0:03A critical agenda item was the fair share obligation for affordable housing units, with Daniel Black, a consultant for the board, presenting the township’s case against the state’s allocation. Black detailed how the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had overestimated the number of developable sites, including lands that were not vacant or suitable for development. He stressed that the board would challenge this allocation. The process would involve comprehensive planning and continual discussions to address the township’s obligations effectively.

Furthering the discussion, Black explained various mechanisms to meet the housing requirements, such as leveraging existing housing units and group homes rather than solely relying on new construction. This approach could potentially include negotiating with owners of senior citizen condos to increase affordable unit percentages, possibly accessing financial assistance from the town’s trust fund.

The board established a timeline for action, emphasizing the necessity for the governing body to adopt a resolution by the end of January. This resolution would serve as the first step towards a legal filing with the court. Black reiterated that the governing body would ultimately decide the final numbers, which would then require court endorsement. Concerns were raised about potential challenges from developers and residents, who might contest the reduced numbers or site selection criteria once the housing element plan was finalized.

15:05In addition to the housing allocation issues, the board also delved into the broader context of the township’s housing obligations as part of the “round four” process. Members acknowledged the evolving nature of state mandates and the complexities of adhering to these requirements, recognizing the need for collaboration with the Town Council in finalizing and implementing the housing plans. One member proposed forming a subcommittee to facilitate more discussions with planners.

The board also addressed potential penalties for failing to meet state deadlines, with a member citing the risk of developers pursuing legal remedies if the township did not comply. This cautionary note referenced past experiences with developer remedies, which the board was keen to avoid repeating.

Another topic was the rehabilitation program for existing homes in the township, aimed at supporting low-income homeowners. The program offers up to $30,000 for repairs, such as new roofs and heating systems, with recipients required to adhere to a ten-year deed restriction. This initiative seeks to assist homeowners in need while promoting the sustainability of affordable housing within the community.

The board also reflected on the township’s housing growth over the past decade, noting that fewer than 100 units had been added in developments like Autumn Ridge and Sycamore Landing. Concerns were voiced about the impact of adding 70 new affordable units, with discussions on potential forms of new developments, such as apartment complexes, to accommodate this growth.

Furthermore, the board considered the township’s sewer capacity in light of new developments. A sewer engineer had previously analyzed the capacity, especially concerning two warehouses. The board acknowledged the challenges related to sewer agreements with neighboring municipalities, particularly regarding rate studies and necessary capacity upgrades.