The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated decision regarding whether municipalities must satisfy the affordable housing need which arose from the end of the second-round housing cycle in 1999 to the present, referred to as the “gap period.” In In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed By Various Municipalities,
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has agreed to consider whether municipal affordable housing obligations include a “separate and discrete” gap-period obligation from 1999 through 2015, when the various “growth share” regulations were repeatedly invalidated by the courts. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case by the end
In a win for municipalities, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that municipal affordable housing obligations do not include a “separate and discrete” gap-period obligation. In reaching its decision, the appeals court cited the core principles of the Mount Laurel doctrine and the plain language of
A New Jersey Court recently considered the reach of New Jersey’s Uniform Housing and Affordability Controls (N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1 to -26.26) (UHAC). The affordable housing case involved whether and to what extent a municipality may unilaterally extend the thirty-year deed restrictions regulating the resale and rental prices of certain affordable housing
Legislation is currently pending in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly that would clarify municipal affordable housing obligations. The proposed bills clarify that such obligations should only reflect present and prospective need. As previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Government & Law Blog, an Ocean County Superior Court Judge recently
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently upheld the trial court’s order granting a builder’s remedy in Cranford Development Associates LLC v. Township of Cranford. In reaching its decision, the appeals court rejected a number of arguments raised by the Township of Cranford. The Facts of the
An Ocean County Superior Court Judge recently considered whether the court has the authority to impose an obligation upon municipalities to satisfy the affordable housing need which arose from the end of the second round housing cycle in 1999 to the present. In his opinion, Judge Mark Troncone held that
In Fair Share Housing Center v. Zoning Board of Hoboken, et al., the Appellate Division considered five consolidated appeals filed to determine the enforceability of an affordable housing ordinance adopted by the City of Hoboken. The appeals court ultimately determined that the ordinance was enforceable, overturning the trial court’s ruling.
