PASCACK VALLEY—Most of our towns now face lawsuits or challenges over reduced affordable housing numbers they submitted for the state’s Fourth Round of affordable housing by the state-mandated Jan. 31 deadline.
The New Jersey Builders Association (NJBA) and Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC) are separately challenging scores of towns statewide—including most in Pascack Valley—that reduced their affordable housing obligations in required filings. Objectors had until Feb. 28 to file.
A Mercer County Superior Court judge postponed a decision on motions to dismiss a Montvale-led-coalition’s challenge to the amended Fair Housing Act until early May. The decision, initially expected on Jan. 31, was rescheduled to May 9 as part of a case management order issued Jan. 27.
The lawsuit challenges the amended Fair Housing Act, with the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and the Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program named as defendants. The Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit advocating for low-income families, has been granted permission to intervene in the case.
The 27 “Local Leaders for Responsible Planning” towns listed on the litigation include Township of Washington, Norwood, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Franklin Lakes, Cedar Grove, East Hanover, Holmdel, Wall, Little Falls, Montvale, Allendale, Westwood, Hanover, Wyckoff, Wharton, Mendham, Oradell, Denville, Florham Park, Hillsdale, Mannington, Millburn, Montville, Old Tappan, Totowa, Closter and West Amwell.
On the same day, Judge Robert Lougy denied Montvale’s second attempt to “stay” the fourth round of affordable housing obligations. LLRP as plaintiffs argued that the amended law contains technical and legal flaws, but the court rejected the motion. This follows at least six legal defeats for Montvale’s claims and appeals in both Superior and Appellate courts over the past two months.
Fair Share Housing Center
FSHC, based in Cherry Hill, has challenged the numbers submitted by Montvale and Woodcliff Lake, arguing that both towns’ obligations should be higher.
FSHC spokesperson Jag Davies told us, “Every town has a choice as to whether to voluntarily come up with a plan or risk facing exclusionary zoning litigation. So far, 446 towns have filed voluntarily, nearly 100 more than in the previous system.”
Davies said some towns may further reduce their obligations. He explained that towns qualifying for vacant land adjustments can apply by June 30 but must also provide redevelopment plans. “Increasingly, redevelopment is the primary way development happens in New Jersey, and under the new law, it is presumed to cover at least 25% of the adjusted ‘unmet need’ for the Fourth Round,” Davies said.
On Feb. 28, FSHC said 85% of towns statewide had adopted “reasonable” affordable housing calculations and would not be challenged. The organization said the Mount Laurel doctrine, requiring towns to allow a “fair share” of affordable housing, remains the guiding principle.
[Editor’s note: For related reporting on each of our towns’ filings—principally the work of staff writer Michael Olohan—visit thepressgroup.net. We’ve gathered our Affordable Housing archive as a news sidebar.]
NJ Builders Association
The NJBA, based in Cranford, has reportedly filed lawsuits against most Pascack Valley towns. Efforts to confirm which towns were sued were not returned by press time. However, Hillsdale and Montvale have been independently verified as defendants.
At least five other towns—excluding Westwood, which accepted the state’s numbers (see “Borough says it’s out in front on state obligation,” March 1)—lowered their affordable housing obligations and may also face lawsuits. These disputes will be mediated under the Fair Housing Act’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, with settlements due by April 1.
Most Pascack Valley towns argue that the state DCA overestimated available land for affordable housing. They submitted reduced obligation numbers to the state by the Jan. 31 deadline.
Builders Association CEO Jeff Kolakowski said in a statement: “What these 159 towns have attempted is to reduce the established need for affordable housing in this state. This is an issue of statewide importance. It’s imperative that we continue to oppose this municipal playbook of obfuscation and delay.”
The NJBA’s lawsuit claims these reductions lowered statewide affordable housing calculations by nearly 14,000 homes. It states in part: “The approximate 159 municipalities seeking to reduce their DCA-calculated prospective need are doing so without accounting for those ‘lost’ units elsewhere within the region, which results in a loss of approximately 14,000 affordable units from the total statewide need of 80,798 units.”
The lawsuit adds: “Approximately 280 municipalities have chosen the right course by accepting DCA’s comprehensive and accurate work. The improperly squeaky wheel should not receive an unjustified benefit.”
Bergen County Filings
Every Bergen County town adopting a resolution to file its affordable housing obligation was required to upload the information to a state website. The list of towns that filed by the deadline is available at njcourts.gov/courts/civil/affordable-housing/bergen.
In Pascack Valley, all towns met the filing deadline. Only Westwood accepted the state’s calculation. Mayor Raymond Arroyo said he anticipates “refining” the state’s aspirational number of 19 rehabilitation units and 235 new construction units for Westwood.
Mayors React
The NJBA states it filed lawsuits against 159 towns that lowered their affordable housing obligations. However, Fair Share Housing Center is challenging only 68 municipalities.
FSHC reviewed all 440 municipal resolutions submitted by Feb. 28.
Of those:
- 282 towns accepted the state’s calculations.
- 158 towns lowered their obligations.
- 68 of the 158 towns are being challenged by FSHC.
- Both groups’ challenges will be heard by retired judges under the Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program. It remains unclear how disputes will be settled before the April 1 deadline.
Hillsdale & Montvale Lawsuits
According to their mayors, Montvale and Hillsdale are being sued by the NJBA. Hillsdale Mayor Michael Sheinfield criticized the lawsuits: “I think they [NJBA] are just throwing these at the wall to see what sticks.”
He said the NJBA lawsuits appear to use “boilerplate” language with the town name swapped in. He also noted the lawsuit against Hillsdale cites no specifics about the borough’s filing.
Hillsdale submitted a 90-page report along with its newly calculated obligation: 171 units (down from 220 in the DCA’s estimate). FSHC estimates 190 units, but Sheinfield says no justification was provided. “I’m thrilled with what we did—it was an honest attempt to deal with this chaos.”
Montvale Mayor Michael Ghassali, leading the 27-town lawsuit against the state’s Fourth Round, called the lawsuits “A misguided effort driven by self-interest and a lack of understanding of local planning realities.”
He argued that the state’s site allocations were impractical: “The proposal to build homes in unsuitable locations—beneath power lines, in reservoirs, in backyards, along highway medians, or on narrow sloped parcels next to railroad tracks—is, even for experts, an ill-advised strategy.”
The DCA calculated Montvale’s obligation at 348 units. Montvale’s estimate: 176 units. FSHC’s estimate: 276 units.
Ghassali said Montvale plans to challenge Fair Share’s number. “This action forces communities to divert additional taxpayer dollars to defend these plans in court, on top of substantial costs already incurred for planners, attorneys, and engineers.”
Westwood Mayor Ray Arroyo
On Facebook, Mayor Ray Arroyo said, “We are not among the 159 towns being sued by the NJ Builders Association or the Fair Share Housing Center (one in four NJ towns). However, we are still plaintiffs in the Montvale Litigation, which challenges the exclusion of 47 towns statewide from any prospective need calculation. The number of new affordable units they would otherwise be required to accommodate in their zoning plans, must be absorbed by the other towns in the state. We believe the rationale for that disparate treatment is no longer operable, justifiable, nor sustainable.”
He said, “We are working with our professional planners on creating a housing plan that meets our constitutional obligation to provide ‘a realistic opportunity’ for inclusionary housing to be built where it makes the most sense for our community. We pride ourselves in meeting and exceeding our prior (Round 3) ‘realistic development potential’ per the provisions of the Fair Housing Act, in accordance with the Mount Laurel Doctrine.”