Cranford adopts resolution accepting statepresumptive 268-unit round 4 affordable-housing obligation

The Cranford Township Committee voted Jan. 31 to adopt Resolution 2025-114 committing the township to the statepresumptive round 4 affordable-housing obligation of 268 units and authorizing a declaratory-judgment filing to secure a presumption of validity for that number.

The resolution, adopted by roll call vote, starts a process the committeewas told could include February challenges by developers or other objectors, a program-level dispute resolution phase, possible litigation, and a later housing element and fair-share plan due in June that may include a vacant-land adjustment for Cranford.

Mayor Patrick Curran opened the special meeting on affordable housing by placing the vote in historical context, saying the town was "sitting here tonight really because of history" of exclusionary housing practices and noting the committee would vote to accept the state's presumptive number to seek protection from buildersremedy suits. Cranford retained outside affordable-housing counsel to explain the new round 4 process.

Town counsel Kristen (last name not specified in the record) told the committee the new round differs from prior rounds because the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prescriptively allocated a statewide total and then divided it by region. "I view it as a hammer, to a computer problem, a computer algorithm problem," Kristen said, arguing municipalities that accept the DCA number gain a statutory "presumption of validity" that can reduce the likelihood of objection. Kristen also described the earlier Council on Affordable Housing (COA/COA process) as "defunct now."

Kristen outlined the steps the committee would follow if it adopted the resolution: file a declaratory-judgment complaint within 48 hours; allow a February window for objections; participate in a program-level dispute resolution process if objected to; and, if necessary, litigate. If no objections succeed, the DCA number would become binding March 1. She said Cranford would later prepare a housing element and fair-share plan for adoption in June, at which point the town will seek adjustments such as a vacant-land adjustment tied to realistic development potential.

The attorney described additional components of the obligation beyond new construction, including a rehabilitation obligation (discussed in the meeting transcript as "02/2004" for the rehabilitation component) that the townshipstaff expects to satisfy largely through continuation of the existing local rehabilitation program.

During public comment, Rita Labrutow of Arlington Road asked whether the DCA number could be challenged in February and again after Cranford performs a vacant-land adjustment; counsel confirmed February challenges are possible and said the statute provides additional reporting and midround review processes. Members of the committee voiced reservations about the fairness and structure of the law but said adopting the resolution was a defensive step to preserve immunity from buildersremedy lawsuits.

Commissioner Miller Prunty, who spoke during the roll call, said the matters were "very complicated, difficult decisions" and voted yes to protect the town from further lawsuits. Deputy Mayor Gallo said the law was "not the best plan" but that accepting the DCA number was the most practical step to avoid litigation. Mayor Curran also voted yes.

The resolution was introduced as "Resolution number 2025-114, committing to round 4 present and prospective need affordable housing obligations." The motion to adopt was made and seconded on the record; the committee adopted the resolution by roll call, with members present voting to approve the measure.

Next steps: if Cranford files the declaratory-judgment complaint as planned, interested parties will have a statutory period in February to object; the town will then pursue the housing element and fair-share plan for a June adoption and may request adjustments to the prescriptive number based on local developable-land constraints and other program credits. The committee emphasized the vote was intended to preserve current legal protections while the municipality pursues adjustments and complies with the new statutory timeline.