Another party has filed a challenge to the plan West Windsor has filed to fulfill its third round Council on Affordable Housing obligations.
The challenge, filed with COAH by the Fair Share Housing Center, of Cherry Hill, alleges that the township “has continued its long history of failure to comply with the State Constitution’s prohibitions against exclusionary zoning.” The organization describes itself as a non-profit group working to ensure that low- and moderate-income people in New Jersey have more choices about where to live
The challenge comes less than a month after a filing by InterCap Holdings. In that challenge, InterCap objects to the township’s housing element and fair share plan, which it submitted in December to comply with the new COAH regulations. At the heart of the objection, is the contention that West Windsor has understated its affordable housing obligations and that additional affordable housing should be provided for within the plan and West Windsor.
Under COAH’s third round regulations, West Windsor’s obligation through 2018 will require it to provide a total of 1,”783 affordable units — consisting of 899 units from prior round obligations, 861 new units from the projected growth share obligation, and 23 rehabilitation units.
According to papers filed on March 16, the organization lists four reasons for its opposition. The first is that the organization claims that the township “plans to claim bonuses of 44 percent of its obligation, even though as it notes COAH only allows bonuses for 25 percent of a municipality’s Fair Share obligation.” According to the document, the township urges COAH to accept the credits based on “a convoluted argument found elsewhere in the plan claiming that COAH should allow the 25 percent based on the municipality’s full projected growth share, even in the municipality has, in this case, claimed hundreds of units in exclusions that reduces its projected growth share significantly.”
The second reason the group states is that it believes West Windsor inappropriately claims exclusions based on third round sites. The township reduces its obligation from 861 to 491 units through taking exclusions based on unbuilt prior round sites. However, the group alleges, several of the sites — Estates at Princeton Junction, Meadow Lane Apartments, Bear Creek, Akselrad/West Windsor Gardens, and the DiMeglio site – are being moved to the Third Round for credit. “As such, these units effectively are getting two credits towards the third round,” the document states. “Because these units are not required to meet West Windsor’s prior round obligation, but rather their third round obligation, the township should not be able to exclude them and should add additional compliance mechanisms to its plan to meet the 180 credits improperly excluded.”
The third complaint alleges that the township inappropriately claims exclusions based on sites that it has delayed through litigation. The township has claimed the right to reduce its fair share obligation by an additional 123 units for the Estates at Princeton Junction. “The only reason these units are being built in the third round period is because of the decade of litigation based n the township’s illegal refusal to approve this development,” the challenge states.
The final complaint alleges that the township has not shown how it will meet the “very-low-income requirements,” especially the “family very-low-income requirements.” The document states that the township’s plan does not include a specific number of very-low-income units, although it notes that West Windsor is trying to find documentation to show that a certain number of its units are very-low-income. None of these units are family units, it alleges.
Planning Board attorney Gerald Muller as well as the mayor and Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner could not be reached for comment by deadline.
