Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Lumberton officials for detail on large nearby housing project, pilot payments and school impacts
Summary
A proposed Southampton Township housing development prompted extended public comment June 4 in Lumberton. Residents and school officials pressed township staff and counsel for details on mandatory 30-year pilot payments for certain affordable units, negotiated five-year abatements, counts of senior versus family units and likely effects on school funding; officials said many terms remain under negotiation.
Residents filled the Lumberton courtroom on June 4 to question township officials about a proposed, large housing development sited in neighboring Southampton Township but expected to affect Lumberton.
Request Dargy, the township engineer, and other officials described the deal as still under negotiation and said some programmatic elements are set by state rules while others are negotiated with developers. "By right any part of the project that's 100% affordable gets an automatic 30-year pilot program," a speaker identified as George (affordable housing counsel) stated; that statement was repeated during the meeting and discussed as a requirement under state rules.
Residents asked how pilot payments and tax abatements would affect the school district's revenue. Officials explained pilot payments (payment in lieu of taxes) are structured so a portion of the payment comes to the municipality and a portion to the county; during the meeting officials said 95% of the PILOT payment would go to the municipality and 5% to the county, and that the township had not yet negotiated the pilot amounts. "Pilot funds come to the municipality by law. 95% of the pilot payment would come to the municipality, 5% is automatically has to go to the county," the township attorney said.
Speakers used numbers during the discussion as points of reference: the transcript referenced "80 senior units" that would receive a 30-year pilot, "92 affordable units" subject to pilot-like treatment, approximately "500" market-rate family units, and a total development figure referenced as "857 units" in the exchange. Officials cautioned that some figures and terms remain under negotiation and that full project details will be presented to the Land Development Board at its advertised special meeting; Clerk/engineer said the developer requested a special session to allow the application to be heard over more than one night.
School board members and residents pressed for clarity about money available to educate additional students. A school board member said Lumberton will work with the township and named contact Sean Erland to monitor impacts; officials said the township dedicates a large share of its budget to schools and will coordinate as negotiations proceed.
Officials also said infrastructure improvements would be the developer's responsibility and that performance bonds are intended to ensure construction of required improvements. When asked directly, Request Dargy stated, "all of the infrastructure improvements are paid for by the developer," and said bonds are in place should a developer fail to fulfill obligations.
Township staff and counsel emphasized that because negotiations are ongoing they could not disclose every term in public session; public review and comment opportunities will be available at the Land Development Board hearing once the application is finalized.
