ROXBURY, NJ — Roxbury’s fight over New Jersey’s affordable housing requirements may be moving toward a settlement instead of an immediate courtroom showdown.
Attorneys for the township and the Fair Share Housing Center, the housing advocacy organization suing Roxbury, have been meeting and are “working towards potentially resolving the matter via consent,” according to a letter filed recently with state Superior Court Judge Janine Allen.
With the township’s consent, the Fair Share Housing Center asked Allen to postpone a Sept. 24 hearing and related briefing schedule to give the two sides more time to continue their discussions. The adjournment was subsequently granted, and a motion hearing is now scheduled for Oct. 22 before Allen.
Stay connected to TAPinto
Roxbury
Get local news you can trust in your inbox
The court filings do not say the sides have reached an agreement, nor do they disclose what a possible resolution might entail. But postponing the hearing while discussions continue marks a shift from the more confrontational posture surrounding the lawsuit when it was filed this summer.
The Fair Share Housing Center sued Roxbury in July, asking the court to essentially put the brakes on most new development in the township until Roxbury comes up with an affordable housing plan that satisfies state requirements.
Among other things, the organization wants the court to impose what are known as “scarce resource restraints.” Those could prevent Roxbury from approving many development applications, conveying public land or committing additional sewer and water capacity unless the projects help satisfy the township’s affordable housing requirements.
The dispute stems from New Jersey’s Fourth-Round affordable housing process.
The state initially calculated Roxbury’s prospective need at 989 affordable units, along with a present need of 59 units. Following court-approved mediation involving the township and housing advocates, Roxbury’s prospective requirement was reduced to 499 units.
Township officials nevertheless contend even that reduced figure is unrealistic for Roxbury, where large portions of the municipality are affected by Highlands regulations, environmental restrictions and limitations involving water and sewer service.
They also stress that a requirement for roughly 500 affordable units does not mean only 500 homes would be built. Because developers typically rely on market-rate units to help subsidize affordable units, township officials have estimated that accommodating about 500 affordable homes through conventional inclusionary developments could require construction of approximately 2,500 total housing units.
Using standard population estimates, officials have said that amount of housing could bring roughly 6,000 additional residents to a township whose population is about 23,500 — an increase of roughly 26 percent.
The Fair Share Housing Center sees the issue differently.
Its lawsuit contends the housing plan submitted by Roxbury accounted for only 12 affordable homes toward the 499-unit prospective requirement and offered no mechanism for addressing most of the remainder. It also contends the township failed to provide adequate compliance documentation involving hundreds of units from previous affordable housing rounds.
The organization has characterized Roxbury as an outlier among New Jersey municipalities, arguing that most towns have continued through the state’s new affordable housing process.
“Nearly every municipality in New Jersey has chosen to follow the law and plan for its fair share of affordable homes,” said FSHC Director of Exclusionary Zoning Litigation. "Roxbury is one of the very few exceptions. While more than 400 New Jersey municipalities have adopted plans to comply with the state's affordable housing law, Roxbury chose to abandon the process. Our request simply asks the court to ensure the town can't keep approving other development while refusing to meet its legal obligations to allow for affordable homes."
Roxbury initially participated in the state’s Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program but later withdrew. The move resulted in the township losing protection from so-called builder’s remedy lawsuits, through which developers can ask courts to approve higher-density housing projects that otherwise would not conform with local zoning.
The Fair Share Housing Center’s July lawsuit went further, asking the court to restrict Roxbury’s ability to allocate what the organization contends are scarce remaining development resources.
In making that argument, the group pointed to Roxbury’s own assertions concerning limited sewer capacity, water infrastructure and developable land — issues township officials have repeatedly cited in contending the state’s housing requirements do not realistically fit the municipality.
That has put those limitations at the center of both sides’ arguments.
Roxbury officials contend state housing requirements could force development that the township’s infrastructure and environmental constraints cannot reasonably accommodate. The Fair Share Housing Center argues that, if land and utility capacity are as limited as Roxbury maintains, the remaining capacity should be protected for development that helps meet affordable housing requirements.