Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner Szabo outlines amended housing element, says borough faces 212‑unit unmet need; public hearing set for March 11
Summary
Town planner Mr. Szabo told the planning board the borough’s amended fourth‑round housing element establishes an unmet need of 212 units, proposes expanded town‑center overlays at up to 15 units per acre, and schedules a March 11 public hearing and March 15 adoption to secure court compliance protection.
The Old Tappan planning board heard a detailed presentation on the borough’s amended fourth‑round housing element and Fair Share plan and was told the borough has an unmet housing obligation of 212 units under its court settlement.
Mr. Szabo, the planner presenting the amendment, said the borough established a present‑need obligation and reached a settlement through mediation with Fair Share Housing Center that set the fourth‑round prospective need at 212 units. Because the borough’s vacant‑land analysis produced an RDP (realistic development potential) of zero, Szabo said the obligation is considered “unmet need,” and the plan relies on overlay zones and incentives rather than land‑takings.
Key elements in the draft include an expanded town‑center inclusionary mixed‑use overlay along the B1/B2 corridors, professional‑office inclusionary overlays on either end of the corridor, and a settled density of 15 dwelling units per acre — a compromise Szabo said he obtained after negotiations with the adjudicator and Fair Share representatives.
Szabo also described an approach to accessory dwelling units and funding: rather than require immediate production of ADUs, the court accepted using a $25,000 per‑unit credit to be drawn from the borough’s affordable housing trust fund as part of the spending plan. He told the board the money already exists in the trust fund and that the spending plan would not require additional local taxation.
The planner set a public hearing on the amended plan and related ordinances for March 11 and said the borough’s objective is adoption by March 15 to obtain a court compliance certification that will provide protection against builder‑remedy suits for the settlement period (Szabo noted such protections generally extend through the compliance period cited by the courts).
Board members asked about site availability and whether parcels such as a PSE&G site were counted; Szabo said PSE&G had no intention of selling and was therefore not eligible in the vacant‑land analysis. He also discussed that there are limited appeal avenues and that a federal challenge is pending in higher courts, but success of appeals is uncertain.
Szabo urged the board to avoid ex parte communications about the plan by email and to forward questions through a single contact; he said draft ordinances with standards for height, setback, materials and landscaping are in the package and that the board should focus on minor edits before the hearing.
