COAH Announced Proposed Ammendments to Round 3 Rules on May 6

[wcody]

COAH announced changes to their Round 3 rules Tuesday. The rules are on their web site.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/june08rules.shtml#proposal

I have not gone through everything yet but one item I noticed is that the rules for warehouse jobs were reduced from 1.5 jobs per 1,000 sq ft to 1.0 jobs. That is an improvement but still far greater than reality based on what we have heard from those managing the warehouses in Cranbury. I also noticed that COAH did not back off the total number of housing units required to be built in the state.

Following is an article from the Star Ledger commenting on the COAH changes. It notes they did respond to some of the concerns of environmentalists.


State seeks hefty increase in housing for working class
Wednesday, May 07, 2008

BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff

The state Council on Affordable Housing yesterday introduced new rules designed to force a hefty increase in the amount of housing built for poor and working-class families.

Responding to criticisms of a draft proposal from housing advocates, builders and environmentalists, the COAH made changes that also could force a larger number of housing units to be built on less land.

At the end of the day, the state is still seeking the construction of 115,000 new or refurbished affordable units by 2018, about double the amount it tried to force several years ago in a plan overturned by a state appellate court.

The rules introduced yesterday could go into effect as early as October if approved at a scheduled September meeting. Housing advocates and builders have battled the state for years, arguing it was failing to meet quarter-century old constitutional obligations to force towns to accept housing for the poor.

Under the proposed rules, one unit of affordable housing -- sale or rental properties set aside for lower or middle-income families meeting varying income guidelines -- would be built for every five units of market-rate housing approved in any city, town or rural suburb. Commercial development generating 16 jobs also would produce an obligation to build one affordable unit.

A law pending in the Legislature would prohibit the long-standing practice allowing wealthier suburbs to pay cities to build the housing for them.

To get the housing built, towns would be permitted to hit builders with hefty fees. If towns collected the money but failed to build the housing, the state could seize the funds to begin construction.

The amendments introduced yesterday attempt to carve out a compromise between environmentalists -- who argue too much sensitive land was being thrown open to development -- and builders.

The rules would put more land off limits in place like the northern Highlands, a vital water supply for northern New Jersey, but by leaving the long-term housing goals intact would mean more units would be built in all kinds of towns. It estimates roughly 1 million acres, about 20 percent of the state's land mass, remains vacant and developable.

The rules set density guidelines at 22 housing units an acre in urban areas; eight units an acre in older, developed suburbs, six units an acre in growing suburbs and less in rural areas.

The density standards were welcomed by affordable housing activists and developers but opposed by environmentalists.

"We like density in general, as long as it is in the right spot. It provides more affordable housing on less land," said Kevin Walsh, director of the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center.

But Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey, accused COAH of caving in to developers and dictating to towns how much housing gets built.

"COAH has become the hammer for the builders," he said.

State Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph V. Doria said, like any good compromise, both sides are unhappy with aspects of the new rules.




© 2008 The Star Ledger
© 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

[Cranbury Conservative]

When I checked the latest third round revised document listed on-line I was pleasantly surprised to see a large number of people listed from Cranbury as commenting on the new COAH third round obligations. I did not however see my name listed, and I did send in via e-mail my comments. As a result I decided to call the COAH offices to follow-up this morning. After speaking with the staff I found out they received over 5000 responses and over 160 of the responses were from Cranbury. By the way two (2) separate staff members rattled the Cranbury number of 160 responses immediately as if they had it memorized. So the good news is we have made an impact with them and they realize Cranbury is concerned.

After a further discussion with the staff at COAH they agreed to add my name and comments to the official version which will be submitted for publication in the NJ register. If you have concerns about your comments being received or read then give them a call at 609-292-3000.

[Guest]

I must have missed it - where did you see the listing of Cranbury Residents?

[Cranbury Conservative]

Follow the link below to the PDF. Page 3 of the PDF starts the list of people from around the state...

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/june08rules/597adoption.pdf

[Guest]

Great! I'm on the list.

Hey everyone - If your name is not on the list - call them - Get it on.

[Guest]

Um.... This might be a stupid question - But, who or what dept creates a report to figure out how the new third round COAH obligations will affect Cranbury. Also do they create a report what are possibilities if we opt-out?

[Cranbury Conservative]

COAH

New Jersey Deparment of Community Affairs

http://www.nj.gov/dca/coah/

[Guest]

Actually, I think you misunderstood - Who in our town of Cranbury figures out the implications with and without COAH? Who creates a report that would be given to our TC? Or is it our TC that figures it out?

[Cranbury Conservative]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong however I believe the TC has the final say.

They leverage outside consultants and input from Cranbury Housing Associates who are found at

http://www.cranburytownship.org/housing_associates_main.html

&

http://www.cranburyhousing.org/


Again please someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Guest]

Does Cranbury's CFO/treasure allowed to give any feedback or is she just allowed to tell the TC how much money is needed?

So, another words - It goes from the Cranbury Affordable Housing Associates directly to the TC. Which then makes a huge financial decision that affects all the taxpayers.

My concern is that none of our TC members have a financial background and ONLY have the benefit of a special interest group (Cranbury Affordable Housing). How can they possibly way the pros and cons? This is a huge financial undertaking that will affect other areas of our town's budget - school, police, library, and the list goes on.

[Cranbury Conservative]

I agree, however I do not profess to have all of the facts.

What I do know is COAH is not mandatory and the other option is the builders option which allows the builders to come in and build the required houses the state is mandating if we opt out of COAH. We are then stuck with the builders actions. Our best bet is to band together with the other municipalities to fight the COAH requirements. If I had to handicap this I could envision this being dragged out in the courts for a long time which will cost Cranbury $$$.

As stated earlier we then are even more in debt that is why it is so important that we don't spend money on things we don't need.

Yes these are difficult decisions, however I do not feel that public service requires everyone to be from the financial sector.

A representative with that background might be a good thing however for the TC.

Even though I do not agree with the actions of the TC the TC does currently have a good make up of different backgrounds which represent the community at large.

This is a good discussion and should be given more thought going forward.

[Guest]

We all agree that COAH is seriously flawed. There will be lawsuits (whether we go it alone or band together with another town) and money will be spent anyway you cut it. Let's face it - COAH changed from a "FAIR SHARE" to a "Smart Growth" mentality which immediately penalizes towns like us. Towns already developed are pretty much taken out of the equation.

Now, It's just a matter of where the money comes from, how it's spent and how to control our growth.

Yes, the TC has a great diverse mix of experience and talent - BUT, because of all the recent financial ideas and decisions, it is clear they need the benefit of people with a financial background.

Just because you pay for advise, doesn't mean it's better than advice that comes FREE from our local residents with experience in financial and investment matters.

What is worrisome, is that every time I ask what does it mean if we opt-out of COAH. I get the answer that we would not be protected by the "Builders Remedy" and it would be devastatingly costly (shh ... Like it's scary to talk about - Oh... look what happened to West Windsor). Not good enough - This is a terrible answer which I would never accept personally or professionally. To me this is something that need to be seriously thought about and addressed.

I can get answers about the dollars and cents for if we agree to COAH but not if we opt-out. For every question, I really want an answer for both each way. How can we or the TC possibly make an educated decision?

1.What's the difference if the town pays to COAH builds the homes or if by the builders remedy the Builder pays for it?

2. What township rules and regulations to control Builders Remedy?

3. How much land would and could be affected by Builders Remedy?

4. How many single family and low income homes could possibly be built on such locations?

5. How will our schools, police, fire, etc be affected by accepting COAH or the builders remedy.

6. Do we need to purchase more Open Space land to offset either one of these issues?

7. Can we possibly afford paying another town for our COAH obligations?

I know it comes down to - THE BUILDERS are in control. Either way, They win out if we stay in or opt-out. Now, It's just a matter of controlling our own destiny.

[Cranbury Conservative]

You bring up many great points and I agree. We should keep this discussion going. Hopefully some other locals with insight into these issues can respond and keep this dialog going?

[Guest]

I am not a COAH expert. I think the following item is impossible now.

"7. Can we possibly afford paying another town for our COAH obligations?"

Cranbury cannot pay other towns to take our COAH obligations.

[Guest]

Well, from where I sit this presents an interesting issue.

1) On the COAH front the ability to pay other towns for the obligation will cease under the proposed rules. However, some towns truly need the money or will suffer, so this may in fact be allowed in the final rules. It will require work.

2) Would it be cost effective to opt out and then preserve land in town? It would seem with no land available a builder could not sue to build. In addition, the cost may be cheaper in the long term as opposed to building COAH homes and the increase in services that brings.

[Guest1]

Anyone knows how many affordable units we will have?