A key feature of the meeting was a presentation by Ela Kusham, a professional planner, who detailed ordinance number 26-2127. This ordinance stands to amend chapter 86, dealing with fair share affordable housing, to comply with the fourth round of regulations from the fair share housing act of 1985. The ordinance proposes various updates, including a new definition for “prior round unit,” affecting units approved in the third round but not yet constructed. These units will now have a 30-year affordability control, while fourth round units will see a 40-year requirement.

Kusham highlighted a notable change concerning for-sale units, which now mandates that at least one affordable unit matches the type of market-rate units in a development. This aims to ensure a degree of homogeneity in housing projects. The board examined bedroom distribution requirements, allowing more flexibility for smaller projects, a change that developers can leverage to deviate from standard regulations if justified.

The ordinance also introduces a residential development fee, set at 1.5% of the increase in equalized assessed value, to be collected at the certificate of occupancy stage. This fee is designed to bolster the borough’s affordable housing trust fund, which supports various housing initiatives and administrative expenses. Notably, developers contributing affordable units will be exempt from this fee, incentivizing the construction of affordable housing.

Another stipulation is the mandatory set-asides for multifamily projects with five or more units, requiring at least 20% of these units to be affordable. The ordinance allows the borough discretion in handling fractional units resulting from these calculations. Kusham assured the board that the ordinance aligns with the town’s master plan, inviting questions and feedback from board members.

The board engaged in a discussion on the implications of implementing these residential development fees. A hypothetical scenario was presented for a 30-unit project, which would necessitate six affordable housing units. The dialogue underscored the necessity for at least one townhouse unit, contingent on zoning or redevelopment plans. A financial estimate suggested that, had these fees been in place three years ago, the town could have generated approximately $77,000. However, concerns were raised about whether such fees might deter developers from pursuing projects, given the increased costs.

The board also explored the difference between residential and non-residential development fees. While residential fees are discretionary, non-residential fees have been mandatory since 2008. The meeting referenced another town that did not charge these fees initially and had to retroactively calculate potential revenue. This example was cited to emphasize the importance of implementing fees in a timely manner.

Concerns about the timing and process of property value assessments were brought up, particularly the delays in reassessment impacting homeowners applying for certificates of occupancy. The board stressed the need for timely evaluations by the tax assessor to avoid significant delays, advocating for a regular assessment schedule to maintain compliance and responsiveness to changes in property values.

A clarification was sought on whether the development fee would apply to existing single-family homes, with the ordinance suggesting it would. Discussions about the impact on “missing middle development” recognized the challenge of generating revenue without discouraging development that enhances town livability. A motion to determine if the ordinance was consistent with the town’s master plan was made, which passed despite one member voting against, citing concerns about discouraging residential development.

In closing, the board reviewed minutes from prior meetings, deferring February 12, 2026 minutes for further review. The November 13, 2025, and January 8, 2026, minutes were approved following corrections of typographical errors and clarifications on ordinance numbers and meeting attendance. The meeting was adjourned after confirming no public presence, concluding the board’s deliberations on these issues.