By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
Members of Princeton Borough Council on Tuesday asked the executive director of the Council on Affordable Housing point blank why the borough should comply with the new regulations — and some didn’t buy her answer.
Citing concerns about a history of rule changes, the difficulty of creating affordable units for local residents, the potential burden on taxpayers and the unique challenges posed by the growth-share exemption of Princeton University, some council members raised doubts about whether the borough should even submit a plan under the third-round of the program.
COAH Executive Director Lucy Voorhoeve, who attended the borough meeting Tuesday to give an overview of the proposed regulations, responded by providing three reasons why the borough should participate in what she admitted is a “voluntary process.”
Two of the reasons, according to Ms. Voorhoeve, are the responsibility to provide affordable housing options for residents and the public goodwill that would result from fulfilling that need.
”You’re doing the right thing by participating in the COAH process and meeting affordable housing needs for the community and for the region,” she said.
The third reason, Ms. Voorhoeve said, is to protect against of the threat of builders remedy lawsuits — those filed by developers claiming municipalities don’t have the plan in place to allow the construction of affordable units.
Assistant Borough Attorney Karen Cayci later confirmed such lawsuits as the “biggest risk” of not submitting a plan, which is required between four and seven months after the effective date.
Borough Zoning Officer Derek Bridger, Princeton’s municipal liaison for affordable housing, also noted the potential loss of fees acquired under COAH, which currently total approximately $500,000, after the addition of $134,000 in developers fees that were collected by the borough last year.
But Councilman Roger Martindell said he’s not concerned about the possibility of builder lawsuits.
”I’m not sure if we even risk anything. I’m not sure the builders are going to come in and attack us. But if they do, OK, let them build the house,” he said, noting his belief that the borough could default and simply let the project proceed under such lawsuits. “What do we have to fear?”
Though she admitted the borough “may have nothing to fear,” Ms. Voorhoeve said that some municipalities that thought the same have later faced lawsuits.
Mr. Martindell also rejected the other reasons given by Ms. Voorhoeve, noting his belief that borough has been — and is — committed to providing affordable housing, regardless of the COAH regulations.
Primarily, the revised rules, scheduled to be adopted this summer, declare a new state affordable housing need of 115,000 units, up from 52,000 units. The new regulations continue to employ a growth-share approach, with affordable housing needs measured as a percentage of residential and non-residential growth from 2004 to 2018. Among the major changes is a shift in ratios, including a mandate for one affordable unit for every five residential units, and one affordable unit for every 16 jobs — a change from previous ratios of one in nine units and one unit for every 25 jobs.
For Princeton Borough, the proposed regulations will translate to a requirement of 78 units by 2018, according to Mr. Bridger, the borough zoning officer. Though he said estimates put the town only “nine short” of that obligation, he said the borough will have far more difficulty achieving the 67 required rehabilitation units.
”We’re never going to get that,” he said.
But Councilman Andrew Koontz told Ms. Voorhoeve he is most concerned about the history of uncertainty surrounding new rounds of COAH regulations.
”It’s not clear to me that cooperating with COAH and participating in the program are doing the things that you’re suggesting they’re doing — first, cost effectively, meeting our affordable housing obligation. Because your rules seem to be always on shifting sands,” he said. “Are these rules — your new proposals — are they going to stand up?”
While acknowledging the reason for concern, Ms. Voorhoeve said creating regulations that will stand up against appeals “is one of the most — if not the most — important issue to us moving forward with this project.”
To that end, COAH is scheduled to have the regulations in the state register by June 2, and has been working with the state Attorney General’s office “to make sure what we have proposed is constitutional,” she said.
Still, both Mr. Koontz and Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi said changes in the rules have been a drain on borough resources, since funds were spent drafting plans to comply with the regulations, rather than providing housing.
”It almost defeats our purpose,” Mr. Bruschi said. “If we drive up the cost of housing, it costs us then more to buy a house in which to make it affordable. It’s really hard to justify to the taxpayers.”
Ms. Voorhoeve countered by arguing that the borough has “tremendous resources in terms of partnerships” with the University Medical Center at Princeton and Princeton University. But council members interrupted, citing the pending loss of jobs caused by the hospital move and the fact that the university will be exempted from the growth share requirement.
Councilwoman Wendy Benchley said it’s “illogical and absurd that they would be exempt,” and Councilwoman Barbara Trelstad said “it just doesn’t make any sense.”
But university Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee said Thursday that the exemption “means that the community doesn’t have that obligation, so it reduces the amount of affordable housing that the community needs to provide.”
He also said that the kinds of construction projects built by the university — such as laboratories — don’t result in many jobs. Noting that the university will continue its Leigh Avenue affordable housing project regardless of the new rules, Mr. Durkee said the university is “certainly prepared to continue to contribute” to affordable housing moving forward.
He added, “I think it is unclear at this point how that will happen. Everyone is waiting to see what happens now with the COAH regulations.”
Ms. Voorhoeve said Tuesday that a more precise picture of the university’s exemption will be available by the time the rules are adopted.
Nevertheless, the council directed Ms. Cayci to write a letter opposing the exemption before the comments period deadline March 22.
Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman said the council will begin to discuss whether the borough will opt out of COAH in May.
Having earlier congratulated the borough on its work to provide affordable housing over the years, Ms. Voorhoeve said that if the borough decides not to comply with the new COAH regulations, officials should still provide affordable housing.
”I don’t see us as a community stopping that,” Mayor Trotman said. “But it is getting more and more difficult to do that under the formula we are seeing from COAH.”
