WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP"

Evangeline Jodie Thornton
5 years ago
Views:

1 FwE- WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP o ==_ j o SHING- FU HSUEH, MAYOR 179? July 21, 2014 Via electronic transmission COAHAdmin@dca.state.nj. us Mr. Sean Thompson Acting Executive Director N.J. Council on Affordable Housing 101 South Broad Street P. O. Box 813 Trenton, NJ Re: Rule Comments Dear Mr. Thompson: Below are the Township of West Windsor comments on the proposed COAH Rules. 5: ( e), ( a) 3, and ( a)( 2). Comment: It is imperative that the set aside remain at 20%, the set aside percentage that COAH has always used and that the Supreme Court in the Mt. Laurel II decision endorses. Your gift to the builders will require that twice as many market units be built than would otherwise be constructed, with concomitant pressures on municipal and educational services and infrastructure. At the same time, a 10% set aside may discourage many municipalities from even participating in the COAH process given this draconian requirement. Many may think they could not do worse with a builder' s remedy suit. 5: ( a). Comment: The list of compliance techniques is too narrow. Supportive shared living houses and permanent supportive housing, which are in the current rules, should be reinstated. Community residences for the developmentally disabled, permitted by 5: ( a) 3, 271 CI. ARKSVILLE ROAD P. U. Box 38 WEST WINDSOR, New JERSEY ( 609) FAX ( 609) WEBSIlE: WW WAN, ES1WINDSORNJ. ORC E- MAIL: WWT4WESTWINDSORTWp. COM

2 does not include many worthwhile housing providers for persons with special needs. In fact, the term " individuals with special needs" is carried over from the current rules, but it is not used elsewhere in the new rules and has no functional significance. It needs to be made clear that provision of housing for low- and moderate-income households or persons with special needs is creditable for COAH purposes. It is not even completely clear that such worthwhile ventures as Project Freedom would be eligible for COAH credit. While such facilities would be considered community residences for the developmentally disabled, the statute to which 5: ( a) 3 refers, N.J.S.A. 30: 11B- 2, limits such housing to 16 persons. If facilities that at least in part provide housing for persons with developmental disabilities are permissible under 5: ( a), that should be made clear. West Windsor is particularly interested in this, as it has worked for a number of years with Project Freedom to bring one of its developments to the Township, which has identified a site for it and adopted a land use ordinance that should lead to its acquisition. In addition, the statute COAH references does not have any age limit, but 5: ( a) 3 provides that occupancy shall not be restricted to youth under 18. That age limitation should be eliminated, as in some cases it may be appropriate to serve an under 18 population. 5: ( d) li and iv. Comment: Sometimes payments in lieu can be valuable tools in achieving affordable housing goals and should not be limited in the fashion that 5: ( d) li limits them. In addition, the requirement of a showing that it is not economically feasible to construct housing on the site if affordable housing is included is problematic at best, as this kind of analysis is far from an established science and would always be subject to challenge. 2

3 With respect to 5: (d) liv, it would be far preferable to have set numbers established by COAH. The reason such numbers are in the present rules is that there was previously such a wide range of in lieu payment fees among the municipalities of the state. West Windsor understands that within a housing region there can be very different market conditions, and it may be necessary to break down housing regions into sub regions with established in lieu payment numbers. Requiring each municipality to calculate its own numbers is an onerous and costly task that will result in the very range of numbers that COAH was trying to prevent and that would also be subject to challenge. The rules should strive for certainty, and this approach yields uncertainty. 5: ( b). Comment: The economic feasibility requirement must be eliminated. It is impracticable, as there are very few people in the state with the expertise to do such studies, and they could not never prepare studies for the number of sites that will be submitted to COAH during the six month window the municipalities have. In addition, the studies would be very costly and represent a strain on municipal resources. Lastly, they are unnecessary. The best way to know whether it is economically feasible to build developments with the required set aside is to see whether developers do so or, by an appropriate document, agree to do so. That is much better than the theoretical analysis a feasibility study represents, which for a given site could yield an array of results depending upon the person doing it. If sites are not built out or approvals for them are not secured, COAH can eliminate the sites from the approved fair share plan. 3

4 5: ( a) 1 and 2. Comment: While in a perfect world West Windsor would strongly prefer that affordability controls are not extinguished upon foreclosure, as is the case under the current rules, it understands that the current rule requirement has made it very difficult for affordable households to secure mortgages. It therefore favors the reversion to the idea that foreclosures extinguish the affordability controls. The new rule however, needs several adjustments. 5: ( a) 2 provides that the surplus funds from a sheriff's sale be transferred from the sheriff to the owner of the affordable unit, who then is " personally obligated" to transfer them to the municipality' s administrative officer. Generally, surplus funds are the net funds from a sheriff' s sale after all liens have been paid off and the sheriff takes his or her commission. The proposed rule however, appears to provide that only the purchase money mortgage needs to be paid off. This should be made clearer. In addition, it is essential that the surplus funds be transferred from the sheriff to the municipality rather than to the persons who had owned the affordable unit. If the funds are, in fact, transferred to the owners, there is little chance that the municipality will get them. Lastly, while West Windsor likes the idea that it will receive all of the surplus funds, it believes that it is inequitable for the unit owners not to receive their equity in the unit, i. e., the difference between their indebtedness and the maximum resale price. It would be appropriate for the sheriff' s commission to be taken out of that and for the municipality to receive all amounts over the maximum resale price. Comment 5: Under UHAC, base rent increases are now based upon increases in the CPI rather than median income. Particularly in times like this, where the CPI goes up, but median income does not, as has happened in the last year, affordable households wind up paying more 4

5 rent without having the additional resources to pay the increase. The mechanism for calculating permissible increases in the base rent should revert to that which was used previously, the increase in median income. Comment: Two provisions that have been dropped from the new rules should be reinstated. 1. There is no explicit provision providing for credit for an extension of controls. Such extensions are the equivalent of new construction, as they represent a given number of units that are available for affordable households that would not otherwise have been. West Windsor has had ordinances in place since the 1980s authorizing extensions, and virtually all of its agreements with developers of rental housing so provide. The Township has already extended the controls for a large development and for a number of single- family residences. There should be a provision that explicitly gives credit for such extensions. 2. Rental bonus credits serve a useful function, as they encourage municipalities to provide the most desirable form of affordable housing, family rental housing, which is the form of development of much of the housing built in West Windsor since the 1990s. Particularly with the rental requirement eliminated, it is advisable going forward to take steps to ensure that rental family housing will be provided. The rental bonus credit should be reinstated to do so. Lastly, I note that certain numbers for West Windsor in the technical appendices are incorrect. A 951 First and Second Round prior obligation number is used, while a judgment of compliance and repose provides for 929. In addition, extrapolation from Technical Appendix E 5

6 data shows that the amount of vacant developable land COAH used for West Windsor is based upon data that is over ten years old. There has been both development and land preservation since then. Sincerely, Shing-Fu Hsueh, Mayor West Windsor Township cc: Township Council Affordable Housing Committee Ms. Marlena Schmid Ms. M. Pat Ward Mr. Samuel J. Surtees Gerald J. Muller, Esq. Michael W. Herbert, Esq. Thompson ltr COAH Rule Comments WW 6

AGREEMENT ON CONSOLIDATION AND FAIR SHARE

AGREEMENT ON CONSOLIDATION AND FAIR SHARE This Agreement on Consolidation and Fair Share is made April ^ between, and among, 1996, by, THE NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, the agency of the State