Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council briefed on affordable-housing litigation and asked to consider resolution filed 'under protest'
Summary
Town attorney and mayor updated the council on ongoing Mont Veil litigation and recent denial of stay requests; township staff recommended passing a resolution under protest while pursuing further legal options, including potential filings before the state Supreme Court.
Town counsel and Mayor Damiano briefed the council on the township’s ongoing affordable-housing matter and a recommended resolution to proceed under protest, saying recent attempts to secure a stay of certain obligations were denied at multiple levels and may be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Why it matters: Affordable-housing obligations and related litigation shape zoning, development approvals and potential municipal obligations for units or payments that can affect the township’s planning and finances.
Town counsel said the original order to show cause seeking a stay of implementation was denied at the trial level and that a subsequent request for stay was also denied by the Appellate Division. Counsel reported plans to seek further relief before the state Supreme Court if appropriate. Officials described the proposed council resolution as a procedural step that would allow the township to file a declaratory-judgment action and to protect procedural rights while continuing to press substantive legal arguments.
Council members and the mayor credited planner John Barry for a review that reduced the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) initial 'prospective obligation' figure from 285 units to 174 units. Mayor Damiano and council members emphasized that the number reflects analyses of developable land and that some land the DCA had identified included reservoirs, water-company parcels and areas planners determined were not realistically developable.
Council members asked clarifying questions about what the reduced obligation would mean in practice. The mayor and staff noted an example calculation: if a 15% set-aside were applied to a hypothetical housing total, achieving 174 affordable units could imply between roughly 1,100 and 1,200 total units (figures used illustratively in council discussion). Officials stressed the matter is part of a multi-step process and that the resolution is not the final disposition of merits in the litigation.
What’s next: The council had the resolution on the agenda for action that night as part of the consent/agenda items and staff said further legal filings and updates will follow as counsel pursues appellate options.
