NJILGA has formally requested guidance from the Administrative Office of the Courts regarding inconsistent practices among Mount Laurel Judges in the current affordable housing process.

While some judges are correctly following the Fair Housing Act (2024 amendments) and Directive 14-24—allowing municipalities to receive compliance certifications after filing required legislation—others are requiring additional “fairness and/or compliance hearings” before granting approval.

NJILGA’s position is that these post-filing hearings:

• Are not authorized by the Act or Directive
• Create inconsistency across municipalities
• Undermine the Legislature’s intent to establish a streamlined, administrative process
• Risk introducing delays, added costs, and potential new litigation

The current framework was specifically designed to replace older, court-driven processes with a more efficient administrative system (AHDRP). Reintroducing fairness/compliance hearings—particularly in settled cases—runs counter to that goal and creates uncertainty for municipalities working to meet statutory deadlines.

To resolve this, NJILGA has requested that the AOC issue a supplemental directive clearly confirming that:

• Fairness/compliance hearings are not part of the process for settled cases
• Compliance determinations should be handled administratively and uniformly

This clarification would ensure consistency, predictability, and efficiency for all participating municipalities.

👉 Members are encouraged to review the full letter for additional legal context and detailed analysis: