The most notable topic discussed was the mediation agreement with the Fair Share Housing Center, particularly concerning the implications of increasing density at the Bank of America site from 20 to 25 units. This change was a result of negotiations with the Fair Share Housing Center, which had contested Hillsdale’s existing affordable housing plan. The council was faced with the challenge of balancing the requirements of the amended Fair Housing Act, which necessitates municipalities to zone for redevelopment at a rate of 25% of their adjusted obligation. This proved contentious as Hillsdale’s unmet need was higher than its Residential Development Potential (RDP), calculated at 186 compared to an RDP of just four.

To settle the matter with the Fair Share Housing Center, the borough agreed to the marginal density increase. A council member expressed concerns about the impact of this change on the downtown area, especially in comparison to neighboring developments in Emerson, which were seen as more imposing. Despite these concerns, the settlement was viewed favorably, as it allowed Hillsdale to avoid the much higher densities demanded of other towns, which ranged from 35 to 60 units per acre. The council member who raised the concern was reassured that the increase to 25 units would still align with the town’s character.

Additionally, the council discussed the procedural aspects of the mediation agreement, emphasizing the importance of a midpoint review set for 2030. This review will allow for public inquiries into the status of sites listed in the plan. The conversation also highlighted Hillsdale’s stance on affordable housing, including its early adoption of overlay zoning, which may have influenced the Fair Share Housing Center’s decision to agree to a lower density requirement for the borough.

The council then moved to advance Resolution 25304, authorizing the execution of the mediation agreement.

Another topic was the broader discussion of affordable housing agreements and redevelopment plans, particularly the Hillsdale Patterson Street redevelopment plan. The council addressed questions regarding the implications of the agreement and the deadlines for adopting a spending plan. A council member questioned whether certain sections of the agreement applied to ongoing projects or future initiatives, highlighting the need for clarity in the borough’s approach to redevelopment.

The meeting also tackled comments from Fair Share Housing related to a spending plan due by January 6. A council member inquired whether the borough was obligated to accept these comments. It was clarified that unless Fair Share’s comments were rooted in statutory requirements, they would not be binding. The council member expressed concern over potential disagreements with Fair Share, particularly regarding the interpretation of regulatory nuances. However, it was determined that the borough was prepared to advocate for its plan if necessary.

Concerns about budgetary considerations for necessary repairs to affordable housing units were also raised. A council member questioned the language concerning funding for repairs, noting that an inspection had been conducted to identify necessary repairs. It was stated that while the borough was willing to assist, budget limitations existed, especially for major repairs. The discussion clarified that repairs necessary for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy (CCO) were minimal, with no urgent repairs required to issue the CCO.

The council then shifted focus to affordable housing options for seniors, particularly regarding a cap that limits the number of senior units within the overall affordable housing units to 30%. A council member serving as a liaison to the senior community expressed frustration over this restriction, viewing it as discriminatory against seniors. The response clarified that the cap was a legislative measure to prevent towns from exclusively offering affordable units to seniors.

Furthermore, the council discussed the affirmative marketing plan for affordable housing, questioning why certain community organizations were included while others were not. The council member raised concerns about the inclusivity of the marketing plan and representation of diverse groups. The response highlighted the existing affirmative marketing plan’s broader outreach strategy, aimed at ensuring comprehensive access to affordable housing resources.