressed whether a provision in the ordinance, which allowed "payment in lieu of" setting aside a percentage of development as affordable housing, needed COAH approval as a condi- tion of enforcement. The Background/Facts: In the City, each of four developers— Advance at Hoboken, LLC ("Advance"), 1415 Park Avenue, LLC ("1415 Park"), 9th Monroe, LLC ("9th Monroe"), and New Jersey Cas- ket Company, Inc. ("NJ Casket") (collectively, the "Developers")— received "significant" relief from the City's zoning laws in the form of variances from the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment ("Zoning Board"). That relief was conditioned upon the Developers' compliance with the City's affordable housing ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Fair Share Housing Center ("Fair Share") filed four individual ac- tions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Zoning Board and the Developers. Fair Share sought compliance with the Ordinance in the font' of a judicial declaration that any zoning approvals that the Developers received should be deemed void or enjoined unless each Developer filed a "plan of compliance" with the Ordinance. The Developers filed cross-claims and third-party complaints against the Zoning Board and the City. Among other things, the Developers argued estoppel (i.e., to bar the enforcement of the Ordinance because it would result in an unequitable result) based on the City's failure to enforce the Ordinance and the Zoning Board's failure to condition prior zoning approvals upon compliance with the Ordinance. The trial court ultimately found that the City's Ordinance was incon- sistent with New Jersey's Fair Housing Act (the "FHA") and the re- lated procedures and guidelines promulgated by COAH. The trial court held that every municipality with an affordable housing obligation must submit to COAH for approval of its plan to meet that affordable hous- ing obligation. Here, the City had submitted the Ordinance to COAH ©2015 Thomson Reuters 3