Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Affordable Housing

Following the Expiration of the Permit Extension Act, Keep in Mind the Impact of Statewide Non-Residential Development Fees

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On November 4, 2016

With an improving economy, developers who have weathered the storms of economic recession and have projects approved prior to July 17, 2008, the effective date of the Statewide Non-Residential Development Fee Act, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.1 et seq. (the “Act”), may finally be in a position to construct many of these projects. However, with changes in the market and demand for certain types of commercial space outpacing those approved in the 1990s and early 2000s, approvals that have been tolled since 2007 by the Permit Extension Act (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-136.1 et seq.) may need to be altered to accommodate new marketplace demands. In seeking amendments of those approvals, developers should be aware of, and consider the potential application of, the affordable housing development fee to those projects.

N.J. Appellate Division Holds that Municipalities are not Obligated to Satisfy “Separate and Discrete” Gap Period Need for Affordable Housing

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On July 28, 2016

On July 11, 2016, in an interlocutory appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Judge Mark A. Troncone’s February 18, 2016 order, which had found, as a matter of law, that municipalities were obligated to provide realistic opportunities for the construction of affordable housing for the need that accumulated during the period from 1999-2016 (the “gap period”). In an opinion by Judge Fasciale, the Appellate Division held that municipalities were not required to discretely calculate or satisfy the housing obligations that accumulated during the gap period as part of a municipality’s “prospective need.” In the Appellate Division’s view, those who are living in dilapidated, overcrowded, or cost-burdened housing would be adequately reflected in present need calculations, and any further alterations to municipal obligations would require legislative or executive action. The opinion highlights what appears to be a distinction between the constitutional fair share housing obligation, which had been understood to accrue year after year according the Court’s decision in Mt. Laurel II, and the compliance obligations arising under the Fair Housing Act, which are limited only to satisfying the statutorily prescribed need.

Appellate Division Grants Leave to Appeal to Affordable Housing Decision, While Trial Courts Continue Towards Trial and Compliance Hearings

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On May 5, 2016

On April 11, 2016, the Appellate Division issued an order granting a motion by the Township of Barnegat for leave to appeal a decision by the Hon. Mark A. Troncone, J.S.C., designated Mt. Laurel judge for Ocean County, and also granted a number of motions for other municipalities from outside of Ocean County to appear as amici curiae in the case. The order returns the question of methodology – a hotly contested issue – to the Appellate Division. The counties comprising Region 4 (Mercer, Monmouth, and Ocean counties) of the Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”) were set to be among the first to hold trials regarding the methodology for determining the municipal fair share housing obligations of municipalities. The grant of leave to appeal in the Ocean County case will necessarily delay any trial in that vicinage until the resolution of the appeal. This post briefly reviews the trial court’s decision, and the potential impact the decision to grant leave to appeal may have on pending declaratory judgment cases.

New Jersey Supreme Court Appoints Trial Court the Venue for Affordable Housing Disputes

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On March 16, 2015

Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a green light to developers and other interested parties to eventually pursue builders’ remedy actions in New Jersey Superior Court. The decision is the latest in a battle over affordable housing that has been in and out of the courts since the Mount Laurel decision in 1975. Most recently, in September 2013, the Supreme Court overturned the Council on Affordable Housing’s (“COAH”) latest attempt at adopting affordable housing regulations and ordered COAH to adopt new regulations within five months. That period was eventually extended to November 2014. COAH, however, did not adopt new regulations. Its inaction prompted a motion in aid of litigants’ rights, whereby parties to the prior action sought to break the bureaucratic logjam. Last week’s decision, designating trial courts as the venue for affordable housing disputes, is the New Jersey Supreme Court’s solution to the logjam.

Gibbons Directors Howard Geneslaw and Lawrence Lustberg to Speak at 2014 New Jersey Planning Conference

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Real Estate

On January 22, 2014

Howard D. Geneslaw, a Director in the Gibbons Real Estate Development practice group, and Lawrence S. Lustberg, a Director in the Gibbons Criminal Defense Department, as well as the Director of the firm’s John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest & Constitutional Law, will both speak at the “2014 New Jersey Planning Conference” presented by the New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association on January 23-24.

Developer Alert: Philadelphia Looking to Establish Land Bank Under New State Legislation

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Tax Abatement

On January 29, 2013

The redevelopment of vacant and blighted parcels has been a cumbersome, frustrating and, in many cases unsuccessful, process for municipalities and developers alike. Pennsylvania’s new land bank legislation could change all that. Philadelphia, with its own land bank legislation is poised to take advantage of the state legislation.

NJ Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument on COAH Third Round Affordable Housing Regulations

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On October 26, 2012

On November 7, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument as to whether the latest regulations adopted by the Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”) are valid. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the decision will have a far-ranging impact on the future of affordable housing in New Jersey and is being watched closely by developers, municipalities and public interest groups.

COAH Fees – Some Certainty in an Uncertain World

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On August 25, 2011

While much of the uncertainty regarding affordable housing requirements in NJ remains, the questions involving the applicability and future of the 2.5% nonresidential development fee were answered yesterday. Acting Governor Kim Guadagno signed into law legislation that reestablishes the exemption from the fee for eligible projects. Perhaps the most broadly applicable exemption provides that projects which obtain preliminary or final site plan approval prior to July 1, 2013 are not subject to the development fee provided that building permits are issued by December 31, 2015.

No Room at the Inn – New York Closes the Door on Illegal Hotels

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On August 12, 2010

On July 23, 2010, Governor David Patterson signed into law, legislation that amends the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law to define permanent and transient occupancy. The new illegal hotel law forbids most residential apartment units to be rented out for stays less than 30 days. This legislation may be a reaction to City of New York v. 330 Continental LLC, a 2009 Appellate Division – First Department holding, which relied on the fact that the critical terms “transient” and “permanent” are not defined in either the Multiple Dwelling Law or the New York City Zoning Resolution.

“Standing” Up for Yourself: Landowner Can Appeal Denial of Use Variance When a Contract Purchaser Filed the Variance Application

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On July 12, 2010

Agreements for the sale of real property are commonly contingent upon the contract purchaser’s obtaining some sort of development approval. If the approval is not granted, the contract purchaser can walk away from the deal. But what if the landowner wants to challenge the denial? Does the landowner have a sufficient interest in the dispute to step into the contract purchaser’s shoes? Last month, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court answered in the affirmative. In Campus Associates, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Hillsborough, No. A-0690-08T2, — N.J. Super. — (App. Div. June 4, 2010), the court held that a landowner can appeal the denial of a use variance that was sought by a contract purchaser, as long as the application depended on property-specific proofs, and not on factors unique to the applicant.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories