The primary focus of the meeting was the borough’s affordable housing plan, a subject of urgency given the looming compliance deadline of June 30th to avoid potential lawsuits from builders. Christine and Jennifer presented the housing element and fair share plan, crucial components required under New Jersey’s municipal land use law. The housing element involved an analysis of population trends, housing stock, demographics, and existing land use to identify suitable sites for affordable housing. The fair share plan, covering obligations from July 1, 2025, to 2035, mandates Lake Como to provide 19 affordable housing units. However, after a vacant land adjustment due to the borough’s built-out status, the realistic development potential was found to be zero.

To address this, the plan proposes a mandatory set-aside ordinance requiring developers of five or more units to designate 20% as affordable. Additionally, the borough faces a rehabilitation obligation to improve 11 units over the next decade, potentially through a housing improvement program. A council member raised concerns about the reported 27% vacancy rate of the housing stock, questioning the accuracy since many homes appeared occupied. Christine explained this figure likely included seasonal residences classified as vacant if not lived in year-round, though this explanation did not fully satisfy the council member.

Another issue was the former first aid building, listed as vacant in the inventory despite its evolving status. Christine acknowledged that the plan was based on the latest tax data, recognizing the property’s status could change, yet its future use remained uncertain. Further clarity was sought on property characterizations and the plan’s ability to meet obligations. While the required number of units was 19, the adjusted realistic development potential of zero meant the borough’s responsibility was to demonstrate that 25% of this potential, or about five units, could be met through the proposed ordinances.

The council also discussed a proposed ordinance imposing a 1.5% fee on homeowners wishing to demolish and rebuild their residences, excluding cases of fire, flood, or natural disasters. Concerns were raised about this fee’s financial burden, particularly on single-family homeowners. A speaker noted that for a property valued at $800,000, the fee could be $12,000 for developers and $6,000 for homeowners, questioning the fee’s rationale and suggesting it could deter home improvements.

The legality of the fee was questioned, noting the absence of the borough attorney. There was uncertainty about the necessity of the fee at its current rate, with calls for leniency for those rebuilding within existing zoning regulations. One council member proposed reviewing the ordinance to potentially lower the fee, arguing that it should not penalize homeowners merely seeking property improvements without expanding their footprint or seeking variances.

The allocation of collected fees was another point of contention. A council member explained the funds would go into an affordable housing trust fund, used exclusively for affordable housing projects. However, questions arose about whether the estimated $90,000 annually over ten years was sufficient to meet obligations. Concerns were voiced that high fees could lead to non-compliance with state mandates while straining residents financially.

Discussions ensued about public hearings on the ordinance and whether proper notice had been given. It was confirmed the plan had been on file for ten days with notices sent, but questions lingered about whether all affected parties were informed. The council considered exemptions or adjustments to the fee structure for homeowners making improvements within existing zoning laws, recognizing the potential benefit of encouraging renovations rather than rebuilds under punitive financial conditions.