Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenilworth adopts four affordable‑housing overlay ordinances after public hearing; residents raise traffic and notice concerns
Summary
The Kenilworth Borough Council on March 16 adopted a set of ordinances creating four affordable‑housing overlay zones and amended fair‑housing controls required by state law; residents asked about traffic, parcel mapping and public notice during hearings, and planners said project approvals will require separate land‑use review.
Kenilworth Borough Council on March 16 adopted a package of ordinances creating overlay zones intended to satisfy the municipality's fourth‑round affordable‑housing obligations under state law.
The mayor and borough attorney told residents the overlay ordinances—covering Mark Road (Ordinance 2026‑03), Market Street (2026‑04), North Michigan Avenue (2026‑05) and West Subner Avenue (2026‑06)—create an opportunity for multifamily development with a 20% affordable set‑aside but do not themselves mandate that projects be built. “It doesn't mean that these projects are gonna be popping up,” the borough attorney said, adding the ordinances implement state requirements so the borough can avoid builders'‑remedy lawsuits. The mayor said privately owned properties can remain unchanged: “It does not mean that any of these properties will ever be developed.”
Why it matters: the ordinances are part of a court‑approved housing element and fair‑share plan the borough must adopt to limit the risk that developers take court action to seek high‑density approvals. Council members said the zoning language was largely drawn from state guidance and that the borough opted to minimize impacts on adjacent neighborhoods where possible.
Public concerns and planner response: Several residents sought clarifications during the hearings. Michael Schweitzer, who said he owns property at 75 North Michigan Avenue, asked specifically how traffic increases would be handled and who would pay mitigation costs; borough staff and the planner said traffic studies and required improvements would be addressed during any future land‑use applications and added that applicants must go through planning‑board review. Another attendee raised a mapping question after noticing two parcels that appeared to fall outside Kenilworth’s municipal boundary; a planner said the parcels appear to be outside borough limits and the team would verify the mapping.
On accessory dwelling units and definitions in the ordinance amending the borough's land‑use code (Ordinance 2026‑07), planning consultants said the ordinance incorporates state model definitions for clarity but does not itself permit ADUs boroughwide; the overlay rules—not the amended definitions—govern whether a particular site can host a particular use.
Votes and next steps: Each ordinance was opened for public comment individually, the council closed the hearings and conducted roll‑call votes. Motions to adopt passed unanimously for the four overlay ordinances and the fair‑housing amendment (motions included: Councilman Morrow moved adoption of the Mark Road ordinance, seconded by Councilwoman Giordano Picerno; similar motions to adopt the other overlay ordinances were moved and seconded by council members on the record). The adopted marketing and spending plans required by state law were part of the consent agenda earlier in the meeting.
The attorney emphasized the adoption gives the borough legal standing to shape future applications and that any specific development would still require separate approvals, studies and public hearings at the planning‑board level.
What happens next: With the ordinances adopted, developers who submit applications in the overlay zones will be subject to planning‑board review, traffic and environmental studies and the borough's design standards and affordability controls. The council did not announce specific development projects as part of the ordinance adoptions.
