New Providence's COAH housing assessment reduced from 189 to 9

[wcody]

New Providence's COAH housing assessment reduced from 189 to 9

by Mike Neavill
Tuesday December 16, 2008, 1:54 PM

NEW PROVIDENCE -- Borough officials were stunned earlier this year when they learned the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) projected the need for an additional 189 affordable housing units over the next 10 years, Mayor John Thoms said.

The projected number has been reduced to a single digit, borough officials said last week.

In June, COAH released its so called "Third Round" rules, which require municipalities to provide one unit of affordable housing for every five new homes, plus one affordable unit for every 16 new jobs in town.

Using only the housing portion of that formula, COAH projected a growth of 945 dwellings in the borough over the next 10 years.

"How on earth are we going to be able to comply with this?" Mayor Thoms recalled wondering. He noted the borough is a mature, fully developed community with little vacant land. Between 2000 and 2006, population growth was relatively stable, according to a report issued by the Planning Board.

Equally puzzling was how the borough could fund the COAH projections. Statistics provided by the state showed that each community, on average, could expect a $160,000 local expense for each affordable unit. Multiplying that figure by the projected affordable units amounted to more than $30 million over the next 10 years. The mayor was quick to explain that was a worst-case scenario.

State law, the mayor said, authorizes municipalities to collect fees to be placed in trust to fund affordable housing. Developers are assessed 2.5% for commercial construction and 1.5% for residential to pay for affordable housing.

"A $10 million commercial project would provide $250,000 in fees, which wouldn't cover our obligations for two affordable units," Mayor Thoms said.

With the assistance of two consultants, Mayor Thoms and the Planning Board began pouring through volumes of COAH supplied data. Collectively, they examined the basis for the COAH assessment and embarked on a five-month task that would ultimately reap huge dividends.

Jeff Janota, a professional planner who serves as a consultant to the Planning Board, conducted an analysis of all vacant and potentially available land in the borough. "He looked at every lot in the borough using COAH's methodology," the mayor said.
Mr. Janota discovered the available land COAH described did not totally exist, the mayor said.

For example, COAH based part of its projections on the assumption that affordable housing could be built on the front lawn of the Alcatel-Lucent property, which is 300 feet deep and extends almost a half mile along Mountain Avenue. The property is privately held and zoned for research-laboratory.

Mr. Janota's findings substantially reduced the COAH projections from 189 units to 39 units, but there was more to come.
Working on a parallel path was housing consultant Vito Gallo, a Summit resident who has four decades of affordable housing experience including 35 years as the executive director of the Summit Housing Authority. He maintains a private practice and also serves as the administrative agent for the borough's current 59 affordable housing units.

Mr. Gallo began a review of New Providence's history of participation in affordable housing, which dates back to the late 1980s.

He said that previously the borough had identified nine sites which were zoned for affordable housing. Six of those nine zones have been actively developed, with developers receiving a density bonus through construction of affordable units. Just in the last two years developments at Spring Garden Apartments on Springfield Avenue, Patriots Village on Division Avenue and units under construction on Union Avenue have made significant contributions to the borough's affordable inventory.

The borough also received credits for group homes that provide a residence for people with special needs or disabilities.

In 1994, the borough joined with the Church Coalition of New Providence Affordable Housing and leased land at Elkwood Avenue and Academy Street to a non-profit developer to construct the age-restricted Barabash Manor, which provides additional affordable housing units.

The new COAH regulations also provide municipalities with credits for the rehabilitation of existing affordable units, Mr. Gallo said. He added the borough would use $225,000 of its existing trust fund to refurbish Barabash Manor.

In his research, Mr. Gallo found that the borough had exceeded its affordable housing obligation under the first two COAH rounds by 30 units that can be carried forward. Thus, the remaining obligation over the next 10 years will be reduced to a total of nine units.

Reducing the original forecast from 189 to nine was met with relief from the mayor and the Planning Board. The mayor was quick to compliment board members who had spent months wading through the COAH data.

"In the end, there just wasn't enough vacant land to support COAH's forecast," Mayor Thoms said.

[Guest]

I've attended a number of the COAH meetings. It surprised me that our paid consultant simply seemed to say this is the rule and this is what it means to Cranbury. I never understood why she never showed an analysis or research on how we could avoid the obligation. In this article it clearly should a return on the investment to a town with a proper paid consultant. I'd like to see our COAH consultant do this type of work and analysis on whether the COAH number and method made sense. We apparently did a warehouse survey, but no data was released. And it seems that was our best effort.

[Jersey Dad]

When presented with a problem, the average person will wait for someone else to provide a solution. Above average people will find a way to solve the problem. Extraordinary people will solve the problem, and then continue to find new ways to solve the problem, in the hopes of finding the best solution.

From an outsiders perspective, it looks as though we have taken an above average approach to an extraordinary problem. However, it is also possible that the public does not have all the necessary information to adequately pass judgement.

[Guest]

I 100% agree from a CHA, TC and Planning board perspective that is correct. However, we pay a consultant to focus on the ways to minimize our obligation. At the meetings, she simply says this is what the COAH rules state, this is where things are and this is Cranbury's obligation. It seems to me that she should be looking at whether the COAH methodology is correct, be able to cite specifics on what made the assumptions realistic and evaluate whether COAH's review of Cranbury is accurate. People have asked her what triggered Cranbury's number and she says it's based on CO's and warehouse, plus future projected building based on previous. My concern is that unlike the above referenced planners I never hear her cite what COAH sees as our future building and whether she has evaluated it to be true. I don't see how we can hold volunteers like the TC, PB and CHA responsible for doing this when they have full time jobs. That's why we pay this person.

[Jersey Dad]

Agreed. Assuming we are compensating our consultants appropriately for their expertise, we should expect their services to be extra-ordinary.

Several residents have been advocates for exploring creative solutions to our COAH obligation. Perhaps some of our comments helped to bring about the "discovery" of the opportunity to count existing NJ SERV housing toward our obligation. Until very recently, this opportunity had been completely missed by our COAH Consultants.

Is there something else we are missing? Has success in the past contributed to tunnel vision moving forward? Should our out-of-town consultants and "expert witnesses" focus on defending the plan to Cranbury residents, or should we be focused on building a better plan?

If you review the recent history, the characteristics of each development have become progressively more impactful to Cranbury, from senior housing to family condos, to family rentals. Now that the obligation is 2x-3x bigger, the plan is to build developments that are 2x-3x bigger. At what point do we stop and ask, "is this solution scalable, or do we need to find another way?"