Disproportionate development exactions: This case involves efforts by the HBA of Oconee County, South Carolina to challenge an ordinance conditioning development approval on exactions that are not proportional. The ordinance requires builders seeking permitting for new construction of subdivisions containing more than 10 dwellings to bear the burden of acquiring traffic studies, and if needed, to upgrade the county road, or network of county roads, that service the subdivision. Further, the ordinance makes the developer responsible for all costs necessary to upgrade the roads, including acquiring rights of way. The HBA contends that these requirements are disproportionately placed on the developers, and disproportionate to the potential impact of the development. The HBA filed a complaint alleging the county violated the procedural requirements in the state comprehensive planning act, violated the state impact fee law, and violated both the state and federal constitutions on equal protection and takings grounds.

Challenge to an ordinance prohibiting industrialized housing:  Greater Atlanta HBA submitted an application on behalf of one of its members who is engaged in providing modular housing in Georgia. The member acquired a lot in a subdivision zoned R-1 in the City of Gainesville, and built an industrialized home on the lot. The City issued a stop-work order claiming the building violated a City ordinance prohibiting “industrialized” housing in any areas zoned R-1. The member sought to have the lot rezoned to allow the structure to remain on the lot, while the City attempted to have the structure removed. The member filed suit in state court claiming violations of federal and state constitutions, violation of Georgia’s Industrialized Buildings Act, and claiming civil rights violations.

Eminent domain challenge:  In this case, the Builders League of South Jersey and New Jersey Builders Association request that NAHB participate as an amicus in support of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  At the Fall Board, the Legal Action Committee recommended funding to assist Mipro Homes in challenging an eminent domain proceeding commenced by Mount Laurel Township. The parcel was zoned residential and the development project was approved and partially improved. The developer challenged the condemnation to stop the development, claiming the justification of open space was merely a pretext for stopping the residential development and not a valid public purpose. The developer successfully challenged the condemnation justification and the Township appealed to the intermediate appellate court that ruled in favor of the Township. The developer then appealed to the N.J. Supreme Court and NJBA and NAHB filed amicus briefs in support of the developer. In December 2006, the N.J. Supreme Court issued a terse opinion agreeing with the appellate court.

The NAHB Executive Board approved these three funding or amicus brief recommendations.  The deadline for Legal Action Fund applications for the Spring Board of Directors Meeting in Washington, D.C., is Monday, April 23, 2007. 

If you are interested in submitting an application to the Legal Action Fund, and would like more information on the application process and the guidelines, you may download these from the members-only pages of www.nahb.org/legalaffairs. For more information on these grants, please e-mail Mary Lynn Pickel in NAHB's Legal Services department, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8485. For information on submitting an application, please e-mail Felicia Watson, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8229. [ return to top ]