Zoning Change Can Be Granted for Affordable Housing As “Inherently Beneficial Use” Even If COAH Obligation Met
Posted by Phil Morin on August 24, 2009
In a ruling that will send even the most COAH-sensitive municipalities running to their attorneys and planners for an explanation, the Appellate Division ruled on Monday, August 24, that existing zoning laws can be modified to allow affordable housing development even where the municipality has satisfied its COAH obligations.
More specificially, the Appellate Division in Homes of Hope, Inc. v. Easthampton Township Land Use Planning Board, A-551-07T2 (App. Div. Aug. 24, 2009) (approved for publication) held that “a municipality’s compliance with the [Fair Housing Act] by meeting its fair share obligation does not impact affordable housing’s inherently beneficial use status for purposes of obtaining a use variance. Affordable housing continues to foster the general welfare and constitutes a special reason to support a use variance.”
According to an article posted at www.nj.com:
Zoning laws in New Jersey towns can be altered to accommodate affordable housing even after the municipality has met its quota, a state appeals court ruled today.
The case before the panel involved a non profit organization, called Homes of Hope, that was looking to build eight multi-family dwellings in an area of Eastampton only zoned for single-family homes. The town’s land use board denied their request for a variance to build the dwellings, citing that building the units was unnecessary because 100 units of affordable housing were already built and the proposed dwellings would exceed the number required by the state’s Fair Housing Act.
The three-judge panel however upheld a trial court decision allowing the eight units, ruling that municipalities cannot reject such development solely based on a town meeting its affordable housing obligation.
Judge Michael Winkelstein wrote that just because the municipality has met requirements set forth by the Council on Affordable Housing, it does not mean they have reached a limit on affordable housing.
“The (Eastampton Land Use) Board claims that because the Township has met its fair share obligation, it no longer has a need for low or moderate income housing and, consequently, that type of housing is no longer inherently beneficial so as to qualify as a special reason to support a use variance. We reject that argument,” wrote Winkelstein.
The town is 11 miles north of Mount Laurel, where the state’s decades-long battle over affordable housing began. “It is beyond question that even if a municipality meets its Mount Laurel obligation, substandard housing will continue to exist,” wrote Winkelstein.
For a link to the article, click here.
For a link to the Appellate Division decision, click here.
For a discussion of the political ramifications of the decision on the 2009 New Jersey Governor and Assembly races at www.politickernj.com, click here.
For an NJ.com article discussing politician’s reactions to the decision, click here.
