Draft_October 2025_West Orange_HEFSP_with Appendices

Township of West Orange October 2025 Essex County, New Jersey Draft Housing Element and Fair Share Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION The need to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing in New Jersey, the country’s most densely populated state, has been recognized for decades. In the case of Southern Burlington County NAACP v. the Township of Mount Laurel 67 N.J. 151 (1975), (commonly known as Mount Laurel I), the New Jersey Supreme Court established the doctrine that developing municipalities have a constitutional obligation to create a realistic opportunity for their fair share of low and moderate income housing. In Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983), decided on January 20, 1983 (commonly known as Mount Laurel II), the Supreme Court responded to the response of municipalities to Mount Laurel II. It sought to make it far easier for developers to secure a builder’s remedy. The builder’s remedy created an incentive to developers to sue non-compliant municipalities and force them to comply. Mount Laurel II also created the Judgment of Compliance and Repose to incentivize municipalities to comply. A Judgment of Compliance and Repose protected municipalities from anyone who would sue it and claim entitlement to a builder’s remedy or other relief based upon the claim that the municipality was noncompliant. In the wake of Mount Laurel II, developers sued municipalities seeking builder’s remedies. The wave of builder’s remedy lawsuits created the impetus for legislation to protect municipalities from builder’s remedies. A decision by Judge Serpentelli, one of three judges appointed by Chief Justice Wilentz to implement Mount Laurel II, increased the need for a legislative cure. More specifically, in 1984, Judge Serpentelli issued the AMG decision which established a formula for any developer to determine the fair share obligation of any municipality. The pressure of builder’s remedy suits, combined with the ease in determining the fair share of any municipality through the AMG formula, culminated in the enactment of the New Jersey Fair Housing Act in 1985. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is found at N.J.S.A. 52:270-301, et seq. The FHA

r share of any municipality through the AMG formula, culminated in the enactment of the New Jersey Fair Housing Act in 1985. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is found at N.J.S.A. 52:270-301, et seq. The FHA established the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) as an administrative alternative to builder’s remedy lawsuits and the concomitant jurisdiction of the courts. COAH was given the responsibility of dividing the state into housing regions, determining regional and municipal fair share affordable housing obligations, and adopting regulations that would establish the guidelines and approaches that municipalities may use in addressing their affordable housing need. In 2008, the Legislature amended the FHA to add requirements for very low-income housing. Very lowincome households are those in which the gross household income is 30% or less than the region’s median household income. Low-income households are those with incomes no greater than 50% of the region’s median household income. Moderate-income households are those with incomes no greater than 80% and 8