Ridgewood to declare fourth‑round affordable housing obligation; planner recommends correcting DCA figure to 394

Ridgewood Village officials were briefed Wednesday on the state’s fourth‑round affordable housing process and a recommended correction to the Department of Community Affairs’ calculation of the borough’s new‑construction obligation.

Beth McManus, the village’s affordable housing planner, said the first action the council must take is to adopt a resolution by the end of January declaring the village’s participation in the state program and publishing its calculated obligations.

The nut of McManus’ presentation was procedural but consequential: the DCA’s worksheet lists Ridgewood’s new‑construction obligation as 427 units, and McManus recommended that the council correct that calculation to 394 units by removing roughly 7 acres that DCA had counted as developable land. She told the council the 7 acres appear in three categories she believes should be excluded: parcels in the floodway or special flood hazard area, narrow parcels that cannot support meaningful development, and land that serves as buffers—examples included strips near the park‑and‑ride and small wooded parcels that act as buffers to adjacent uses.

McManus said the village’s rehabilitation obligation was calculated by DCA at four units and that she had no corrections to that figure. She reminded the council that accepting the DCA numbers for purposes of the resolution does not mean Ridgewood is committing to build the full 394 units. That larger number will be subject to later adjustments—most importantly a vacant‑land analysis that produces a Realistic Development Potential (RDP) number and a housing plan the village must adopt by June 30.

"By agreeing to participate and to submit the resolution, we are not agreeing tonight to facilitate building 394 units," McManus said. "This is a technical first step; the policy decisions and adjustments come next as part of the housing plan."

Council members asked several procedural and substantive questions. One member pointed out that the DCA calculation is nonbinding and must be reviewed; McManus said the municipality’s latitude to change the number is limited by the Fair Housing Act’s formula but that modest, evidence‑based corrections (land removals for floodways and unusable strips) were appropriate. Another council member stressed the difference between the statutory number and the RDP the village will present a few months later, citing the borough’s prior experience in which a much larger statutory obligation was reduced substantially during the plan stage.

Why it matters: Under New Jersey’s amended Fair Housing Act, municipalities that participate in the state process gain protections from “builder’s remedy” litigation; declaring participation and the calculated obligation starts the state’s review and any objection period. McManus told the council the DCA‑calculated obligation becomes effective the day after the objection window closes or on March 1 if there is no objection. If an objection is filed, the municipality enters a short period of dispute resolution with the program.

Next steps: McManus recommended the council adopt a resolution at its Jan. 29 meeting to submit the correction (427 → 394) and declare Ridgewood’s participation. She said her office will return to the governing body and the planning board multiple times between March and June with proposed adjustments and a draft housing plan that will include the realistic development potential and specific implementation steps.

Community context and precedent: McManus cited the borough’s history of compliance with earlier rounds; she noted that prior statutory obligations in earlier rounds were large but that the village previously used the state’s adjustment mechanisms to arrive at an achievable RDP (she cited a past third‑round example where a statutory obligation in the hundreds was adjusted to a 55‑unit RDP). McManus recommended a similar process for the fourth round.

Ending: The council did not vote on a resolution at the workshop; members directed staff to place a proposed resolution on the Jan. 29 agenda for formal consideration and public notice.