The council’s attorney, Matt Rogers, explained the intricacies of the current litigation involving Kensington and Fair Share Housing. Under New Jersey’s Mount Laurel mandate, Ridgewood is required to provide realistic opportunities for affordable housing development. Rogers highlighted the critical distinction between the third and fourth rounds of affordable housing obligations, with the fourth round demanding a higher number of units. The village is engaged in settlement conferences managed by a retired superior court judge. Without a settlement, Ridgewood risks losing its immunity from builder’s remedy lawsuits, leaving it vulnerable to developers’ proposals that do not comply with existing zoning regulations.

Public opposition to the Kensington proposal was a significant theme throughout the meeting. Residents voiced concerns about the project’s impact on the community, including potential increases in traffic, the character of the village, and transparency in the council’s dealings. Some residents criticized the council for not adequately informing the community and questioned the urgency surrounding the council’s decisions. Others expressed distrust towards the council, accusing them of prioritizing developer interests over community concerns.

Several residents, including Russell Rothstein and Natalyia Perisvich, questioned the council’s approach to zoning changes and affordable housing obligations. They highlighted the importance of having a clear and updated housing plan and suggested that zoning decisions should be proactive rather than reactive to specific developments. Shelley Rothstein raised concerns about traffic implications and urged the council to leverage potential partnerships with developers to fund necessary infrastructure improvements.

The council emphasized the importance of maintaining control over zoning to avoid unwanted developments. They discussed the introduction of multiple ordinances aimed at creating senior overlay zone districts and modifying zoning standards for various districts. These ordinances, subject to public hearings in January, are part of a broader strategy to comply with state mandates while minimizing adverse impacts on the community.

The council also addressed the complexities of zoning laws, noting that affordable housing regulations can override local zoning. They reiterated their commitment to negotiating in good faith with developers and stressed the need for a housing plan that offers affordable options without drastically altering the community’s character. The council acknowledged the challenges posed by state mandates and expressed their intention to act responsibly within the legal framework.

Some council members defended their actions, citing legal obligations and the necessity of difficult decisions to comply with housing mandates. Others acknowledged the need for improved communication and invited further public input to address community concerns.