a. In any exclusionary zoning case filed against a municipality which has a substantive certification and in which there is a requirement to exhaust the review and mediation process pursuant to section 16 of this act, there shall be a presumption of validity attaching to the housing element and ordinances implementing the housing element. To rebut the presumption of validity, the complainant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the housing element and ordinances implementing the housing element do not provide a realistic opportunity for the provision of the municipality’s fair share of low and moderate income housing after allowing for the implementation of any regional contribution agreement approved by the council.

b. There shall be a presumption of validity attaching to any regional contribution agreement approved by the council. To rebut the presumption of validity, the complainant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement does not provide for a realistic opportunity for the provision of low and moderate income housing within the housing region.

c. The council shall be made a party to any exclusionary zoning suit against a municipality which receives substantive certification, and shall be empowered to present to the court its reasons for granting substantive certification.

L. 1985, c. 222, s. 17, eff. July 2, 1985, operative July 2, 1985.