Township introduces amended fourth‑round affordable housing plan, schedules hearings after public objections

Montgomery Township officials introduced an amended fourth‑round affordable housing plan and a repeal‑and‑replace ordinance for the township’s affordable‑housing code at the Feb. 19 Township Committee meeting, while residents raised objections focused on site references, developer ties and contamination concerns.

The administration presented the plan as part of the master plan reexamination process required every 10 years, noting the township is due for reexamination in 2027 and has secured a planning grant to support the work. Staff said the amended fourth‑round plan (covering 2025–2035) prioritizes preservation of existing deed‑restricted units by extending affordability controls and documents those extensions as attachments to the plan. Officials described the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls (UHAC) framework, which sets maximum rents and sales, eligibility and typical 30‑year deed restrictions.

“Preservation of existing affordable housing is just as important as the creation of new affordable units,” the administrator said, describing extensions for McKinley Commons, Montgomery Glen and a Pike Run family rental project and noting the township has maximized certain bonus credits the state permits.

Following the presentation, the committee voted to introduce Ordinance 26‑1771 (repeal and replace chapter 15, affordable housing) on first reading and scheduled a public hearing and final vote for March 5, 2026. Staff also said the planning board is expected to adopt the housing plan element at its hearing next Monday, which would trigger the township committee endorsement and the March 5 public hearing.

Residents used the public‑comment period to press the committee on site‑specific matters and communications. Candy Willis criticized the township’s Black History Month resolution and its presentation materials, saying the resolution inappropriately “conflated” local recognition with a well‑funded nonprofit she said lacks ties to Montgomery. Lloyd Fernandez urged removal of references to a developer he called “ECON,” saying ECO N (as presented) had given up rights and that a company called 199 Grandview Partners LLC holds the commitment letter for the Kenview property; he urged the township to avoid implying ECON remains the developer. Nancy Castellino reiterated community opposition to housing at the CanView/Kenview site and asked whether any township officials have direct or indirect financial interests in the site; the township attorney said no such interests are known and reminded residents that any zoning change would require a noticed ordinance, hearing and 200‑foot notice to abutters.

Staff said items listed as “removed” in the amended plan mostly reflect previously proposed inclusionary developments and that the plan will include attachments describing where affordability‑control extensions are being claimed. Staff also said the plan will remain consistent with the master plan’s goals and that zoning changes would require separate noticed processes.

Next steps: the planning board hearing is expected on the amended housing plan element next Monday (staff will monitor weather) and the Township Committee will hold a public hearing and vote on the replacement ordinance on March 5. The administration encouraged residents to review the posted materials and attachments on the township website and said the adopted plan and ordinance will include fuller documentation of the proposed extensions and credits.