that such housing is necessary to provide important housing opportunities for older persons; and (ii) that at least 80 percent of the units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit; and (iii) the publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for persons 55 years of age or older. Id. Focusing on the language in subpart (iii) that eligibility for the senior exemption requires that the owner or manager intend to provide senior housing, several district court cases held that a city could not interfere with a private housing entity’s decision whether to meet the senior exemption. Mobile Home Vill. Inc. v. Twp. of Jackson, 3 Fair Hous.-Fair Lending (P-H) ¶ 16,018 (D.N.J.1995) (<HOLDING>); Cedar Hills Developers, Inc. v. Twp. of
holding seniorhousing zoning ordinance invalid as applied holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance holding that a county ordinance conflicted with state laws and was invalid as applied to all citizens