Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board hears briefing on three state bills that could alter local zoning
Summary
A municipal planner detailed three Senate measures—one allowing conversions of religious/nonprofit facilities to multifamily housing, an ADU expansion (S2680), and a 'stranded‑assets' redevelopment bill—prompting local questions about density, parking, and whether the borough should adopt a League of Municipalities resolution opposing parts of the bills.
Ed, a planning consultant who briefed the Borough of Old Tappan board, told members that three separate Senate proposals could materially affect local land‑use rules. He summarized a ‘religious conversions to inclusionary housing’ draft that would permit existing religious or qualifying nonprofit facilities to be converted to multifamily housing at densities the board described in testimony as roughly 40–90 units per acre with tiered set‑asides and relaxed height exemptions. Ed said the draft also contains parking relaxations near transit, noting the borough ‘‘does not have that’’ level of transit service and raising parking concerns for a hypothetical 90‑unit conversion.
He also described S2680, which would permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single‑ and two‑family zones. Ed said the bill includes language calling for municipalities’ fair‑share plans to “promote the creation of ADUs that would be offered at affordable rents in lower‑moderate‑income households,” but he said the text seen by the board did not create a mandatory income‑restriction mechanism. "It didn't have a mandatory requirement in that regard, by what we've seen so far," Ed said.
The third measure, described as a 'Stranded Assets' proposal, would allow redevelopment of larger, underperforming office parks or retail centers (Ed quoted thresholds such as roughly 50,000 sq ft for office and 15,000 sq ft for retail in the draft) into mixed‑use developments, subject to financial and vacancy criteria and a 45‑day completeness review window that board members said could be difficult for local staff and consultants to meet.
Board members asked about the bills' legislative status and timing; Ed said the measures were at differing stages (one had been released from committee for Senate consideration while another had not advanced) and recommended the board review the League of Municipalities' sample resolution. He offered to circulate links and the actual bill texts so the borough could consider a local resolution to record objections or request clarifying amendments. Several members urged watching developments closely and suggested integrating protections or policy language into the upcoming master‑plan draft to reduce future inconsistencies.
