A key aspect of the meeting was the focus on the prospective need obligation number, a critical figure for adhering to recent legislative requirements. The council discussed the components that determine this number and the subsequent compliance process. It was highlighted that by January 31, 2025, the township must adopt a resolution containing this obligation number and forward it to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). A subsequent objection period allows interested parties to challenge this number through the affordable housing dispute resolution program, with potential outcomes including affirmation, amendment, or rejection of the township’s adopted number.

The timeline for adopting a new housing element and fair share plan by June 30, 2025, was also emphasized. This document will guide the implementation of the prospective need allocation for the following decade, from 2025 to 2035. The tight timeline, particularly with summer vacations in June, makes it crucial for the township to have a draft ready by mid-May for public inspection. This plan is necessary for public review 20 days prior to any planning board action.

Additionally, the conversation addressed the possibility of challenges to the township’s proposed mechanisms for meeting its obligations, such as zoning changes or the development viability of specific properties. The term “interested party” was debated, as it remains somewhat ambiguous in the legislation. While some suggested that citizens’ groups could qualify, others noted that courts have historically viewed residents as represented by their local government, not as independent intervenors.

The meeting further delved into the methodology used by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for calculating the prospective need obligation number. The release of the DCA’s non-binding calculations and the methodology behind them was discussed, with assurances given about the transparency and data-driven nature of these calculations. The developable land within Millburn was analyzed using GIS data published by the DCA, raising questions about potential omissions and the value of citizen input in identifying additional developable parcels.

Legal challenges to the DCA’s methodology were also a point of discussion, particularly a case involving Montville, where Millburn is one of 30 municipalities participating. The focus of these challenges is not primarily on land capacity but other aspects of the methodology. The allocation process within Region 2, which includes Millburn, was explained, noting that the township’s high income capacity factor influences its obligation number.

The council reviewed Millburn’s non-residential valuation factor, which, along with the income capacity and land capacity factors, contributes to Millburn’s housing obligation calculation. The council discussed potential adjustments to this number based on the 80/20 rule for affordable housing and the vacant land adjustment process.

The meeting also addressed the mechanisms available to municipalities for meeting their housing obligations, including the possibility of earning bonus credits under new legislation. These credits could be applied to initiatives such as special needs housing or converting market-rate units to affordable housing. The potential for partnerships with nonprofits and the redevelopment of commercial properties was noted as a way to gain additional credits.

Concerns about the exclusion of certain municipalities from housing allocation analyses were raised. The council questioned whether these practices remain valid given the significant revitalization of urban areas in recent decades.