By Frank Mustac, Special Writer
With an early October deadline looming for the Planning Board to submit a draft proposal on affordable housing to the courts, concerns persist over just how many housing units for low- and moderate-income buyers will have to be built within the township over the next decade or so.
A proposal Hopewell Township submitted about seven years ago to make provisions for roughly 500 affordable units was rejected by the state’s Council on Affordable Housing.
Figures recently released by the Fair Share Housing Center nonprofit organization indicate Hopewell Township should provide 1,000 new affordable housing units.
The courts now have the responsibility to decide the number since new procedures were set in place after a state Supreme Court ruling in March was handed down affecting COAH and how local affordable housing plans are certified by the state.
Three Hopewell Township residents voiced their concerns about the process at the Township Committee’s meeting Monday.
One of them, Jim Burd, expressed his worry that neither the Township Committee or the Planning Board seem able to provide many details about the township’s affordable housing court case since it is a legal matter.
Since many of other municipalities in state are involved in similar litigation, Mr. Burd specifically asked how New Jersey citizens can find out detailed information prior to the court making a decision on the number of affordable housing units that will have to be built in their towns.
Hopewell Township attorney Steven Goodell explained some of what will take place in the township’s court case being heard before Mercer County Judge Mary C. Jacobson and what responsibilities fall on the Planning Board and Township Committee.
“It’s absolutely correct for the Planning Board to say that the Planning Board does not decide the number,” Mr. Goodell said. “If the system worked in a rational way, they would (already) know the number. So we’re in a unique situation where the Planning Board has to plan, but the Planning Board doesn’t know quite what the number is, and we won’t know until it’s litigated by the court.”
He added, “What we do know is there is intense pressure on the court to keep this case moving; all cases moving. I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s the Township Committee that determines the number. The court is going to determine the number. The court is going to determine the number through a litigation process. In other words, one party is coming in to say that the number ought to be X. We’re going to come in ‘the number ought to be Y.’ And we’re going to litigate that.”
By “party,” Mr. Goodell is referring to Hopewell Township as one of the parties in the case and at least one developer called CF Hopewell as another, which filed as an intervener party in the case.
Mr. Goodell did agree it is fair to say the Township Committee has a very active role in the hiring of attorneys and experts for the case and deciding what material to present to the court and what arguments are made before the judge.
“The court is going to hear from expert testimony from both sides, and we would anticipate that the interveners in our case are going to have their own experts,” Mr. Goodell said. “They’ll say the (affordable housing) number ought to be very high.”
He said, “We will bring in an expert saying why the our number ought to be a lot lower. That’s a process that’s going to come out through argument, expert testimony and, ultimately, if it’s not settled (between the parties), the judge will make a call and determine what that number ought to be.”
He added, “It doesn’t necessarily make sense that you have two partisans arguing about the number. It would make much more sense if there was an agreed upon rational way of determining what that number would be, but that’s not what we have.”
About to whom members of the public can voice their opinions and concerns, Mr. Goodell suggested concerned residents speak during public comment portions of future meetings of both the Township Committee and Planning Board and contact their representatives in the state Legislature.
“The Legislature, ultimately, has control over this process,” he said.
Also during the meeting, the majority of committee members did not consent to Committeeman Kevin Kuchinski’s request for the Planning Board to meet with the Township Committee along with the committee’s affordable housing attorney.
A request for legal guidance was made by the Planning Board, said Mr. Kuchinski, who also sits on the board.
The committee also passed a resolution to pay a company called Econsult Solutions in Philadelphia an estimated $26,000 for professional services involving the township’s affordable housing litigation.
The measure passed by a 4-1 vote with Committeewoman Vanessa Sandom casting the sole vote against.
In a separate resolution that passed by a 3-2 margin, a roughly equal amount of about $26,000 was reduced from the total maximum amount of money the township will pay in 2015 for legal fees to three other firms already involved the affordable housing case.
The maximum allotted for the firm Mason, Griffin & Pierson increased from $20,000 to $35,000 while the maximum for attorney Steven Goodell was decreased from $145,000 to $118,500. The maximum for Banisch and Associates also was reduced from $37,500 to $26,000.
Ms. Sandom and Mr. Kuchinski voted against the resolution while Mayor Harvey Lester, Deputy Mayor Todd Brant and Committeeman John Hart all voted in favor.
