SARA delays Tova Living redevelopment vote after regulatory conflict over affordable units

The SARA Redevelopment Agency on Monday postponed a planned vote on a redevelopment agreement with Tova Living after counsel and the project’s representatives reported a technical conflict between municipal ordinance provisions and provisions in recently adopted affordable‑housing guidance.

Agency counsel Mike said, “last week and earlier this week, I thought we were in a position to approve a redevelopment agreement tonight,” but a “technical issue came up” that required additional wordsmithing before adoption. He asked the agency to move the item to the next meeting so revised documents could be circulated to commissioners.

Why it matters: the dispute bears on the number of required affordable units and how many of those can be designated as special‑needs units — factors that affect the project’s financial feasibility and eligibility for state financial assistance. The developer’s counsel said the team had planned a mix of market‑rate and affordable units and had originally based economic assumptions on a prior concept plan.

What was said: a representative for the developer explained the project had been reworked from an initial concept of about 81 units to a scheme of roughly 100 units. That representative said the project team believed the municipal ordinance would permit 15 percent affordable units (about 15 units on a 100‑unit plan) and that the developer had discussed including special‑needs units, but “we weren't quite prepared to make it a 100% special needs.” The representative added the state “provides financial assistance [to] developers for special needs unit[s], but not for a 100%,” and that the funding calculus affects how many affordable and special‑needs units the project can deliver.

Participants said the project team did not receive direct notice about the borough’s adoption of an affordable‑housing plan because they are contract purchasers rather than the property owner, which complicated timing. Agency counsel and the developer said they will work to reconcile the ordinance and the new plan language and expected to return next month with revised documents; the developer warned that contractual deadlines with counterparties mean “time is of the essence” and that, if not resolved quickly, they might withdraw from the purchase contract.

Discussion vs. decision: the agency did not take formal action on the redevelopment agreement. Commissioners were briefed; staff and counsel will rework the agreement language and circulate revised copies before the next meeting so the agency can consider adoption then.

Next steps: counsel and the developer will try to reconcile the conflicting provisions and present a revised redevelopment agreement at the next meeting; revised copies will be distributed to commissioners in advance. No adoption date was set and no motion was recorded at this meeting.