Edwards started by explaining the historical context of the Mount Laurel Doctrine, which prohibits municipalities from using zoning laws to exclude low- and moderate-income households. He discussed key court decisions and the Fair Housing Act of 1985, which incentivizes municipalities to comply with affordable housing quotas by offering immunity from lawsuits. Fair Haven has faced challenges in meeting these mandates due to limited developable land.

Fair Haven’s cumulative obligation for new affordable housing construction from 1987 through 2025 stands at 371 units. Yet, the borough has only identified sufficient land for four units, referred to as realistic development potential (RDP), leaving an unmet need of 367 units. Edwards noted that the municipality must create realistic opportunities for these four units, employing mechanisms such as overlay zoning and a mandatory set-aside ordinance for multifamily developments.

The discussion then turned to the impending round four obligations, which will officially begin in July 2025. Changes in legislation affecting compliance procedures were highlighted, with Edwards mentioning that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) would calculate the new housing quotas. These quotas, based on household growth data from 2010 to 2020, would be advisory but could become binding if no disputes arise. The board must adopt a resolution committing to these numbers by January 31, 2025, with potential disputes to be resolved by the end of March 2025.

The board also debated the concept of realistic zoning for 25 units, even if the RDP is zero, which requires sufficient density to incentivize affordable housing production. This sparked a broader conversation about the subjectivity of unmet need criteria and the potential for litigation. Edwards clarified that for a subdivision to count as new buildable space, the lots must be large enough to support multifamily housing, emphasizing that smaller lots would not qualify.

Further discussion focused on the term “availability” in land development. Availability has become more objective, relying on whether land is clear of title and free from restrictions. The need to create realistic zoning for 25% of the unmet need was acknowledged as a challenging requirement, particularly if suitable land exists, complicating compliance efforts.

The meeting also addressed the necessity of public feedback on the draft housing plan. The board considered forming a Mount Laurel subcommittee to tackle affordable housing concerns and identify potential development sites. Members were encouraged to engage proactively with their appointed representatives to facilitate the approval process.

Another topic of interest was the potential redevelopment of specific areas, including the local church property and the Department of Public Works area, which had previously supported Habitat for Humanity projects. The board discussed the need to monitor development opportunities and adapt to changing regulations and land availability.

The conversation on zoning continued, with one participant arguing that the current zoning for 40 Fair Ching Center was realistic for only 20 units due to the necessity of deducting the round three overlay. The board acknowledged the commitment to providing 202 units, with prior fulfillment through existing projects like those from M and Habitat for Humanity. The interplay between existing overlay zones and the requirement to develop new distinct units was debated, emphasizing the need for clarity in future development plans.

The meeting also touched on other issues, including local liquor licenses and their financial implications. The potential expansion of liquor licenses was discussed, with suggestions that this could positively impact local restaurants. The upcoming survey of town priorities was also a point of discussion, with a focus on ensuring that the voices of newer residents are adequately represented.

Additionally, the planning board revisited the topic of tree preservation following an incident at Community Center Fields. Members reflected on the need for a detailed tree preservation ordinance and debated its enforceability and the community’s priorities regarding environmental stewardship.