Summit planning board presses ahead on housing element and fair‑share plan amid state rule uncertainty

The Summit Planning Board on April 28 focused its public meeting on developing the borough’s housing element and fair‑share plan as required under the state’s Round 4 process, setting internal review steps and reserving a closed‑session meeting to examine site analyses and legal strategy.

The discussion came as board planner Joe Burgess told members that “a total of 443 municipalities are participating in this process” and warned that objections and litigation are likely because the new state guidance is less prescriptive than earlier plans. Burgess said one of the most contested points is how to treat the vacant‑land adjustment and gave examples showing how different interpretations could materially change Summit’s obligation.

Why it matters: the planning board must identify realistic development potential (RDP), potential sites and draft ordinances for a 10‑year compliance period. The board’s work will inform a governing‑body endorsement and, ultimately, ordinance adoption needed to implement any plan. Deadlines cited during the meeting included adoption of the housing element and fair‑share plan by June 30, 2025, and a later deadline (mid‑March 2026) for adopting implementing ordinances.

Burgess described the vacant‑land adjustment as the single “most complicated provision” in the new rules, noting the regulations use an undefined term — “adjusted prospective need” — that parties currently interpret in different ways. He gave a simplified example showing how taking “25% of the RDP” yields a much smaller addition than taking “25% of unmet need,” and said that disagreement will likely be resolved in court for some municipalities. Burgess also summarized process steps: finalizing the RDP and site inventory, preparing draft enabling ordinances (the regulations refer to “draft ordinances”), and coordinating the board’s recommended package for the governing body to consider.

Public commenters pressed for substantive options. Mark McBride of Madison, who said he volunteers with At Home and Summit, urged the board to be more ambitious than past performance, saying, “In the last 30 years, you’ve produced exactly 1.2 affordable housing units every year” and arguing the borough should pursue larger family‑oriented projects. Dennis White, a Summit resident, asked for clearer public reporting on Round 3 carryover and on the city’s housing trust fund, saying recent accounting for trust fund expenditures was not available to the public and asked the board to press staff and council for transparency.

Board Chair Steven Spurr and planner Burgess reminded the public there will be three public opportunities to comment — in April (this meeting), May and at the time of the anticipated June public hearing — and that draft materials will be posted to the planning board’s web page. Spurr also said the board will review confidential material in a closed session that evening and will not resume further public business after the closed session.

What the board did: members voted to enter closed session to discuss litigation and attorney‑client privileged matters related to the housing element and fair‑share plan under NJSA 10:4‑12(b). The public portion of the meeting concluded with the board’s recess to closed session.

Context and next steps: the board described two technical near‑term priorities: finalizing the RDP calculation and identifying candidate sites (including whether redevelopment sites such as the Broad Street firehouse should be included in the inventory). Burgess and board members said the governing body must later endorse the housing element and file it with the state; the board emphasized the limited control municipalities have under the new, more formulaic Round 4 rules and warned that appellate review or further litigation may be required to resolve interpretive disputes.

The planning board scheduled further public updates and encouraged the public to consult the board’s website for posted drafts and hearing dates.