Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge allows intervenor in Lambertville fair‑share case; residents and council press contamination, site‑viability questions
Summary
A state judge granted intervenor status to challengers in Lambertville’s fair‑share litigation but deferred substantive rulings; council members and residents urged alternative sites and pressed concerns about PFAS contamination, an unremediated landfill and floodplain constraints on the Hill, while the city prepares for further case management and additional DEP testing.
A judge in Hunterdon County granted intervenor status to challengers in litigation over Lambertville’s affordable‑housing plan but declined to rule on the case’s substantive questions, the council said after a hearing attended by city officials.
Councilman L, who attended the hearing, said the court granted the motion on procedural grounds but postponed decisions about whether the city’s immunity would be stripped or whether the contested site on “the Hill” is developable. "He was uncomfortable making the decision on the substantive issues," Councilman L said, adding the judge asked civil case management to convene a conference in late April or early May and indicated the presiding civil judge may take over the matter.
Why it matters: The ruling means challengers can join the lawsuit and preserves litigation on whether the contested Hill site — a lead candidate for meeting the municipality’s fair‑share affordable‑housing obligation — may be blocked or restricted. The delay also preserves the city’s ability to continue outreach, testing and negotiations before a final ruling.
Residents told the council the Hill’s environmental record complicates any development plan. "You have 71 contaminated wells in the area around the site," public commenter Jeff Tuttle said, and he criticized prior planning assumptions, pointing to an unremediated landfill and widespread PFAS/PFOS concerns. Tuttle and other speakers urged the city to develop alternative sites (including the village‑apartments location) and to build a stronger evidentiary record showing the Hill is not a viable location for affordable housing.
The mayor said the city has compiled and forwarded every resident‑submitted test result to county and state regulators and that the DEP has scheduled additional testing on Cottage Hill and surrounding parcels. He said the judge’s order would be posted to the city website the next day and that the DEP responded it may provide an update or literature instead of holding another public meeting.
Legal and technical constraints were emphasized repeatedly. Multiple residents asked whether the city has standing or mechanisms to press for a state or federal spill‑fund response; the mayor and staff said those are legal questions for the city attorney. "We need to work with Fair Share to show them that obviously that’s not a great place for affordable housing to be put on top of a dump," one councilor said during public comment.
What the council directed next: Council members said they will continue to pursue additional testing and dialogue with state regulators, work with the affordable‑housing committee to identify alternative sites that could meet the municipality’s fourth‑round obligations sooner, and coordinate with the city attorney on possible legal or advocacy steps. The court’s case‑management schedule will determine the next formal milestones.
Provenance: Transcript discussion begins with an initial mayor summary of the hearing (SEG 077–083) and Councilman L’s fuller account (SEG 217–311); resident testimony on contamination and the Hill spans multiple public‑comment segments (for example SEG 379–471).
