Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eatontown officials say housing plan element meets obligation, recommends adoption after public comment
Summary
Borough administrators told the mayor and council that a new housing plan element reduces Eatontown’s state-assigned affordable-housing obligation and would provide court protection if adopted; council agreed to wait for the public objection period before formally adopting a resolution.
Eatontown administrators told the mayor and council on June 11 that the borough’s updated housing plan element will satisfy its affordable-housing obligations through 2035 and that the governing body should adopt a resolution after the public comment and objection period has closed.
The borough’s administrator, Andy Beggar, said the state-assigned obligation of 186 units was reduced to 76 through a vacant-land adjustment and by counting existing and previously approved affordable units. Beggar said, “This plan for you guys to get compliance and immunity through 2035 requires no additional units that you already have and only a little couple of weeks to design, and that's it.”
The council was told the planning board approved the housing plan element earlier in June and that the borough must submit a housing element and affordable-housing strategy to the court by June 30 under recently enacted state housing law. Beggar said objectors—including Fair Share Housing entities—have until Aug. 31 to file comments or objections, and the borough should await that window before adopting a final resolution.
Officials explained how the borough arrived at its credit totals. Beggar described credits and prior approvals that reduce the borough’s unmet need: redevelopment at the mall increased residential units, producing credits (37 additional units with redevelopment bonus credits applied; 18 bonus credits were cited), two units on Port Thomas parcels, 23 excess units carried from the prior round, and 31 surplus units. The administrator summarized the arithmetic as producing credits beyond the adjusted obligation (figures discussed in the meeting included totals of 93 units plus 18 surplus credits for a reported total of 111 credits in the current accounting).
Council members asked about public input during the objection period. Beggar said he expects comments mainly from Fair Share and prospective developers and that broader public comment is possible but not likely because the plan relies chiefly on already-approved projects. The administrator recommended the council adopt the formal resolution after the objection/comment period ends and suggested waiting until September to introduce an implementing resolution.
No formal adoption vote was taken at the June 11 meeting; council members expressed no objection to the approach and asked staff to return with a final schedule and proposed resolution if comments or objections are filed. The borough’s planner and the administrator will monitor any filings and report back to council if action is required.
Background: meeting presenters said the changes stem from state legislation enacted last year that assigned municipal obligations and provided mechanisms to challenge and adjust those obligations. The planning board approved the housing plan element prior to the council workshop, and the borough was advised to seek court compliance and immunity from builder’s‑remedy litigation by following the statutory submission process.
