Opinion ID: 2317020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Pre-Amendment Housing Act and SHAB

Text: [I]n an effort to promote increased housing opportunities for people with low and moderate incomes, the housing act allows both nonprofit and for-profit developers to eschew cumbersome development application requirements and opt instead for a streamlined and expedited application procedure[.] Kaveny, 875 A.2d at 5 (quoting Omni Development Corp., 814 A.2d at 894). For private developers, qualification for this truncated procedure is contingent upon the proposed housing in an application remain[ing] as low or moderate income housing for a period of not less than thirty (30) years from initial occupancy. Id. (citing § 45-53-4). Following notice to all affected local boards and a public hearing on a comprehensive permit application, the zoning board of review must render a decision on the application. Section 45-53-4, as amended by P.L.2002, ch. 416, § 1. The statute provides that the zoning board may deny such an application for the following reasons: if the proposal is inconsistent with local needs, including, but not limited to, the needs identified in an approved comprehensive plan, and local zoning ordinances and procedures promulgated in conformance with the comprehensive plan; if the proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan; if the community has met or has plans to meet the standard of ten percent (10%) of the units   ; or if concerns for the environment and the health and safety of current residents have not been adequately addressed. Id. The denial of a comprehensive permit application may be appealed to SHAB. Section 45-53-5, as amended by P.L.1991, ch. 154, § 1. In hearing the appeal, [SHAB] shall determine whether    the decision of the zoning board of review was reasonable and consistent with local needs   . Section 45-53-6(a), as amended by P.L.1991, ch. 154, § 1; see also Omni Development Corp., 814 A.2d at 898 (In order for SHAB to overturn or modify a decision of a zoning board that denied an application, it must determine whether the denial was reasonable and consistent with local needs.). A reasonable ordinance in this context is one not designed or intended to exclude low and moderate income residents from the community or to discourage or frustrate the likelihood of success of a project. Omni Development Corp., 814 A.2d at 899. Whether a zoning or land use requirement or regulation is consistent with local needs, however, essentially depends upon whether the town currently meets the statutory quota for low and moderate income housing units. Id. A zoning or land use ordinance is conclusively deemed consistent with local needs when imposed by a city or town council after a `comprehensive hearing,' and that community has met or exceeded its statutory minimum for low and moderate income housing units; and has adopted a comprehensive plan that includes a housing element that addresses the need for low and moderate income housing for that community. Id. at 898-99 (emphasis added). [5] SHAB has no authority to vacate the decision of a local zoning board in such a community. Id. at 899. In communities that have not met the statutory quota  such as the Town of Cumberland in the present matter [6]  Omni points SHAB to the statutory definition of consistent with local needs for guidance, id. at 899-900: `Consistent with local needs' means    reasonable in view of the state need for low and moderate income housing, considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residence [ sic ] of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if the local zoning or land use ordinances, requirements, and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Section 45-53-3(b), as amended by P.L.1998, ch. 58, § 1. Finally, SHAB must look to the following factors when evaluating a denial in a community that has not yet achieved the statutory quota for low and moderate income housing: (b) The standards for reviewing the appeal include, but are not limited to: (1) the consistency of the decision to deny or condition the permit with the approved comprehensive plan; (2) The extent to which the community meets or plans to meet the ten percent (10%) standard for existing low and moderate income housing units; (3) The consideration of the health and safety of existing residents; (4) The consideration of environmental protection; and (5) The extent to which the community applies local zoning ordinances and special exception procedures evenly on subsidized and unsubsidized housing applications alike. Omni Development Corp., 814 A.2d at 901 (quoting § 45-53-6(b)).