The new legislation has introduced a series of changes that affect how municipalities like Oakland are assigned their affordable housing responsibilities. The borough planner, Caroline Writer, provided an overview of these changes, which include the establishment of a dispute resolution fund and adjustments to how affordable housing obligations are calculated. The legislation increases the cap on age-restricted units from 25% to 30% and revises the calculation of bonus credits, which are no longer as advantageous as in previous regulations. The methodology for calculating obligations now follows guidelines established by the Jacobson case, altering how density and vacant land adjustments are approached, particularly for municipalities within the Highlands region.

A timeline was outlined during the meeting, starting with the legislation’s signing on March 20. By October 20, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is expected to provide each municipality with their housing obligations and the methodology for calculating these numbers. The borough is required to adopt a binding resolution committing to these obligations by January 31. Failure to meet this deadline could result in the loss of protection against exclusionary zoning litigation, a concern emphasized by the borough planner. There is also a 28-day period following the binding resolution for any challenges to be raised by interested parties, such as the Fair Share Housing Center or developers. If no challenge occurs, the obligation will be established by March 31, with a final deadline of June 30, 2025, for the planning board to prepare and adopt a housing element and fair share plan.

Concerns were raised about the DCA’s ability to meet its own deadlines. The affordable housing council expressed skepticism, citing transitions that often occur in municipalities during December and January, such as the swearing-in of new council members, which could complicate compliance efforts. The council noted that while there are clear consequences for municipalities failing to meet deadlines, the legislation is ambiguous regarding repercussions for DCA’s potential delays.

The meeting delved into the intricacies of calculating housing obligations, focusing on factors like non-residential valuation, income capacity, and land capacity. The land capacity factor, which garnered attention, involves estimating developable land within the municipality and applying various weighting factors as outlined in the legislation. This process is compounded by the need for accuracy in assessing land capacity, with particular caution advised against categorizing areas like Route 287 as vacant land.

The borough has historically utilized the vacant land adjustment process, recognizing its lack of sufficient land to meet obligations. This involves examining vacant land and underutilized properties, excluding parkland and environmentally sensitive areas, to establish potential development sites. A significant change introduced by the legislation requires that the first 25% of unmet housing needs be specifically addressed in the plan, rather than merely creating opportunities for future development.

Strategies for meeting affordable housing requirements were explored, including inclusionary zoning, which mandates a percentage of units within a development be set aside for affordable housing. Other options discussed were 100% affordable developments, age-restricted units, and supportive housing for special needs. While senior units can account for 30% of the obligation, their associated bonus credits have been limited under the new law.

The council also touched upon the potential impact of future gubernatorial elections on the current legislation, given the fast-tracking of the law through the legislature. The uncertainty surrounding future governance introduces anxiety about potential changes to affordable housing regulations.

During the public comment portion, concerns were raised about land suitability for builders, particularly in the Highlands area. Residents feared that state policies could allow builders to bypass local constraints, though it was clarified that developments must still conform to Highlands regulations, especially within preservation areas.