At the end of the Monday, February 26, Township Council meeting, members discussed A-4, a state Assembly bill that recently passed and will affect the town’s fiiture affordable housing plans.Specifically, A-4 is aplannedoverhaul of the current affordable housing system. It would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and give its regulatory power to staterun agencies. If towns follow the guidance of the state, they would be immune to the builder’s remedy lawsuits that have threatened towns - including Livingston - during previous affordable housing rounds. Governor Phil Murphy has previously stated his approval of the bill, which will now move to the Senate, under bill S50 Sea (1R).The specific requirements of the legislation, however, could result in Livingston having to build more housing, even after the Council has spent much of the past few years working to satisfy its current and future housing obligations, at times, to the dismay of residents living nearby proposed developments. The new law states that people would be permitted to challenge a town’s affordable housing plan if they believe it does not meet the requirements set forth in the legislation. Earlier this month, township attorney Jarrid Kantor called the proposed legislation “bad for the town.”During Monday’s meeting, Council member Shawn Klein, Deputy Mayor Ed Meinhardt, and Mayor A1 Anthony each discussed the bill, noting that Council members have participated in meetings with Livingston’s state Assembly and Senate representatives about the Council’s concerns with affordable housing and how it will be affected by the Assembly bill.“[The bill] may not be advantageous for this township,” Klein said. “We laid out strong cases for changes we would like to see made. We gave specifics in terms of options that could decrease the counts that the township would be responsible for in overall housing, and there were some receptive comments. We are hoping that some of these discussions will bear fruit and whatever comes down the pipe and gets signed by the governor ends up being a better bill because of the discussions we had.”Meinhardt said that he was in Trenton on an unrelated matter when Board meeting explaining the need for these variances, the Board also learned that Gangwal did not submit a form required for one proposed setback. Thus, the Board adjourned his hearing in order to give Gangwal time to resubmit the form.Due to Gangwal’s property being located so close to the corner, the aforementioned ...
