A Leader in Land Use, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Law

Jeffrey is a driven, tireless advocate. He has built his practice around the idea that clients deserve accessible and affordable legal counsel, which includes direct and transparent communication about the status of their case and developments with opposing counsel and the court. He understands that clients can feel uncertain, overwhelmed, and anxious when confronting the complexities and nuances of the law. He considers it part of his work and his privilege to provide understandable, clear counsel as he guides his clients through whatever legal matters they are facing.

Earlier in his career, Jeffrey worked in several large and medium sized law firms. His aim is to apply the experience from such larger firms to his practice, and give personal attention and direct, hands-on involvement in a pragmatic and cost-effective manner.

LAND USE LAW

Jeffrey Kantowitz provides a comprehensive range of legal services in the area of land use law. He has broad experience handling matters related to New Jersey's Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”), including development applications, variances, subdivision and site plan applications, strategic advice, and pursuit of coordinate agency approvals. He has appeared before numerous municipal planning and zoning boards of adjustment all across the State. He has litigated numerous land use law and zoning cases (including actions in lieu of prerogative writ) in the New Jersey courts. He counts among his clients large and small landowners and land developers, and, on occasion, neighbors who object to a proposed land development project.

“You need a variance.” Or “You need permission from the board.” Or “You need site plan approval.” Those words can be daunting to a landowner or developer seeking to develop or improve its property, large or small.

Often, Jeffrey will get a call from an existing, former, or new client that starts with the client stating that it wants to develop its property -- for example, build a building, expand an existing structure, or change its use -- and that the local municipal zoning officer or building official said to the client “You need a zoning approval from the zoning or planning board to do that.”

Sometimes the tone is more insistent and urgent : “I was told I need a variance.” Or “I need your help. I can’t expand my property without approvals from the town.” Or “I was told I have to go to the board to get approvals.”

Many times, Jeffrey will be called by a current or former client and be asked how a “new law or regulation that I just heard about” will affect some sort of property owned by the person or a land development project contemplated by the entity.

Jeffrey takes satisfaction in advising clients and is gratified when these circumstances result in the successful receipt of the needed approval, variance, site plan, or permit.

ALERT: NEW LAW REGARDING ONLINE NOTICES, EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2026, N.J.S.A. 35:3-1 et seq.

Effective March 1, 2026, public entities and private entities are required to publish notices online in electronic, digital formats. The details of the statute, which was enacted in June 2025, are complex. (This summary is not intended to present a comprehensive recitation or analysis of the new law.) From a general perspective, public entities are required to post notices on their websites and in online news publications that are determined under the criteria of the statute to have sufficient exposure and penetration in the geographic area of the public entities. Private entities (such as an applicant for development) are required to publish notices of hearings before municipal board in online new publications that are determined under the criteria of the statute to have sufficient exposure and penetration in the geographic area of the public entity before whom the application for development is to be heard.

Since proper notice under law is a jurisdictional requirement, namely, it notice must be determined to be proper in order for the board to proceed and hear a development application, care must be taken to make sure that an applicant for development has complied with the new law.

Other requirements for notice of hearings under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. (MLUL) remain. For applications that require public notice of hearing, those requirements include: (i) providing notice by certified mail or personal service to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject property and other interested parties; (ii) providing such notice at least 10 days before a scheduled hearing; and (iii) providing proof of service and of publication of notice to the municipal board several days before the scheduled hearing.

The above synopsis is merely a general recitation of the new law on notice via electronic/digital means. There are many details contained in the new law. You should consult with your legal representative as to details and requirements for notice.

THE PERMIT EXTENSION ACT OF 2020. Effective July 1, 2020, and retroactive to March 9, 2020, Governor Murphy signed into law the Permit Extension Act of 2020 (“PEA”). Generally speaking, the PEA extends practically all land use approvals issued by New Jersey State, county, and local governmental entities, bodies, and agencies, which were effective and valid as of March 9, 2020, for as long as the public health emergency declared by Governor Murphy under the Emergency Health Powers Act, N.J.S.A. 26:13-1 et seq., is in effect.
There are certain reporting requirements for approvals issued by State agencies, and approvals issued by the federal government do not appear to be subject to the PEA.
The basic upshot of the PEA is that approvals that were valid and in effect on March 9, 2020 will remain in effect, and the running of their time periods are tolled for the period of the public health emergency and for at least six (6) months after the end of the public health emergency.
As well, the time for government agencies and bodies to review and act on development applications has also been tolled.
The above synopsis is merely a general recitation of the PEA. There are certain exceptions and many details contained in the PEA. You should consult with your legal representative as to any particular approval.

Notices of Applications for Development In the age of COVID-19, many land use boards - i.e., zoning board of adjustment and planning board - are conducting their meetings virtually and hearing development applications virtually often over Zoom Conference systems. Consequently, both applicants and interested parties have to take care to carefully scrutinize notices. The applicant must properly provide information in notices for hearings about the how the public and interested parties can attend virtually the hearing over Zoom. The public and interested parties must acquaint themselves with Zoom Conference technology to participate in the hearing. As well, applications, plans, documents and reports need to be placed online on the board’s website in order for interested parties to have the ability to inspect the documents at least 10 days before the hearing. Interested persons and applicants would be well advised to seek legal guidance to negotiate the new landscape created by COVID-19.

COVID-19 and rules regarding social distancing have affected the meetings and agendas of many municipal governing bodies, planning and zoning boards around the State of New Jersey, including the scheduling, noticing, and methods of hearings on ordinances and for land development applications. Practices vary widely throughout the State, as boards and governing bodies apply the guidelines and precautions associated with COVID-19 to State law pertaining to the conduct of public meetings and board hearings. Persons and applicants would be well advised to seek legal guidance to negotiate the new landscape created by COVID-19.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS:

Negotiated a new zoning ordinance amendment as part of a redevelopment zone to substantially increase development density, and represented owner-applicant in successful application for multi-family residential project

Represented land owner-applicant in successful application for zoning approval to enlarge single family residence, including side yard front yard and other bulk variances

Represented neighbors objecting to defeat land use application of developer seeking “d” and “c” bulk variances to completely develop adjoining lot

Successfully challenged in front of a zoning board of adjustment determinations by zoning officers to issue zoning permits as-of-right for development and the interpretation of a municipality’s notice requirements

Successfully overturned in Superior Court a zoning board of adjustment’s affirmance of a determination by a zoning officer to issue a zoning permit as-of-right, including invalidating the board’s memorializing resolution of its decision

Mount Laurel / Affordable Housing Law

Jeffrey is committed to helping New Jersey's builders and developers find ways to supply those in need with affordable housing. He devotes a portion of his practice to Mount Laurel / Affordable Housing Law and has represented landowners, builders, and developers in litigation in the New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Law and Appellate Divisions of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Jeffrey actively litigated the cases that resulted in Supreme Court opinions and orders in 2013, 2014, and 2015 that invalidated COAH's rules and later provided court access (bypassing the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)) for affordable housing litigation. See In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97, 215 N.J. 578 (2013), and In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 (Motion to Enforce Litigant’s Rights), 221 N.J. 1(2015).

Jeffrey has represented private parties in numerous Affordable Housing declaratory judgment actions filed by municipalities in the Superior Court throughout New Jersey, in the wake of the 2015 Supreme Court opinion, In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97, with the object of obtaining enhanced and increased zoning rights for such parties in conjunction with their providing affordable housing to assist towns to meet their fair share obligations.

ALERT: FOURTH ROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROCESS UNDER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT, P.L. 2024, c.2 (adopted March 20, 2024)

New Jersey substantially amended the Fair Housing Act of 1985, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 et seq., through amendments adopted in March 2024 and contained in P.L. 2024, c.2 (“Amended Fair Housing Act” or “AFHA”). These amendments, among other changes, abolished the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and established a new procedure for addressing the Fourth Round affordable housing obligations (2025-2035) of New Jersey municipalities.

The methodology for establishing the magnitude of a municipality’s obligation was to be based on the methodology developed in the unpublished March 8, 2018 decision by Judge Jacobson (Law Division, Mercer County) in In re the Application of the Municipality of Princeton. That methodology was used primarily to calculate Third Round affordable housing obligations. Using more current data, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) was charged with calculating the obligations (municipal present and prospective need) by applying that methodology.

The AFHA established streamlined procedures for municipalities to pursue and implement their strategies for addressing their Fourth Round obligations. The Administrative Director of the Courts was authorized to establish procedures to efficiently resolve disputes involving the Fourth Round process. A Superior Court Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program (“Program”) was created. The Program, staffed by retired New Jersey judges with experience with Mount Laurel and affordable housing jurisprudence and cases, was designed to resolve challenges asserted to municipal plans proposed to address a town’s Fourth Round obligation. Ultimately, Program judges with the aid of special adjudicators (often planners with experience with Mount Laurel and affordable housing jurisprudence and cases) were to make recommendations to Superior Court Mount Laurel judges (siting in the various counties and vicinages around the State) regarding the municipal compliance plans.

The AFHA established tight, strict deadlines, beginning with the municipal filing of declaratory judgment actions committing a town to the process created by the AFHA. Towns were to file declaratory judgment actions by January 31, 2025, including a resolution regarding the magnitude of a town’s Fourth Round obligation. Any challenge to the magnitude was to be filed by February 28, 2025. If not challenged, it was presumed valid. Challenges to the magnitude were to be resolved expeditiously, using an objective standard as to whether a town’s calculation of its obligation was compliant with its constitutional obligations. (As the process evolved, few challenges to the DCA-calculated obligations were successful.)

Failure to participate through the filing of a declaratory judgment action, with resolution, left a town vulnerable to exclusionary zoning litigation.

Thereafter, a municipality was to adopt a Fourth Round housing element and fair share plan (HEFSP) by June 30, 2025. A deadline of August 31, 2025 was set for challenges to a municipal HEFSP. The AFHA provided that all challenges were to be resolved through the Program by December 31, 2025. If all such challenges were resolved, the municipality was to adopt all ordinances implementing its fair share plan by March 15, 2026.

Failure to adopt by March 15, 2026 zoning ordinances to implement plans approved through the Program approved plans leaves towns vulnerable to exclusionary zoning litigation

Challenges that were unresolved would return to the Superior Court county Mount Laurel judge for resolution, as the jurisdiction of the Program appears to have ended on December 31, 2025.

NOTE: Challenges to the validity of the AFHA brought in State and federal court by several municipalities have been unsuccessful to date. These challenges raise interesting legal issues. (For example, under the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s rule making authority over the Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey, are the AFHA’s procedures, delegated by the legislature to the Administrative Director of the Courts and implemented via the Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program, valid?) However, since these challenges have been unsuccessful, this entry has chosen not to detail the issues raised.

The above synopsis is merely a general overview of the amendments to and the process under the amended Fair Housing Act (“AFHA”). There are many details contained in the AFHA. You should consult with your legal representative regarding details of the AFHA and its potential application to a particular property or circumstance.

MID-POINT REVIEW OF THIRD ROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE PLANS DUE JULY 1. Under the Fair Housing Act, municipal settlements of affordable housing declaratory judgment actions (many of which began in 2015) require a midpoint review of realistic opportunity due on July 1, 2020. The municipality must post on its web site, and provide to Fair Share Housing Center, a report as to its implementation of its affordable housing Compliance Plan, including an analysis of whether any unbuilt sites or unfulfilled mechanisms continue to present a realistic opportunity and whether any mechanisms to unmet need should be revised or supplemented. The municipal posting shall invite any interested party to submit comments to the municipality and FSHC as to whether any sites no longer present a realistic opportunity and should be replaced and whether any mechanisms to meet unmet need should be revised or supplemented. Any interested party may by motion request a hearing before the Superior Court.

Such midpoint reviews may present development opportunities for landowners and developers in towns, where it can be demonstrated that previously approved Compliance Plans do not provide a realistic opportunity to meet the town’s affordable housing obligations.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS:

Intervened and represented landowner of 150+ acre site in declaratory judgment action against municipality, and negotiated a settlement that resulted in a rezoning of property from limited, low density residential uses to mixed uses, including commercial development, single family development, and high density inclusionary, multi-family housing development

Intervened and represented landowner of 90+ acre site in declaratory judgment action against municipality, and negotiated a settlement that resulted in a rezoning of property from low density residential use to mixed uses, including commercial development and high density inclusionary multi-family housing development

Intervened and represented landowner of 13+ acre site in declaratory judgment action against municipality, and negotiated a settlement that resulted in rezoning of property of limited development potential to zoning for high density inclusionary townhouse development

Intervened and represented landowner of 0.5+/- acre site in declaratory judgment action against municipality, and negotiated a settlement that resulted in rezoning of property from single family use to higher density inclusionary townhouse development

Intervened and represented a landowner in Fourth Round Affordable Housing Program to negotiate higher density on a lot zoned for single family residential development

Represented landowners in several Fourth Round Affordable Housing Program matters to maintain zoning for higher density inclusionary multi-family and mixed-use developments awarded in Third Round Affordable Housing (Mount Laurel) cases, where Third Round mechanisms were required to satisfy the outstanding Third Round obligation that remained part of a town’s Fourth Round obligation and compliance plan

Zoning Law

Attorney Kantowitz has a well-developed zoning law practice and has counseled a variety of public and private clients in matters related to permitting, application review, variances, complex commercial development, residential construction, and a wide range of other issues. He has appeared before numerous planning boards, zoning boards of adjustment, and municipal government bodies throughout New Jersey.

Jeffrey’s practice in the field is wide ranging. He has represented private individuals and privately held businesses and companies on commercial developments or large subdivisions and residential developments. He has represented clients on more modest applications, too. As well, he has represented individuals seeking land development approvals, including variances, for single family homes or lots.

In addition to appearing before local municipal boards, he has litigated land use law cases in the Superior Court of New Jersey, contesting or defending (as the case may be) local board decisions. Often, his litigations have involved not only a challenge to a board decision, but a challenge to the validity of an underlying zoning ordinance.

Representative of Jeffrey’s practice is his getting a call from a landowner, or potential landowner saying “I want to develop this property for a certain use. What do I need to do? The zoning officer told me that I needed approvals and variances from the zoning or planning board in town.”

The matter can be a homeowner calling and saying “I want to enlarge a deck,” or “I want to add a room for an elderly parent or in-law,” or I want to convert part of my basement into a home office and add a bathroom, now that I am telecommuting almost full time.” Or, it can be a commercial property owner or developer looking to reconfigure or re-purpose space to adjust to changing market demands brought on by COVID-19.

Whether the matter is large or small, Jeffrey has counseled clients through the zoning and approval process, including board hearings, and he takes satisfaction in a successful outcome that achieves the client’s desired goal.

Civil and Appellate Litigation

Jeffrey is also an experienced civil and appellate litigator. He combines big firm knowledge and experience with the personalized attention that is the hallmark of smaller firms. He works hard to deliver smart, practical, and cost-effective solutions for his clients, whether inside the courtroom or around the settlement table.