Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery weighs extending deed‑restriction controls to preserve affordable units and avoid builder‑remedy lawsuits
Summary
Town staff told residents a new option to pay owners to extend 30‑year deed restrictions could preserve existing affordable housing and reduce the number of new units the township must site under the State's Fair Housing Act; negotiations are under way and no final amendment has been adopted.
Montgomery Township officials laid out a plan at a town hall to use newly available extensions of 30‑year affordability deed restrictions to preserve existing affordable units rather than creating as many new units, a move they say would reduce the township's net new construction obligation.
The township's planning director, Laurie Savron, said the state allows municipalities to extend affordability controls on existing units in exchange for a financial payment to owners. "By extending these controls, no new units are created," Savron said, adding that preserved seniors and families "can stay in Montgomery where they call home." The township is targeting extensions at Pike Run, McKinley Commons and Montgomery Walk as part of its Round 4 fair‑share plan.
Why it matters: New Jersey municipalities face litigation risk under the Mount Laurel doctrine and recent changes to the Fair Housing Act if they do not provide "realistic opportunities" for affordable housing. Township officials said the June 30 submission of a plan preserved the town's immunity from so‑called builder‑remedy lawsuits but left open the ability to amend the plan through municipal land‑use procedures.
What officials told the public: Staff said the township has 260 credits to satisfy and will try to rely on bonus credits (redevelopment and senior credits) and extensions to limit new construction. Savron said the current accounting suggests the township may need roughly 39 new affordable units in the near term if extensions are obtained; if extensions are not available, inclusionary projects such as a proposed 417‑unit development at the Kenview campus could supply affordable units on‑site but would add substantial market‑rate housing as well.
Costs and constraints: Officials warned that 100% affordable projects require municipal land donation and major financial contributions. The RPM senior development was cited as a case study: the project was described as roughly a $21,000,000 development with Montgomery's contribution about $3,000,000. Township staff also said the municipal housing trust has been depleted by previous projects and that the state low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) process is competitive and can affect whether projects move forward without additional local subsidy.
Legal and calendar steps: The township reiterated the timeline under the dispute‑resolution program: the plan was submitted by the June 30 deadline to preserve immunity; interested parties may file objections by August 31; the court aims to render decisions by December 31; and zoning changes tied to any amendments would need to be adopted by March 31, 2026. Staff emphasized that proposals to amend the plan would go through additional public hearings at the planning board and that no zoning changes are currently in effect.
Next steps: Officials said they are negotiating with owners at Pike Run to secure extensions and expect to present additional information at a follow‑up town hall on August 25. "We have plan C through Z," a township attorney said, noting staff are pursuing several alternatives; the goal, staff said, is to reduce the number of new units required while meeting statutory obligations.
Sources and evidence: The account above reflects comments by township officials, including Laurie Savron, township counsel and planning consultants, and the chair of the meeting; the township presented slides, maps and a demographer's excerpt on school enrollment during the town hall.
