Local officials seemed pleased with the plan Governor Chris Christie unveiled Thursday that would eliminate the state's Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and return decisions to local control. Municipalities will be required to conduct an inventory of existing affordable housing to determine what their future needs will require.

Pequannock Mayor Ed Engelbart's reaction to Christie's proposal is that it looked much more "doable" for New Jersey's municipalities, especially Pequannock, which under COAH's old formula, still had to build more than 300 units.

"I think this is much more manageable the way it's laid out…it seems much more clear-cut, with more options for municipalities," he said. "What was here before was absolutely horrendous."

As per the governor's announcement, the state's affordable housing quotas will be abolished. Instead the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will file municipally approved housing plans and make them available to the public. If challenged, the DCA will conduct a review of municipal plans, which is limited to a determination that the plan is factually accurate and consistent with the law.

Six months after the enactment of proposed legislation, the Fair Housing Act would be repealed and COAH will be abolished. Affordable housing plan certifications granted by COAH will remain in effect and are afforded the continued legal protections until the certifications expire. Municipalities with pending certification requests are permitted to pursue those certifications or may withdraw and develop new plans consistent with the new proposed law.

The governor's proposal also calls for a 10-percent affordable housing unit requirement in development projects greater than 10 units.

"These new measures will help to fix a broken system by promoting sensible, predictable and achievable planning to implement change," Christie said. "With strictly limited state involvement in the process, we are finally allowing for flexibility and customization that acknowledges our state's unique economic, community and housing needs."

This comes as welcome news to the state municipalities who have long cherished the notion of home rule. Donna Holmqvist, planner for the Borough of Riverdale, for one said the governor's proposal sounds like a good thing.

"I think they are moving forward with the task force's recommendations and that seems to be a positive thing," she said referring to the Housing Opportunity Task Force, which the governor created in February.

Holmqvist added setting aside 10 percent of the housing, "is certainly more workable than it was in these economic times."

The governor's plan also hopes to limit the ability of large developers of town homes to use the state COAH regulations to shoehorn large developments on some the state's most environmentally sensitive lands. To officials in West Milford this would be a welcome change.

"I feel that the current COAH has gone beyond its mission and has extended its goals beyond logic" said Township Council President Joe Smolinski. "COAH legislation should never have been a cookie cutter or a one-size-fits-all type mandate. Not all towns are created equal. It's about time this burdensome mandate is being addressed. Even the proposed 10-percent rule should not be implemented statewide. Towns restricted by the Highlands legislation still need special considerations and exemptions from COAH rulings. COAH obligations are a blatant contradiction to the Highlands legislation."

Skylands CLEAN Executive Director Robin O'Hearn said she wants to see some specifics before judging. Until then she remains skeptical.

"Protecting environmentally sensitive sites, and requiring existing water and sewer infrastructure, have always been important elements of COAH's process in determining the suitability of potential COAH sites. Many communities have proven that the only land left in town is too environmentally sensitive to accommodate high-density housing, like on (Bloomingdale's) Federal Hill for example. But as in the Federal Hill case, communities have still been forced to accept the development. Case law has historically supported developers in these instances. I don't see anything in this proposal that addresses that," O Hearn said.

"It's hard to judge this proposal since it is very conceptual at this point and the specifics aren't spelled out. But I don't feel confident that a municipality filing a new master plan, identifying how they will accommodate the municipality's affordable housing requirement, will have iron-clad protection against a builder's lawsuit to force a community to build more affordable housing," she added.

Staff writers Leslie Scott, David Zimmer and Steve Janoski contributed to this article.