Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ridgewood adopts start of fourth‑round affordable housing process, cites 394‑unit preliminary obligation
Summary
The Village Council voted Jan. 29 to enter New Jersey’s fourth‑round affordable housing process and to declare a preliminary municipal obligation of 394 new‑construction units and a rehabilitation obligation of four units for 2025–2035.
The Village Council on Jan. 29 voted to participate in New Jersey's fourth‑round affordable housing process and to adopt a preliminary municipal obligation that the planner recommended: a 4‑unit rehabilitation obligation and a 394‑unit new‑construction obligation for the 2025–2035 period.
Planner Beth McManimus told the council the state Department of Community Affairs had calculated a 427‑unit obligation, but her review determined DCA overstated Ridgewood's developable land in some instances. "What I would recommend is that the village's resolution not cite the 427, but instead you cite an obligation of 394 units," McManimus said, describing adjustments for lots in flood hazard areas, properties in the floodway and irregular parcels that cannot reasonably support new development.
McManimus and council members emphasized that the 394 figure is a starting point. She said Ridgewood will pursue a vacant‑land adjustment as part of a forthcoming housing plan; that adjustment has historically reduced obligations in prior rounds (the council noted a comparison to the third round, where a much larger starting number was reduced to 55 after adjustment). McManimus said she expects an initial estimate of the vacant‑land adjustment within about a month.
The resolution adopted by the council formally begins the fourth‑round process and will be submitted to the state's affordable housing dispute resolution program. McManimus told the council the next major deadline is June 30, when an adopted housing plan is expected to be submitted.
Council members asked clarifying questions about the rehabilitation obligation and document text. During the meeting council members noted a typographical inconsistency in the signed packet that still referenced "5 units" in one paragraph; staff said the signed version will be corrected to show four units.
The resolution was one item on a consent agenda that passed on a roll call vote recorded as five yes votes. Council members said they would continue to work with the planner on data and the vacant‑land analysis before the housing plan is finalized.
