Opinion ID: 2365726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Outline of Major Issues

Text: The judgment of the trial court, the intervention of our decision in Mount Laurel and the nature of the record and briefs before us combine to cast the issues for determination as follows: 1. Is the Madison 1973 zoning ordinance exclusionary, i.e., whether or not so intended, does it operate in fact to preclude the opportunity to supply any substantial amounts of new housing for low and moderate income households now and prospectively needed in the municipality and in the appropriate region of which it forms a part? 2. If, as we have concluded, the affirmative response to the foregoing question by the trial court should be sustained, is it incumbent upon the courts, pursuant to Mount Laurel, to demarcate a pertinent region and to fix a specific number of lower-cost housing units as the fair share of the regional need therefor to be made possible by the Madison ordinance? 3. If, as we have concluded, the foregoing question should be answered in the negative, what kind of an order should be made to assure Madison's compliance, as a developing municipality, with Mount Laurel's mandate that its zoning ordinance afford the opportunity for at least the municipality's fair share of the present and prospective regional need for decent and adequate low and moderate income housing? 67 N.J. at 188.