SAYREVILLE – Borough officials in Sayreville are taking action to meet their municipality’s affordable housing regulations.
On May 22, the Borough Council introduced four ordinances that, if adopted, would amend the borough’s affordable housing ordinance, add a new section to the borough’s development fee ordinance, permit affordable accessory apartments in the office/services overlay zone and permit inclusionary multi-family dwelling within the borough’s planned residential district option.
A public hearing on the ordinances is scheduled for June 26. The council may adopt the ordinances on that date.
The ordinances contain the following changes:
- The affordable housing ordinance’s provisions regarding the borough’s very low income housing requirement, income distribution and bedroom distribution will apply to all affordable housing developments created using federal low income housing tax credit financing.
- Moderate-income households, low-income households and very low-income households are defined by how their total gross annual income compares to regional median household income by household size.
- Restricted ownership units constructed after August 9, 2016, will remain subject to the requirements of the affordable housing ordinance for at least 50 years, until Sayreville takes action to release the unit from the requirements.
- The control period for projects receiving nine percent of low income housing tax credits will be at least a 30 year compliance period and a 15 year extended use period.
- The rent of low- and moderate-income units may be increased annually, based on the permitted percentage increase in the Housing Consumer Price Index for the Northeast Urban Area.
- Very low income units will be counted as part of the low income housing obligation.
- In each affordable development, at least 50 percent of the restricted units within each bedroom distribution will be low-income or very low income units.
- Multifamily residential developments will provide an affordable set-aside of 15 percent of the residential units in the development, if the affordable units will be for rent, and 20 percent of the residential units in the development, if the affordable units will be for sale, if the following conditions are met: the development is not included as part of Sayreville’s third round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and is constructed at a density of at least six units per acre and at least twice the density permitted by the underlying zoning, if that zoning is residential, or that results from a rezoning or grant of a use variance to allow multifamily residential development on non-residentially zoned property, and that yields five or more new dwelling units over the number of dwelling units already permitted as of right.
- An accessory apartment will, for a period of at least 10 years from when the unit’s certificate of occupancy is issued, be rented only to a duly qualified (at the time of initial occupancy) very low, low or moderate income household based on a rent level calculated to be affordable.
- For 26 affordable units at the Camelot at Sayreville I apartment building, nine will be affordable to low income, 13 will be affordable to moderate income, and four will be affordable to very low income.
Larry Sachs, the borough’s special counsel for Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) matters, provided background on the ordinances when asked by the council.
According to Sachs, the borough council is required to come up with enabling ordinances to facilitate an affordable housing settlement with the court.
Sachs noted that COAH was disbanded and judges in each county were given the responsibility of administrating the affordable housing programs in the county’s municipalities.
The settlement was for 785 affordable units, according to Sachs. Sachs estimated that over 200 affordable units will have to be built.
After Sayreville and other Middlesex County municipalities filed declaratory actions to present to the court that they were COAH-certified, according to Sachs, a requirement based upon a report from fair share housing representatives stated that every municipality in Middlesex County and the rest of the state was deficient in affordable housing.
“All we’re dealing with now is trying to come up with ordinances to enable the affordable housing program to be implemented,” Sachs said.
Although the council’s vote to introduce the ordinances was unanimous, council members Victoria Kilpatrick, Ricci Melendez and Mary Novak stated that they would not vote to adopt the amendments to the affordable housing ordinance if changes were not made.
Kilpatrick advocated for having another individual analyze the council’s affordable housing plan instead of leaving the task to solely the borough’s Planning Board.
During the discussion on the ordinances, Council President Daniel Buchanan was critical of the Planning Board, whom he felt played a role in the ongoing effort to construct additional units to meet affordable housing regulations.
Supporting Buchanan’s criticisms, Kilpatrick made note of the Camelot apartments by Towne Lake.
According to borough engineer Jay Cornell, affordable housing was required at the apartment complex, but the Planning Board did not require its affordable housing component.
Cornell said that there was litigation between the board and the apartment complex’s developer and the board did not want to accept a proposed settlement that included affordable housing.
“This is absolutely ridiculous that we now have to build so many houses because the Planning Board didn’t do what they were supposed to do,” Buchanan said. “I understand our hands our tied because we’re in court, but we shouldn’t have gotten this far to begin with. Now we have to put [in] all these market-value units.”
“If we have this issue already in front of us, I don’t feel comfortable going back to that same board that clearly ignored even a developer coming forward [and] saying ‘We have a requirement to [affordable housing]’,” Kilpatrick said. “They opted to say, ‘No, we don’t want you to comply with this.'”
After the council voted on the ordinances, Buchanan made a motion to hire an additional planner for the borough at a rate not to exceed $10,000.
Buchanan, Kilpatrick, Melendez and Novak voted yes on the motion. Councilmen Steven Grillo, who questioned the feasibility of hiring another planner, and Pat Lembo voted no.
Resident Ken Olchaskey supported the hiring of another professional.
“I am not disparaging any of our professionals, but I think it’s a question of looking for people who do this kind of thing day in and day out, like we’re facing with COAH,” Olchaskey said. “This could be a big change in the Borough of Sayreville. A big change in needing more infrastructure [and] the school system. I know it’s not going to be built out in the next year or two. But the decisions [that] are going to be made right now through the court are going to affect us for a long time to come.”
Resident Jim Robinson, a former Planning Board chairman, voiced his objections of the current affordable housing plan and suggested alternatives to meet the regulations, such as veterans housing, assisted living, housing for individuals who age out of institutionalization and and housing for victims of domestic violence.
“I hope what is ultimately adopted is not in these ordinances,” Robinson said. “This plan [will have] an awful lot of market-rate homes to achieve our affordable housing.”
If the ordinances were adopted, Robinson asked for the council to adhere to uniform bulk standards.
