Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lambertville advisory committee reviews draft Round 4 housing plan, flags Spoke Works site and set-aside questions
Summary
The Lambertville Affordable Housing Advisory Committee reviewed a draft Round 4 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, discussed a legal ambiguity about a new 25% redevelopment requirement, and identified Spoke Works as a potential 40-unit redevelopment that could produce about six affordable units under the draft. Committee members also debated raising the mandatory affordable set-aside for rentals from 15% to 20%.
Lambertville’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee spent its meeting reviewing a draft Round 4 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, focusing on whether a new state requirement to identify parcels covering 25% of an adjusted obligation applies to realistic development potential (RDP) or to the adjusted obligation itself.
The presenter of the draft told the committee the city’s fourth-round obligation is 39 units and that the municipality’s current realistic development potential is reported as zero. The plan therefore identifies a single privately owned parcel—Spoke Works—as a possible redevelopment site. “We are making the good-faith gesture of identifying a site that could redevelop with an inclusionary development of, let’s say, 40 units that would generate six affordable units out of a 15% set aside,” the presenter said.
Why it matters: If the 25% test applies to RDP, the requirement would be small or moot for Lambertville because staff calculated RDP at zero; if the requirement applies to the adjusted obligation or unmet need, the city may have to lock in units that would otherwise be used to meet third-round shortfalls. Committee members repeatedly flagged that the statute and implementing rules are ambiguous and that a court or regulator’s clarification would change how the list of candidate parcels should be treated.
Committee members also pressed the issue of mandatory set-asides. The draft and existing city ordinance (cited by staff as section 6.1) currently record a 20% set-aside for for-sale units and a 15% set-aside for rentals. Several members urged amending the ordinance for future projects to require 20% across the board; the presenter said the city could pursue that amendment prospectively.
The presenter walked members through demographic findings the plan includes, noting newly released 2025 income-limit guidance (for example, a two-person household threshold was cited in the draft as $98,240) and a shift in household composition toward more two-person households. “There are many, many more smaller households than there are smaller units,” the presenter said, arguing that the mismatch points to a local need for smaller rental units.
Members also discussed developer outreach and specific parcels. Staff reported they have tried to meet the owner of the CVS parcel but had not secured a meeting; the CVS lease was cited as expiring in 2026, making that parcel an uncertain near-term option. The committee debated whether to include the high school parcel in the plan given outstanding environmental questions: one member urged the record to reflect PFAS concerns, an unlined landfill and possible illegal dumping that could reduce developability or require lengthy cleanup.
Process and next steps: Staff said the version under discussion is the planning board’s review copy; the planning board hearing will be the next formal step. The presenter noted some appendices and boilerplate material must remain but invited committee members to submit edits—typos and clarifying notes will be captured in the planning-board record.
Committee members also spent substantial time on the advisory body’s role and public outreach. Several members asked for clearer, shorter explanatory materials so residents can engage; they recommended quarterly public meetings or focused outreach posts rather than expecting the public to digest a 230-page technical draft.
Formal actions recorded at the meeting were limited to routine business: the committee approved prior meeting minutes and later approved a motion to adjourn. No final vote or adoption of the Round 4 plan occurred at this session.
What’s next: staff will forward the draft to the planning board, accept edits and clarifications from committee members for inclusion in the planning-board record, and monitor any regulatory or court guidance that clarifies whether the 25% redevelopment identification requirement applies to realistic development potential or to adjusted obligations.
