Livingston Council Approves Affordable Housing Plan

“I think we would all love to open the Star-Ledger tomorrow and read that COAH no longer exists,” said Livingston Mayor Charles “Buddy” August at Tuesday's Livingston Township Council meeting.

It may have been the only statement the council members and agitated members of the Livingston-Short Hills Coalition who attended the meeting could agree upon.

COAH stands for “Council on Affordable Housing,” a division of the state Department of Community Affairs that is responsible for establishing and monitoring municipal affordable housing obligations. “COAH” has come to stand not just for the council but for the requirements themselves. These requirements have been the source of four lawsuits for the Township of Livingston by property owners and developers that are suing in order to force it to meet its COAH requirements and allow the owners and developers to develop properties.

One such property is that owned by TMB Associates and located on roughly four acres of land at the intersection of South Orange Avenue and White Oak Ridge Road. Tutor Time daycare occupies the site now and is in the midst of a 15-year-lease. TMB has proposed developing a 73-foot-tall apartment building on the site with 100 rental units, 20 of which would be affordable. The property is separated from Short Hills by a creek that feeds into the Canoe Brook. Single-family homes abut the creek on the Short Hills side along Rippling Brook Drive.

Tuesday’s meeting was an exercise in frustration for council members and coalition members alike. Council members insisted that the action they were taking—endorsing the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan that had been approved by the Planning Board last week—did not directly impact the development in question. Coalition members felt council members were being deliberately evasive in answering, or not answering, their questions.

Township Planner Janice Talley, a paid consultant for the township since 2006, presented the plan to the council, explaining that it was an effort to address the Township’s COAH obligations in light of changes to the regulations in 2004 and the lawsuits of recent years.

“We looked at COAH’s projections and balanced them and reviewed them in light of what has and what hasn’t happened in the Township since 1997,” she said.

Talley said the plan covered the township’s cumulative COAH obligation over a 31-year period, from 1997 through 2018. Applying state standards, the plan allowed for 15 units per acre on the Tutor Time site or 70 units, not the 100 proposed by the developer.

The plan reviewed the four sites that have been involved in litigation and looked at some other options and sites in town to help meet the COAH obligations, including credits for existing assisted living housing.

Coalition members, however, protested that other viable sites had been overlooked, including the Squiretown property.  Talley responded, “Squiretown was not included in the plan because it has to be realistic. If it is going to be used for public purpose we can’t use it in the Plan.” Squiretown is under consideration for purchase by the township and development for a public works facility.

Repeatedly, members of the public, most of whom were Millburn-Short Hills residents, raised questions about the size and density of the proposed TMB development. Often, council members responded they couldn’t respond because of the active litigation and the fact that litigants were present in the hearing. Questions were continually directed to Talley, eliciting disgruntled chatter from audience members.

Council members continually argued that they were not necessarily pro-development, making the point that they did not agree with the level of density at the TMB site but they were in a defensive position because of the lawsuits.

Township Manager Michele Meade tried to address this issue: “Ms. Talley is applying state standards to the site. Does this mean that the township wants 70 units at the site? No. This is being forced on us.”

Meade said issues related to traffic, the environment and height will be dealt with after the judge has ruled and if and when the developer comes back to the township for a site plan approval.

The next step for the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, said Talley, is to submit the plan to the judge who has been assigned the cases and receive substantive certification through 2018. Council members Gary Schneiderman, Arlene Johnson, Buddy August, and Rufino “Rudy” Fernandez Jr. all endorsed the Plan. Councilman Steve Santola was absent.

Councilwoman Arlene Johnson offered an olive branch: “This is a complex matter. I give credit to those who spoke.” Johnson applauded the Coalition’s “energy and passion” and asked they “remember to give credit and not assume that we are not acting in their best interest.” Johnson added, “We don’t have many degrees of freedom here.”

Outside the meeting, coalition members were not persuaded by the words of the council members. “It’s hypocrisy,” said Stewart Cohen of Millburn-Short Hills. Cohen noted that the DuBrow property was proposed to be developed at a lower rate of density, 12 units per acre. He said he had heard this was because that developer had “negotiated a better deal."

"Two identical properties should have identical standards," he said.

In addition, coalition members felt the approval of the Housing Element and Fair Housing Plan had been rushed and done so without proper notice. Although the representative for the township attorney stated during the meeting the proper place for many audience members’ questions was during the Planning Board hearings on the issue, coalition members said only one hearing had been held and it took place last week when many were on vacation.

Said Rippling Brook Drive resident Rosalie Rubin, “The bias is obvious. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”