Bancroft: Q&A on Affordable Housing
In the June 21, 2024 issue of Haddonfield Today, we published answers to a baker’s dozen of questions we posed to Woodmont Properties, the designated redeveloper for 8.2 acres of land at Kings Hwy E and Hopkins Lane, known as Bancroft.
Since Affordable Housing is a complex matter and there is a widespread lack of understanding, we asked McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, the Borough’s redevelopment counsel, to answer the following questions.
Q1. Affordable Housing 101
What is the “Mount Laurel Decision,” and what obligations does it place on municipalities in New Jersey with respect to the provision of affordable housing?
ANSWER: The Mount Laurel Decision refers to a series of NJ Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s and 1980s through the decades up to the current time. Generally, the Mt. Laurel case law provides that all towns in the State must address their fair share affordable housing obligations in order for the Courts to find a town’s overall zoning to be valid. Over time, the NJ Supreme Court has generally upheld the Fair Housing Act, the 1986 legislative answer to the Mt. Laurel cases. The NJ Supreme Court’s 2015 Mt. Laurel decision dramatically changed the way towns addressed their “fair share” affordable housing obligations. Towns no longer needed to seek approval from the Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”). Instead, most towns (including Haddonfield) voluntarily filed Declaratory Judgment actions with the Superior Court to protect their zoning from a Builder’s Remedy lawsuit, as discussed below.
Q2. Haddonfield’s Obligation
How many affordable housing units is Haddonfield obligated to provide, and by what date, under the most recent plan approved by the Council on Affordable Housing?
ANSWER: Haddonfield’s Third Round Fair Share obligation is as follows:
• Rehabilitation Share: 11 units
• Prior Round 1987-1999 Obligation: 192 units
• Third Round 1999-2025 Gap and Prospective Obligation: 320 units
The Superior Court adjusted the 512-unit cumulative Prior Round/Third Round obligation to an 83-unit Realistic Development Potential (RDP) and a 429-unit unmet need through a vacant-land adjustment. Again, the Superior Court – not COAH – approved the Borough’s 2019 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (“HEFSP”) with specific compliance measures to address the 83-unit RDP and, among several measures, overlay inclusionary zoning to provide possible future opportunities to address unmet need.
Q3. Current Status
How many occupied affordable housing units are there in Haddonfield currently, and where are they located? How many units are actively under construction or renovation, and where are they located?
ANSWER: There are 48 senior affordable units at Tarditi Commons (on Lincoln Avenue), and four units of affordable housing located in the Kings Court condominiums. Twenty units of affordable housing are under construction on Snowden Avenue. Six properties were purchased by the Borough of Haddonfield to provide eight total affordable units. The locations are: locations are:
• Haddonfield Commons 1 unit
• Fowler Avenue 1 unit
• Lake Street 1 unit
• Stiles Avenue 3 units
• Tanner Street 2 units
These eight units are currently being renovated and it is anticipated that they will be fully occupied by year-end.
Q4. Current Status
What triggers the requirement to provide affordable housing units?
ANSWER: As a court-approved vacant-land adjustment town, the Borough must require 20% affordable units for all development that has five or more total residential units. In addition, there are nine specific overlay areas that require a 20% affordable housing set-aside of the total number of residential units. These nine areas are located within the downtown districts.
Q5. Snowden Avenue Project
What entity owns the Snowden Avenue project? Where did the money come from to build it?
ANSWER: The developer for the Snowden Avenue project is Community Investment Strategies. The project is owned by E&B Housing LLC. The majority of the funding for the project came from the Municipal Settlement Fund, a part of the Department of Community Affairs’ Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and in part from the Borough of Haddonfield’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Q6. Scattered Housing
What entity owns the single residences? Where did the money come from to purchase and renovate them?
ANSWER: The single residences are owned by Haddonfield Housing Agency, an affordable housing nonprofit that the Commissioners created. The start-up funds for the renovations came from the Borough’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Q7. Immediate Future
How many additional affordable housing units does the Borough hope to approve or acquire by the end of 2025?
ANSWER: The Borough’s plan includes a minimum of ten family affordable rental units on the property formerly owned by Bancroft by June 2025. The Woodmont Properties proposal includes an additional eight units, which the Commissioners anticipate as satisfying prospective obligation(s) and/or accounting for unmet need, which will be revisited shortly as a result of recently passed legislation.
Q8. Borough’s Obligations at Bancroft
If the contract between the Borough and Woodmont Properties (to construct and manage 120 rental units on the Bancroft site, including 18 affordable housing units) were rescinded or somehow become null and void and the Bancroft site were to became dedicated open space, what implications would that have for the Borough’s obligations under the 2020 court-approved agreement between the Borough and Fair Share Housing Center?
ANSWER: The Borough needs to include ten units of affordable housing on the site or obtain permission and a time extension from Fair Share Housing Center and the Court in order to acquire additional property(s) and construct these ten units. The Borough has established that it does not own any properties where construction of ten units would be feasible; nor does it have enough time or available funds in its Affordable Housing Trust Fund to purchase, renovate, and convert ten existing market-rate units within Haddonfield to affordable units, or to identify, acquire, and construct ten brand-new units elsewhere.
Q9. Rental Process
What is the rental application process for affordable units? How many applications were received for the most recent rental opportunity?
ANSWER: The Borough’s Housing Agency has subcontracted with Triad Inc. (an experienced Affordable Housing Administrative Agent) to fully address the State’s Uniform Housing Affordability Controls and Federal Housing Administration requirements in implementing the affordable housing rental application process. Over 2,500 applications have been received to date, illustrating the need for affordable housing and the demand for access to affordable housing within Haddonfield.
Q10. Housing Management
What entity sets the rents for affordable units?
ANSWER: In addition to addressing the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls, Triad Inc., will establish allowable rents, affirmatively market affordable units, income-qualify eligible tenant households, deed-restrict affordable units, etc.
Q11. Consequences of Failure to Comply
What is a “Builder’s Remedy,” lawsuit and what could give rise to such a lawsuit in relation to a municipality’s legal obligation to provide its “fair share” of affordable housing?
ANSWER: Typically, a builder-developer/builder-plaintiff sues a town to attempt to get a
Builder’s Remedy on a site they control that is NOT currently designated for inclusionary zoning (one affordable unit provided for every four market-rate units, or a 20% affordable housing set-aside). Such Builder’s Remedy lawsuit is typically for higher density, multi-family housing on a site not contemplated by the town for high-density residential housing. A builder-plaintiff suing a town would have to win in court on three main points, the first of which is whether the town has addressed its fair share affordable housing obligations. If the answer is no, only then can the Builder’s Remedy complaint proceed in Court to determine the suitability of the builder-plaintiff’s site, and whether they propose a substantial amount of affordable housing.
Q12. Action in Other Towns
Have any Builder’s Remedy lawsuits been litigated and settled in New Jersey in recent times? If so, please give one or two examples.
ANSWER: Yes. Towns continue to get sued for Builder’s Remedies – as recently as 2023 in Monmouth County, for example. Settlements are not just between a town and Fair Share Housing Center, but also may be between a town and a builder-plaintiff. In the Third Round, there have been approximately 375 voluntary settlements between Fair Share Housing Center and towns, possibly another 30 to 40 settlements between builder-plaintiffs and towns, with the balance of towns in the State having not participated in the voluntary Court process or in resolving Builder’s Remedy litigation.
Q13. A Potential Threat to Haddonfield
What actions, or lack of actions, by the Borough could trigger a Builder’s Remedy lawsuit in Haddonfield?
ANSWER: The Borough may be subject to a Builder’s Remedy lawsuit if it refuses to implement its court-approved Third Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan without first working out an amendment to its settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center, and achieving court approval of such amended settlement, and ultimately getting court approval of an amended Third Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. At this late stage of the Third Round, which ends in June 2025, Fair Share Housing Center and the Superior Court are unlikely to permit the Borough to transfer family affordable rental units off the Bancroft inclusionary housing site.