Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />homes; and minimum building and lot size requirements. Large lot <br /> <br />zoning, in particular, has been found to have an impact on housing <br /> <br />costs. <br /> <br />There has been considerable debate in the last three decades over <br /> <br />the definition and existence of exclusionary zoning; the wisdom of <br /> <br />pursuing the social goal of opening up suburbs for lower income <br /> <br /> <br />housing through zoning policy; and the role of the courts in this <br /> <br /> <br />debate. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case <br /> <br />of Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel To., <br /> <br /> <br />67 N.J.151, 336 A.2d 713, (1975). In this case, the court held that <br /> <br /> <br />the township of Mount Laurel must, by its land use regulations, <br /> <br />make realistically possible the opportunity for an appropriate <br /> <br />variety of choice and housing for all categories of people who may <br /> <br />desire to live there, including those of low and moderate income. <br /> <br /> <br />The court required the township to permit multi-family housing, <br /> <br /> <br />without bedroom or similar restrictions, as well as small dwellings <br /> <br /> <br />on very small lots and other types of high density housing without <br /> <br />artificial or unjustifiable minimum requirements as to lot size, <br />building size and the like. <br /> <br /> <br />In spite of rapidly rising housing costs in the Twin Cities <br /> <br /> <br />Metropolitan Area, the Minnesota courts have not been called upon <br /> <br /> <br />to specifically address an alleged exclusionary zoning situation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />