A letter from Town Council Regarding the recent low-income housing court decision.

September 17, 2009

As members of the Town Council of Eastampton Township, we feel it necessary to explain our stance on the recent Appellate court decision regarding our Land Use Planning Board’s refusal to grant a variance to a non-profit group that provides low income housing.  The decision was unfortunate, more so for what it didn’t say than what it did. 

Simply put, the court only considered half of the case.  As the Court stated in its opinion, “To obtain the variance, Homes of Hope must satisfy both the positive and negative criteria.” Once the Court determined that the Planning Board had erred by not assuming that the proposed use was “inherently beneficial” (this assumption would satisfy the positive criteria), the Court did not go any further. The Court determined that the Board did not give the applicant the benefit of the “inherently beneficial” presumption and required that the matter be re-heard.  On remand, the Planning Board must assume the positive criteria have been met because the proposed use is “inherently beneficial” under current law.   The applicant still must prove to the Board that its proposal also meets the “negative criteria.” 

The court did not consider that the Board had also determined that Homes of Hope did not meet the negative criteria.  During the hearing, the Board outlined a number of issues within the proposed plan that would be detrimental to the town in general and to the potential residents of this development specifically.  The court’s decision does not represent the entire argument made by our Planning Board when they denied Homes of Hope the variance.  In fact, it is not a fair representation of Eastampton at all.*

Eastampton understands the benefits of affordable housing.   The fact is that Eastampton was one of the first 11 municipalities in the State to receive COAH certification.  However, Eastampton also understands the value of smart planning and development.  Our town has been and continues to be diligent in ensuring that all development is done smartly and to the benefit of all residents regardless of their socio-economic standing.   Our 2002 Smart Growth Award, Master Plan, Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Study and our existing affordable housing all reflect this.  Since the court’s decision covered only a specific portion of the Planning Board’s analysis and decision, we will not be appealing this decision to the State Supreme Court.