Bulletin Board Magazine 2020 Volume 1

Legal/Legislative Continued The property was known as the “Triangle Site” and was constrained by environmental conditions and its configuration. Plaintiff owned an adjacent parcel consisting of an existing residential apartment complex. Branchburg identified the Triangle Site as a target for affordable rental units in planning documents dating to 2010. Planning documents adopted in 2011 and 2014 identified the need to address affordable housing objectives and recommended zoning amendments to promote the completion and construction of affordable housing. The Township entered into a Formal Housing Agreement in 2016 with a developer to facilitate construction of a 100-unit affordable housing rental project on the Triangle Site, and issued site plan approval following the April 2017 rezoning ordinance. Plaintiff filed an action challenging the rezoning ordinance and the site plan approval. The trial court consolidated the matters and dismissed both complaints, finding that the ordinance was within the Township’s zoning power and advanced the creation of affordable housing consistent with the Master Plan and

MLUL. The Triangle Site was a suitable site for purposes of the proposed development and the court rejected plaintiff ’s contentions that the site was undevelopable. The court also rejected claims that rezoning of the property constituted spot or contract zoning. The Appellate Division reaffirmed the presumption of a validity that attaches to zoning ordinances and emphasized the obligations imposed on municipalities by the Supreme Court in its Mt. Laurel decisions, “requiring municipalities to implement measures to make affordable housing realistically possible.” “The power to zone carries a constitutional obligation to do so in a manner that creates a realistic opportunity for producing a fair share of the regional present and prospective need for housing low and moderate income families.” In this context, the Court found that Branchburg’s “ordinance permissibly advances the goal of affordable housing.” Plaintiff did not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the ordinance constituted spot zoning, as such zoning benefits a particular private interest rather than collective interests

of the community. In this case, the property was owned by the Township, which is exempt from its zoning regulations. Moreover, rezoning of the property to promote the construction of affordable housing was not unreasonable and advanced the municipality’s interests in promoting the availability of affordable housing and addressing its constitutional mandate to do so. The Court noted the consistency with Plaintiff ’s contiguous, high density, inclusionary affordable housing development. This decision reaffirms rezoning for the purpose of promoting affordable housing development in accordance with municipal planning objectives and properly rejected arguments that such action constitutes illegal spot zoning.

XXXX Article by XXXX

That’s the position that Whirlpool brand holds when it comes to appliance sales in the U.S. * Consumers count on the appliances in their homes every day. That’s why it’s important to provide them with products they know they can trust. Whirlpool, the top-selling appliance brand in the U.S., is one of several leading brands in our differentiated portfolio. So no matter what your customers need, they can feel confident that they’re working with an industry leader – and you can too.

Count on us.

* Based on 12-month average of unit sales. Refrigeration, Cooking, Dishwashers and Laundry appliances. TraQline, 2017

WHIRLPOOLPRO.COM/NUMBER1

Bulletin Board | 35 | www.shorebuilders.org

Bulletin Board | 36 | www.shorebuilders.org