Summary#
A-5692, the “RE-PLAN Act,” would amend New Jersey’s Fair Housing Act and the law that sets rules for vacant land in affordable-housing planning. Its stated goal is to let municipalities account for cumulative impacts when identifying land for affordable housing; it does not require them to conduct an assessment. The bill is introduced and is not law.
- A municipality may assess parcels it identifies as developable in its housing plan. A planning board would select a qualified third-party consultant under rules set by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
- If the assessment finds a substantial environmental, economic, or social risk under DCA’s rules, the land would be excluded from classification as vacant land for calculating affordable-housing obligations.
- For the fourth round of obligations, a municipality may seek an adjustment through the Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program after completing an assessment. For the fifth and later rounds, assessment results, if any, must be included in the initial housing plan.
- A municipality may charge development-application or building-inspection fees to cover its actual costs of complying with the bill.
- DCA must adopt rules, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection, and establish an educational campaign to help municipalities adjust fourth-round obligations.
What it means for you#
- Municipalities: They may choose whether to assess identified parcels. The bill does not require assessments or guarantee that an affordable-housing obligation will be reduced. Existing exclusions from vacant-land calculations remain, with this risk-based category added.
- Planning boards and consultants: A planning board would select the consultant under DCA rules. The assessment must examine combined chemical and nonchemical exposures and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life over time across potentially affected groups and communities.
- Residents and landowners: The bill does not itself ban development or require a landowner to transfer property. It changes whether certain land counts as vacant land for affordable-housing calculations if an assessment finds substantial risk.
- Municipalities receiving a vacant-land adjustment: Existing law requires them to identify redevelopment sites for at least 25% of the adjusted obligation and adopt realistic zoning for that amount, or explain why they cannot. The bill does not say how a new risk-based exclusion would interact with that requirement.
- Taxpayers and applicants: Municipalities may impose a surcharge on development applications or building-inspection fees, limited to their actual costs of complying with the bill. The bill does not require a surcharge.
Money#
No publicly available information gives an estimated state or local cost.
- DCA must make rules and run an educational campaign; the bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
- Municipalities may incur assessment and compliance costs. They may recover actual compliance costs through permitted surcharges, but the bill does not estimate those costs or fees.
What is unclear#
- DCA must set the consultant qualifications and selection rules, required analysis, and standard for “substantial” risk. The bill does not define that term.
- The bill does not set assessment timelines, a review or appeal process, or how the results will be checked.
- It does not explain how assessments or exclusions would affect the existing requirement to plan for redevelopment of at least 25% of an adjusted obligation.
- The educational campaign’s content and how municipalities would use it are not specified.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that affordable-housing planning should account for combined environmental, economic, and social risks, rather than treating each parcel as if its impacts were separate.
- A third-party assessment with expertise across those areas could give municipalities a basis for identifying land that poses substantial risks.
- The bill allows municipalities to seek an adjustment for the fourth round and requires assessment results to be considered at the start of later rounds.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill allows assessments but does not require them, so its use could vary among municipalities.
- The standard for excluding land depends on future DCA rules, and the bill does not set a decision or appeal process.
- Excluding land from the vacant-land calculation may affect how a municipality plans for its affordable-housing obligation; the bill does not clearly explain how that exclusion fits with existing redevelopment requirements.
- Assessment and administration may cost municipalities money. The bill permits fee surcharges, but does not estimate costs or say how fees would be set beyond limiting them to actual compliance costs.