In the Matter of the Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing
215 N.J. 578
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Mount Laurel I held zoning cannot exclude low- and moderate-income housing and must serve the general welfare.
- Mount Laurel II reaffirmed a quantitative, judicial remedy to curb exclusionary zoning and to ensure each municipality’s fair share.
- The Fair Housing Act (FHA) codified the Mount Laurel remedy, created COAH, and empowered rules governing municipal affordable housing obligations.
- COAH adopted First, Second, and Third Round Rules; the Third Round implemented a growth share methodology tied to development and growth statewide.
- Appellate Division struck down portions of the Third Round Rules, invalidated growth share, and remanded for rules aligned with prior rounds.
- The Court held COAH’s growth share approach is incompatible with the FHA; the FHA remains the controlling framework, and COAH must adopt regulations consistent with it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is growth share compatible with the FHA and Mount Laurel II? | Plaintiffs argue growth share violates the regional, not statewide, focus of the FHA. | COAH and supporters argue growth share aligns with evolving planning needs and regional growth data. | Growth share is incompatible; regulations ultra vires; remediation required. |
| Are COAH’s Third Round Rules valid under the FHA as enacted? | Growth share renders obligations non-regional and inconsistent with the FHA’s regional framing. | Growth share is a reasonable response within COAH’s statutory authority to address modern conditions. | Third Round Rules invalid; COAH must adopt regulations consistent with the FHA. |
| Should the remedy be remand to COAH with new rules or a legislative path? | Court should remand for COAH to revise rules in line with prior rounds. | Court may endorse an alternative remedy to better fit current conditions. | Remand to COAH to reimpose third-round obligations based on prior rounds’ method; legislative changes possible but not mandatory. |
| Does the FHA permit COAH to rewrite core regulatory provisions or must it implement the statute as written? | FHA authorizes COAH to adopt regulatory methods consistent with statutory goals, including growth share if properly framed. | FHA does not authorize a wholly new growth share regime disconnected from regional need. | COAH may not rewrite core provisions; statutory framework requires alignment with the FHA. |
| What role should legislative action play in shaping future affordable-housing remedies? | Legislature should be free to innovate; judiciary should not foreclose alternative remedies. | Legislature may enact new remedies, but Court should defer to COAH and statutory scheme until then. | Legislature may craft new approaches; Court endorses COAH-remedial path pending statutory alignment. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158 (1983) (mount laurel remedy; regional need and fair share housing)
- Mount Laurel I, 67 N.J. 151 (1975) (zoning as general welfare; exclusionary effects)
- Hills Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Bernards, 103 N.J. 1 (1986) (FHA validity; deference to legislative policy)
- Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502 (2002) (COAH regulatory authority; statutory alignment)
- In re Petition for Substantive Certification Filed by Twp. of Warren, 132 N.J. 1 (1993) (Mount Laurel obligation and COAH framework)
- Affiliated Distillers Brands Corp. v. Sills, 60 N.J. 342 (1972) (severability and legislative intent (general principle))