The primary focus of the meeting was a presentation on Bernardsville’s affordable housing commitments, particularly for the upcoming fourth round set to begin in July 2025. The borough faces a significant prospective construction obligation of 113 affordable units, although its rehabilitation obligation stands at zero. Presenters outlined the fair share plan and housing element, which includes demographic data, population changes, and current employment information. The plan also features an inventory of existing affordable units and identifies potential new inclusionary zones and redevelopment areas to meet these obligations.

Adjustmentsreas highlighted include the existing housing rule zone, expected to yield 51 affordable apartments, and the 65 Marmont Road inclusionary zone, proposed as a redevelopment zone anticipating 28 apartments. Another area, the proposed Clar’s redevelopable area, plans for up to 94 age-restricted units and 18 affordable units. The I2 light industrial inclusionary overlay zone is projected to include 125 rental units, 25 of which would be affordable.

The council expressed concerns about the long-term nature of these obligations and the potential consequences of non-compliance, such as builder’s remedy lawsuits. These legal challenges could arise if the borough fails to adopt the housing element and fair share plan, allowing developers to contest zoning decisions. The importance of feasibility assessments was emphasized. The borough has not previously faced such lawsuits, but the risk remains if obligations are unmet.

Another topic was the public hearing on ordinance 2025-2023, a bond ordinance designed to provide a $2.7 million grant to a developer for affordable housing construction site work. A resident, identified as Aaron Jeff, raised several questions about the competitive contracting process and the borough’s financial responsibilities. Jeff argued that the contract with the developer RPM, established in 2020, did not obligate the borough to cover construction costs and that the ordinance violated fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers.

Council members responded by clarifying that funding for the bonds would come from the borough’s affordable housing fund, replenished through development fees, rather than directly from taxpayers. Despite these assurances, Jeff’s concerns remained, highlighting a disagreement over the project’s financial responsibility. The council proceeded to adopt the ordinance, despite the concerns voiced during the public comments.

The meeting also addressed several resolutions, including those related to environmental considerations for planting native species. There was some apprehension regarding the resolution’s language, with calls for greater clarity to avoid obligating the borough to plant species that may not align with the original intent. The council ultimately voted in favor of the resolutions, confirming unanimous support through a roll call.

Mayor Mary Jane Canose provided updates on community activities, including a bond ordinance adjustment from $5 million to $2.5 million following a financial audit. The mayor also discussed recent events like a ribbon-cutting ceremony for historic markers and an Arbor Day event where native cherry trees were planted. The implementation of the HASS HA alert system to enhance road safety was noted.