A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the borough’s affordable housing obligations, particularly in light of the court-approved housing element and fair share plan. The board highlighted the urgency of adopting a housing element and fair share plan by June 30, 2025, to avoid exclusionary zoning litigation. Caroline Ryder, the borough planner, underscored the constitutional obligations of municipalities to provide affordable housing, a requirement rooted in the historical Mount Laurel decisions. She emphasized that Oakland’s obligations were a slice of a larger regional pie, illustrating how the borough’s housing needs are shaped by overarching regional demands.

The meeting provided an overview of Oakland’s demographic profile, revealing a population exceeding 12,700 with a median age of 43.8 years. The borough’s present need obligation in the upcoming round four was stated as ten units, with a prospective need calculated at 36 units by the Department of Community Affairs. However, after negotiations, this was settled at 186 units, acknowledging the borough’s constraints, such as limited vacant land and the absence of sewer infrastructure, which complicates the development of new housing units.

Key discussions addressed the borough’s efforts to reconcile its realistic development potential with its unmet need. The realistic development potential, determined to be 148 units, left an unmet need of 534 units. Strategies such as inclusionary zoning, which mandates a portion of new developments to be affordable, were explored as potential solutions. However, the lack of sewer infrastructure stalled further developments, with no planned date for sewer installation.

The legislative context of the housing obligations was another focal point. The elimination of the Council on Affordable Housing had ushered in a new legislative framework with significant obligations for municipalities. The borough’s total obligation was detailed alongside a broader context, noting a regional total obligation of 27,743 units. This figure was broken down among various municipalities. The borough faced the challenge of accommodating increasing demands without a corresponding increase in capacity, illustrated metaphorically as fitting obligations into a “five-pound bag.”

The meeting also delved into the potential to increase density in downtown areas to accommodate additional housing units, pending available sewer and water capacity. This proposal was met with questions about whether existing plans could support increased density, highlighting concerns about infrastructure adequacy.

Numerical inconsistencies in the housing plan were scrutinized, with board members identifying typographical errors and misrepresentations in unit totals. These corrections were deemed critical for ensuring the accuracy of the borough’s housing obligations. The board expressed appreciation for the detailed review undertaken by its members, which facilitated these corrections.

Public comment brought additional concerns to the forefront, including the preservation of historic buildings amidst new developments and the potential impact on traffic infrastructure. Residents voiced apprehensions about the implications of increased housing numbers on the community and whether these changes resulted from neighboring towns reducing their obligations. A resident inquired about the state’s overall affordable housing number, which was clarified to be above 80,000 for the current round.

The absence of redevelopment proposals linked to the current housing plan was reiterated to alleviate concerns about future developments and the potential use of eminent domain. The dialogue acknowledged uncertainties regarding infrastructure and legislative changes that could impact future developments, preventing confident predictions of outcomes.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adopt the housing element and fair share plan amendment, with board members expressing varied levels of reluctance and approval. The resolution passed, despite dissent from some members. The next borough council meeting was scheduled for July 15, 2025, where further applications will be reviewed.