
NJ Bill S4736: Nonprofit Zoning Override Sparks Local Outcry, Developers look to Cash in
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, New Jersey is grappling with an undeniable housing crisis, marked by soaring prices and a severe shortage of available units. In an attempt to rapidly increase supply, the State Legislature is pushing a controversial bill, S4736, through its current lame-duck session.
The bill, sponsored by State Senator Troy Singleton (D-Burlington), aims to drastically reduce regulatory and zoning barriers for affordable housing development, particularly for projects spearheaded by nonprofit and religious organizations on their land.
“We have both an affordability crisis, a supply crisis and the economic growth problem that is tied to housing,” said Senator Singleton, who cited a U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimate that New Jersey’s housing shortage has contributed to $12.6 billion in lost economic output.
However, the proposal has ignited fierce opposition from municipal leaders and environmental groups, who argue the legislation represents an unprecedented state overreach that will lead to unfettered, unplanned overdevelopment and the loss of local control.
How the ‘YIGBY’ Bill Works (and Why It’s Controversial)
S4736, which has been nicknamed the “YIGBY” (Yes In God’s Back Yard) bill, centers on granting special permissions to nonprofits and religious institutions.
Key Provisions of S4736:
- Zoning Override: Nonprofits and churches would be able to convert or redevelop eligible properties into inclusionary developments without needing a use variance from local zoning rules.
- Affordable Housing Threshold: Projects must reserve at least 20% of the units for very-low, low-, or moderate-income housing, meeting state criteria.
- Increased Density & Height: The legislation would allow a density of 40 units per acre and a height of one story above the maximum otherwise allowed in that zoning district.
- Mandatory Approval: If a qualifying project meets the bill’s specific requirements, a municipal planning board must approve the application, regardless of the property’s location.
The Core Opposition:
Local officials, including Senate Minority Leader Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), argue the bill is “misguided” because it effectively “takes away the zoning powers of a municipality.”
- Loss of Home Rule: Critics, like the NJ State League of Municipalities, warn the bill bypasses essential local planning, treating a diverse state with a “one size doesn’t fit all” approach.
- Environmental Strain: Environmental groups and local commissions warn the measure “incentivizes sprawl, overrides local master plan goals,” and ignores the need to protect dwindling open space and reduce flooding risks.
- Madison’s Battle: Officials in Madison, NJ, unanimously opposed the bill, fearing it could undercut their efforts to preserve 51 wooded acres of the Drew Forest by allowing the university to build high-density housing there.
The Mount Laurel Context: Mandates and Builders’ Remedy
The current surge in residential building, which opponents fear S4736 will worsen, is rooted in New Jersey’s decades-old Mount Laurel Doctrine.
- This court-enforced mandate requires every municipality to zone for its “fair share” of low- and moderate-income housing.
- After the state agency (COAH) failed to enforce the rules, the courts took over in 2015, leading to “builder’s remedy” lawsuits that compel towns to approve projects that include a percentage (often 20%) of affordable units.
Proponents, such as the Fair Share Housing Center, view S4736 as a necessary tool to simplify the process and achieve the constitutional goal of the Mount Laurel decision, especially since New Jersey’s housing deficit is estimated to be over 150,000 low- and moderate-income homes.
The legislation now awaits a hearing by the state Senate’s Community and Urban Affairs Committee before it can move to the full Legislature.
Stay updated on state and national news that affects you. From politics to policy, from culture to current affairs, our eBlast will keep you well-informed . http://eepurl.com/bgt6T #RidgewoodBlog #News #LocalNews #StateNews #NationalNews #Subscribe #StayInformed #Community



if the deficit is 150,000 units increase the number of affordable units to be built from 20% to 50% per development.
Totally agree so we can be done with this nonsense once and for all.
This bill is modeled in a California bill the requires 100% affordable