Milltown secured a 60-day extension of the courtordered deadline to approve a controversial affordable housing plan that will affect the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.
Mayor Gloria Bradford announced the news to a standing room-only crowd during Monday’s Borough Council meeting, and asked the council to vote down the proposed changes for the Ford Avenue site after giving the public a chance to voice concerns and pose questions.
Litigation filed by Lawrence Berger, owner of the Ford Avenue site, alleges that the town has failed to fulfill its affordable housing obligations as laid out by the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). State Superior Court Judge James Hurley, along with a special master well versed on affordable housing issues, allowed borough officials to draft a plan that would fulfill COAH requirements as well as prevent Berger’s own proposal from being implemented.
Presented as a builder’s remedy, Berger’s plan would bring 550 non-age-restricted residential units to the site.
The borough’s amended redevelopment plan, voted down Monday, would have maintained the 276 housing units in the town’s original plan, but change them from being all age-restricted to include 114 senior townhouses and 112 “age-targeted” condominiums. The age-targeted units would be geared toward seniors because of their layout and number of bedrooms, but would be open to buyers of any age, according to John Hoffman, special counsel to the borough.
Of the non-age-restricted, or age-targeted, units, 40 would be one-bedroom units, and the remaining 72 would be two bedrooms, Milltown Redevelopment Agency Chairman Anthony Zarillo said.
As originally slated, the remaining 50 units would be rentals, but instead of being completely age restricted, 36 of them would be open to all populations. These units would be for low- to moderate-income tenants.
Hoffman, along with affordable housing expert Arthur Bernard, fielded questions about the issue Monday. They explained that the 60-day extension does not imply that the borough must have a complete plan by that time, but gives officials time to explore other options, including finding alternate locations for the affordable housing, or entering into a regional contribution agreement (RCA).
“I would not rule out any options until they’re all examined thoroughly,” Bradford later told Greater Media Newspapers.
RCAs allow for municipalities to sell off half their affordable housing obligation to another town. The cost to taxpayers for eliminating that portion of the obligation is something that must be weighed, however. According to Bernard, who once served as executive and deputy director for COAH, it is a minimum of $35,000 per unit.
Another issue facing those charged with formulating a new plan is that COAH requirements are slated to change, and by the time the 60-day stay has passed, additional affordable units will likely be required from the borough, Bernard said.
Impact on taxes disputed
Residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the Ford Avenue plans for a number of reasons. One recurring theme among them is a disbelief in claims that the project would bring only 37 new students to the school district.
“We didn’t pull those numbers out of the air,” Bernard said.
Charlie Jegou, longtime vocal opponent of the project and founder of Milltowners for a $ensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment, grilled the professionals.
“Do you think [the borough’s chosen redeveloper of the site] Mr. [Omar] Boraie would say, for any additional children this project would bring in, that he would pay to educate them?” Jegou asked.
When Bernard told him the residents would be responsible, as is normally the case, Jegou emphasized his point that if the projected number of schoolchildren is wrong, as many suspect, the taxpayers will take the brunt.
The projected number of school-age children brought by the proposed borough plan was gleaned by using studies from the Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, which supplies data on the county and state.
Board of Education member Alexis Hurley raised the issue of several wild cards that were not considered in the projections. First, she pointed out that seniors who leave their multi-bedroom homes to move into the new development would open up residences for families with schoolchildren. Also, the cost of students with special needs, which is significantly higher because they often go out of the district to be educated, was not taken into account.
Bernard said he thought the projections posed a worst-case scenario by figuring costs in terms of all high school students, who are more expensive to the taxpayers, when in reality, they assume the children would be mostly elementary-school-age.
“Your question leads one to think that we may have underestimated the educational costs,” Bernard told Hurley.
Hurley also pointed out that because the overall value of the town would increase as a result of the project, the district’s ability to get state aid would likely lessen.
Some grandparents take guardianship of their grandchildren, which could bring more children to the school district, said Dawn Milburn, a resident and educator.
Law prohibits anyone under 19 years of age from living in an age-restricted unit, Bernard said.
“According to the census, the average household size in Milltown is 2.66 [people],” Bernard said. “I have faith in those numbers. When they’re tested, they’re usually right.”
The issue of costs involved with expanded utilities services was also raised. Borough Engineer Michael McClelland said some upgrades to water and sewer were already slated to be made, but the developer would be required to pay what is determined to be a fair share of the costs. Regarding the need for an additional electrical substation to accommodate new residents, McClelland said the scope of work is still up in the air.
“Certainly the number of units will affect that,” McClelland said. “Expansion will be necessary.”
Resident Bob Belloff cited figures from the fiscal impact study conducted for the project, saying the necessary infrastructure improvements would amount to $6,050,000. He pointed out that the borough collects taxes on the Ford Avenue site now, amounting to about $227,000 last year. According to Belloff, the costs of the redevelopment far outweigh the benefits.
“You’re making more on that land without putting a shovel in the ground,” Belloff said.
Housing still required
Hoffman said the minimum of 50 affordable housing units have to go somewhere, and the Ford Avenue site was deemed the only one suitable in the borough thus far. Entering into an RCA would cost the town over $1 million, he said.
According to Hoffman, the fair share obligation on the part of the developer would absorb enough of the costs so as not to present a blow to taxpayers’ pockets, and help to lessen the impact of infrastructural improvements.
“If they don’t come in, we don’t have to improve the electric,” resident Eddie “Ace” Holton said.
Other concerns dealt with increased traffic, which already is a problem for the borough, and dropping property values because of affordable housing.
Carol Jegou, who like her husband is a staunch opponent of the project, said she submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to get copies of various studies on the project’s potential impacts, and received a letter saying none had been completed except the fiscal impact study (FIS). She questioned how a decision on an amended plan could be made without having all the facts.
Also, if the 50 rental units satisfied the affordable housing obligation, then why was the plan changed to include only 114 age-restricted units instead of the originally slated 276, Jegou asked.
“This makes no sense to me, other than it creates more profit for the developer, and more hardship for Milltown’s residents,” she said. “I don’t believe this plan is for the people of Milltown.”
Bernard said the change was necessary in order to fulfill the obligation while keeping Boraie on board with the plan.
“We had to try to convince him to build more affordable housing without building any more units on the site,” Bernard said. “We thought it was a very successful negotiation.”
Planning Board member Tom Hartnett expressed support for the project, saying the occupants of the proposed units will be taxpayers, and most will not add to the burden of school taxes, instead relieving it by paying into the district.
“It seems to me that the burden these 276 units will place on the taxpayers of Milltown will be less than that of my household or other residents,’ ” Hartnett said.
Also, he noted, any commercial development at the site would bring three or four times the amount of traffic brought by residences.
The issue of contamination at the Ford Avenue site was also raised by residents opposed to the project, with Charlie Jegou asking whether COAH would allow affordable housing on land that has been capped because of the presence of chemicals there.
Hoffman said the land would first have to be cleaned up to meet with standards for residential dwellings.
“I think the one benefit of this project is that the soil will be cleaned up by the DEP [state Department of Environmental Protection] and the EPA [federal Environmental Protection Agency],” Bradford said.
The Ford Avenue site was once home to the Michelin Tire Co.
“I’ve heard people say that the Ford Avenue site is a sight for sore eyes, but I have to say, it’s getting prettier every day,” Milburn said to an explosion of applause from other residents.