Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Fair Share Housing Center against the Township of Cherry Hill regarding exclusionary zoning practices. The litigation, rooted in the Mount Laurel decisions, concerns the Township's obligations to provide affordable housing. The appeal questions whether imposing development fees alone suffices to exclude land from low-income housing obligations without substantive certification from COAH. Initially, COAH assigned the Township a housing obligation of 2295 units, later reduced due to a lack of developable land. Despite a settlement agreement in 1993 reducing this obligation, disputes regarding compliance persisted. The trial court ruled that development fees equate to affordable housing construction, a decision challenged by plaintiffs. The Appellate Division directed the exclusionary zoning suit to proceed. The court emphasized that municipalities must offer realistic housing opportunities, not merely rely on development fees. The Township's failure to obtain a Judgment of Repose or substantive certification left it vulnerable to legal challenges. The Court reversed the trial court's decision, remanding for further proceedings, asserting that development fees cannot replace on-site affordable housing construction, and reaffirmed COAH's role in determining fair share obligations.
Legal Issues Addressed
1000 Unit Cap Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: COAH's interpretation of the 1000 unit cap rule was upheld, requiring municipalities to address no more than 1000 units within a six-year cycle unless conditions warranted adjustments.
Reasoning: COAH indicated that the 1000 unit cap must be interpreted concerning both a six-year cycle and a twelve-year cycle, as municipalities are not required to address more than 1000 units within six years.
Development Fees as a Method of Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court recognized development fees as a method of fulfilling affordable housing obligations, conditional on COAH approval, but not as a substitute for on-site construction.
Reasoning: The Court affirmed that, with COAH's approval, municipalities could levy development fees on commercial and non-inclusionary residential properties as a viable approach to inclusionary zoning for affordable housing.
Exclusionary Zoning under Fair Housing Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Township's zoning practices were challenged for potentially excluding low-income housing by imposing development fees instead of providing actual housing units.
Reasoning: The current appeal primarily questions whether a municipality that has not sought or received substantive certification from the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) can exclude a large parcel of land from low-income housing development by merely imposing a development fee.
Judgment of Repose and Substantive Certificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Township's failure to secure a Judgment of Repose or substantive certification affected its authority to impose development fees and its vulnerability to litigation.
Reasoning: The Township's retroactively granted Judgment of Repose for its first round expired in March 2000, and it has only recently sought an extension of substantive certification from COAH, without filing for the second round, suggesting it lacks current authority to collect development fees.
Municipal Zoning and Affordable Housing Obligationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Municipalities are required to provide realistic opportunities for affordable housing through zoning laws, and development fees must be part of a certified housing plan.
Reasoning: The court concluded that providing lower-income housing is an integral purpose of zoning laws.
Role of Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: COAH's authority to assign fair share obligations and oversee municipalities' compliance with affordable housing laws was emphasized, particularly in evaluating Township's compliance.
Reasoning: The Fair Housing Act (FHA)...authorized COAH to set guidelines for municipal compliance with housing obligations.