Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press committee over pending 'COA' litigation and possible affordable-housing impacts
Summary
At a Jan. 13 Franklin Township Committee meeting, multiple residents pressed the committee for details about pending litigation variously described in the transcript as “color/COA/CO” and raised concerns that settlements could enable substantial new housing and industrial development; the committee said it cannot comment on pending litigation and stressed limits set by state law.
Residents focused the largest portion of public comment at the Franklin Township Committee meeting on a pending matter the transcript alternately refers to as “color,” “COA,” or “CO” litigation and on the township’s affordable-housing obligations.
A resident who opened the first public portion asked whether the executive-session item on federal mitigation would lead to action and repeatedly pressed the committee for clarity about what the township is trying to accomplish in the litigation. The resident asked for basic facts — the township population (commenters said about 6,000), the number of affordable units the township is obligated to provide (commenters and speakers cited figures that sum to roughly 900–984 units across multiple settlement rounds) and the typical developer ratio cited in the meeting (described by a speaker as roughly 4 market-rate units per affordable unit, or about 20% affordable/80% market-rate).
Harry Kennedy of Fries Mill Road, a former township committeeman and mayor, alleged that particular developers and LLCs (identified in the transcript as Mr. Gersburg, Mr. Wall and Mr. Kainer) have used affordable-housing projects as a means to secure broader industrial development, and he said he would submit a list of questions for the committee. Kennedy referenced prior sworn testimony (a $133,000 check was mentioned in relation to a Rome property) and urged the committee to examine relationships between developers and township officials.
Mayor Bruno and other committee members declined to discuss details of pending litigation in public. The solicitor (name not stated on the record) confirmed at one point that she is not serving as co-attorney for the related matter and said the RFP process for that role is ongoing. Nancy Kennedy requested copies of any RFPs issued between Oct. 31, 2025 and the present; the clerk responded that posted documents are on the township website and that the request was noted.
Committee members repeatedly characterized themselves as opposed to large-scale development and said they are constrained by state law. Several members urged residents that the township will seek to defend local interests but noted legal and financial limits on how far the township can litigate against state-mandated or state-influenced affordable-housing processes.
Why it matters: commenters linked potential settlement outcomes to large-scale increases in housing and to downstream impacts — traffic signals, school enrollment and possible industrial expansion adjacent to new housing. Residents asked for clearer public records (RFPs and appointed-professional names) and more transparency on what legal options the committee will pursue.
What’s next: The committee voted to enter closed session to discuss litigation (resolution R3726); members said no formal action would be taken at the meeting and that they would reconvene in public after the closed session.
