special master preliminary report-june 2012

7/28/2019 Special Master Preliminary Report-June 2012

1/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE, P.P., P.A.COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

9 MAIN STREETFLEMINGTON, NEW JERSEY 08822

TELEPHONE(908) 782-5564TEL.EFAX (908) [email protected]

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTERPRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT

inLehigh Acquisi tion Corp. v. Township of Cranford. et al., Docket No.:UNN-L-0140-08, and Cranford Development Associates. LLC. et a/. v .Township of Cranford. et al., Docket No.: UNN-L-3759-08

Township of Cranford, Union County , New Jersey

Submit ted toThe Honorable Lisa Chrystal, JSC

June 18, 2012 .

License No. 33L100229400
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/76

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONPage1

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE 1CRANFORD'S FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION 3CRANFORD'S PAST AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES 5CRANFORD'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE PLAN 8Prior Round Obligation 8Rehabilitation ObligationThird Round ObligationThird Round ProposalRepose Issues

11121517

Additional Matters 19

CONCLUSION 20

APPENDICES following page 20

Prior Round Vacant Land Analysis Data, T&M AssociatesThird Round Vacant Land Analysis Data, T&M AssociatesFair Share Housing Center Letter of June 5, 2012

CREDENTIALS following Appendices


3/76

INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the extent to which Cranford Township's current Housing PlanElement and Fair Share Plan, originally adopted on May 2,2012, and readopted on May16,2012, addresses and satisfies the Township's known and anticipated fair share forlow and moderate income housing.

It is the conclusion of this report that Cranford's 2012 Housing Plan Element and FairShare Plan (lithe Plan" or lithe 2012 Pian") will address in full the Township's prior round(1986-1999) fair share obligation and its rehabilitation obligation calculated based onyear 2000 U.S. Census data, subject to the validity of the documentation that stillneeds to beprovided in support of a number of the projects and programscontained within the Plan.

The Township's capacity to accommodate new development to meet a third roundobligation is severely limited, due to the lack of vacant and underdeveloped landremaining in the Township, and it is recommended that the Court approve anadjustment to the third round obligation based upon an analysis of the Township'sRealistic Development Potential (RDP) for meeting a third round obligation. Thisadjustment will not eliminate any additional third round obligation the Township mayhave once new third round numbers have been assigned by COAH or a successoragency, and the Township will still need to address a yet to be quantified Unmet Needobligation for the third round.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

In January of 2008, Lehigh Acquisition Corp. (Lehigh) filed a Mount Laurel lawsuitagainst the Township of Cranford alleging that the Township had failed to comply withits constitutionally mandated affordable housing obligations.

1


4/76

The property proposed for a builder's remedy by Lehigh was a 5.05 acre former Class IIrailroad property located at 555 South Avenue East (Block 511, Lot 1). The Lehighproperty had already been declared an area in need of redevelopment by the Townshipand a redevelopment plan had been adopted for it in January of 2006 pursuant toN.J.S.A.40A:12A-7. The Township's adopted redevelopment plan had permitted 80age-restricted condominium units, of which 9 were to be affordable. Prior to Lehigh'sfiling of the lawsuit, there had been a period of negotiations between Lehigh and theTownship during which time Lehigh had presented proposals for a higher density ofdevelopment (and asked for removal of the age-restriction) but the density could not beagreed upon and the Township had not at the time consented to remove the age-restriction, so Lehigh sued, seeking the Court's approval for 186 units, with a 15% set-aside for affordable housing. In addition to the builder's remedy, Lehigh's complaintalso sought scarce resource restraints on land and sewer service capacity.

In November of 2008, while Cranford Township was still dealing with the Lehigh lawsuit,Cranford Development Associates (CDA) filed a second Mount Laurel lawsuit againstthe Township of Cranford.

COA is the owner of a 15.8 acre tract located at 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue inCranford (Block 291, Lot 15.01, and Block 292, Lot 2). These lots are zoned 0-1 andeach is developed with an office building and associated parking lot(s). This tract hadbeen the subject of a hotly contested request for rezoning sought by a prior contractpurchaser in 2007. The rezoning sought in 2007 would have permitted a 128 unit age-restricted multi-family inclusionary residential development on the tract. That proposalfailed to gain municipal support (due to strong neighborhood opposition relating.primarily, to drainage and flooding concerns) and was ultimately withdrawn. Theproperty owner sold the tract to COA in 2008, and COA made a number of unsuccessfulattempts to have the Township Committee consider its proposal, but ultimately filed the

2


5/76

lawsuit. CDA's lawsuit sought a 419 unit inclusionary residential project, with a 15percent set-aside for affordable housing.

The two lawsuits are captioned, respectively, Lehigh Acquisition Corp. v. Township ofCranford. et aI, Docket No.: UNN-L-0140-08, and Cranford Development Associates.LLC. et a/. v. Township of Cranford. et ai, Docket No.: UNN-L-3759-08.

Ultimately, the Township settled with Lehigh agreeing to a development of 163 units,including 24 low and moderate income housing units. A Consent Judgment approvingthe settlement was entered by the Court in January, 2011 following a Fairness Hearingheld in November, 2010.CDA's proposal was the subject of a lengthy trial, and CDA was ultimately awarded abuilder'S remedy permitting that site to be developed with 360 total units, of which 15percent, or 54, would be affordable to low and moderate income households. An Orderapproving the builder's remedy was entered by the Court on December 9, 2011. As partof that Order, the Honorable Lisa Chrystal, JSC, ordered Cranford to revise its HousingPlan Element and Fair Share Plan and adopt zoning regulations that would address itsfair share obligation.

CRANFORD'S FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION

According to the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), Cranford's fairshare obligation for the period between the end of 1986 and the end of 1999 is 148units. These 148 units represent an obligation for the construction of new affordablehousing units to meet regional low and moderate income housing obligations. TheTownship also has an obligation to provide for the rehabilitation of another 55 existinghousing units in Cranford that are already occupied by qualified low and moderateincome households, based on statistical data derived from the 2000 U.S. Census.

3


6/76

In 2008, COAH had also projected a third round "growth share obligation" for Cranfordof another 328 units, but the entire notion of using growth share as a means ofdetermining municipal low and moderate income housing obligations has beeninvalidated by the Appellate Court in 2010, so as of this writing, the growth shareprojection cannot be relied upon as a means of measuring Cranford's third roundobligation pursuant to the 1983 Mount Laurel II decision and the 1985 New Jersey FairHousing Act.

In light of the void that currently exists at the State level with respect to valid regulationsfor the determination and fulfillment of municipal third round affordable housingobligations, it is not possible to assign Cranford a definitive third round fair shareobligation. This does not mean that the Township does not have a third roundobligation, however; it means that the third round obligation has yet to be determined.

COAH never adopted revised third round Rules as it had been ordered to do by theAppellate Court in 2010, and it was subsequently abolished as a separate agency of theState of New Jersey under the Governor's Administrative Reorganization. TheAppellate Division ruled that the abolition of COAH was illegal and ordered itsreinstatement, and, earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected the Governor'srequest to stay the Appellate Division's decision. Nevertheless, COAH has yet toreconvene and resume its duties under the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Actinvests COAH with certain powers and responsibilities, including the determination ofmunicipal fair share allocations, that cannot be implemented unless COAH resumes itsformer role.

The Appellate Division's 2010 decision invalidating large portions of COAH's third roundRules has been appealed, and the Supreme Court has accepted certification, but it isnot known when oral argument will be heard or when the Supreme Court might rule.

4


7/76

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the assignment of third round affordable housingobligations, the focus of this report will be on Cranford's status with respect to its priorround affordable housing obligation as previously determined by COAH and therehabilitation share calculated by COAH based on the 2000 Census. Despite itsinvalidation of significant aspects of COAH's third round Rules, including thosepertaining to the calculation of the third round fair share obligation, the Appellate Courtspecifically upheld the portions of the Rules dealing with the prior round obligation andthe rehabilitation share.

The report will also look at Cranford's capacity to address a third round obligation basedon its available vacant and underdeveloped land and will evaluate the number ofpotential credits available to Cranford to satisfy its as yet undetermined third roundobligation.

CRANFORD'S PAST AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

The Township of Cranford had not previously obtained approval of a housing planelement and fair share plan from COAH or from a Court. In fact, it adopted its firstHousing Element and Fair Share Plan in December of 2008, after both lawsuits hadalready been filed.

The Township does have some affordable housing, however.

The Lincoln Apartments is an older (pre-1980s) affordable senior housing project towhich another 100 age-restricted units were added in the early 1990's. The entireproject is Township-owned and all of the units are affordable rental units. While not all100 of the newer units will be eligible for crediting in the prior round, due to a 25 percentcap on the use of age-restricted units to meet the fair share obligation, a substantialnumber (up to 47) will be eligible, and some of the remaining units can be used to fulfill

5


8/76


9/76

administered and by whom and whether or not the units have been and/or arebeing affirmatively marketed.

The Township has three group homes within its boundaries that provide housing for lowincome persons with special needs. The unit of crediting for such facilities is thebedroom. These three group homes contain a total of 12 bedrooms (at four bedroomseach). A review of the Supportive and Special Needs Housing Survey submittedfor one of these facilities (SERV Center of NJ) shows that SERV Center only has14 year aHordability controls and is not funded through a 20 year capital contractthat would qualify it for crediting in lieu of a 30 year deed restriction. Thus, itwould appear that the four (4) bedrooms in this facility will not qualify forcrediting unless the Township is able to negotiate with SERV to place a 30 yeardeed restriction on the property. The survey forms for the two CommunityAccess Unlimited facilities have not yet been provided for evaluation.

Union County operates a housing rehabilitation program and has allegedly rehabilitated15 properties in Cranford Township that are owned and occupied by low or moderateincome households. The Union County rehabilitation program is limited to owneroccupants and does not meet some of the other criteria in the current Rules forrehabilitation crediting. The extent to which Cranford will be eligible for credits for these15 units against its 55 unit rehabilitation obligation will depend upon the daterehabilitation was started (after April 1, 2000, and prior to December 20,2004), theamount expended on each rehabilitation project (an average of at least $8,000 in hardcosts) and whether or not a "major system" was involved. Any rehabilitation projectsundertaken after December 20,2004, are required to comply with the current Rules,including the amount spent (an average of at least $10,000 in hard costs), theavailability of the program to rental units and the imposition of 10 year affordabilitycontrols (instead of 6 year affordability controls) on all completed units, whether for sale

7


10/76

or for rent. Cranford has yet to submit the data required to allow for any review ofUnion County's rehabilitation efforts.

CRANFORD'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE PLAN

Cranford's proposed compliance plan is embodied in its 2012 Housing Plan Elementand Fair Share Plan, adopted May 2,2012 (and readopted on May 16, 2012). The2012 Plan utilizes the affordable units that will be generated by both of the plaintiffs'sites (Lehigh and COAl as well as the affordable units that already exist or have beenapproved in Cranford to address the prior round obligation and most of the third roundobligation. Additionally, Cranford has proposed a new nine (9) unit special needs facilityon land owned by the Township on Myrtle Avenue, should these additional credits beneeded. Additional information needs to be provided as to the suitability of theMyrtle Avenue site for development. However, there is, as yet, no identifiedspecial needs housing provider or firm commitment of funding for this project, soit would not be ripe for the Court's approval In any case.

Prior Round Obligation

The Township proposes to use the following credits to fulfill its prior round obligation:

1. 47 age-restricted units at Lincoln Apartments. The 47 units of age-restrictedhousing is permissible based upon the formula set forth at N.J.A.C. 5:97-3.1O(c)1,whichis 25 percent of the prior round obligation plus the rehabilitation obligation less anyrehabilitation credits). It is noteworthy that if the Township is not entitled to all 15 of therehabilitation credits that it is claiming as a result of Union County's rehabilitationprogram, it may be able to claim more than 47 age-restricted units for prior roundcompliance, based on this formula. These 47 credits are acceptable subject to the

8


11/76

acceptability of the additional documentation required, as identified in thepreceding section of this report.

2. 12 group home bedrooms in three group homes. With the exception of thefour (4) bedrooms in the SERV Center facility, which do not appear to be creditworthyafter all, eight (8) of these credits will likely be acceptable subject to the evidenceto be provided in the additional documentation required, as identified in thepreceding section of this report.

3. 54 credits for the family affordable rental units to be constructed by CDAon the builder's remedy site. As this project was the subject of a lengthy trial withextensive site suitability documentation, no further documentation is needed to justifythe creditworthiness of this project, although the project will have to comply with UHACRules regarding administration, affirmative marketing and affordability controls, as wellas all provisions of the December 9, 2011, Order Granting Relief in Exclusionary ZoningLitigation and all requirements of N.J.A.C. 5:97-6.4 pertaining to inclusionarydevelopments. These 54 credits are acceptable.

4. 23out of 24 possible credits for the family affordable rental units to beconstructed by Lehigh on the settlement site. As this project was the subject of aFairness Hearing, and sufficient site suitability documentation was presented in supportof the settlement, no further documentation is needed to justify the creditworthiness ofthis project, although the project will have to comply with UHAC Rules regardingadministration, affirmative marketing and affordability controls, as well as all provisionsof the January 28, 2011, Consent Judgment for Builder's Remedy and all requirementsof N.J.A.C. 5:97-6.4 pertaining to inclusionary developments. All 24 of the units inthis project are eligible for crediting, although the Township has been planning touse only 23of the credits from this project for prior round compliance.

9


12/76

5. 12 rental bonuses for the 12 group home bedrooms. In the December 1,2010, Supplementary Report of the Court Master to the Court responding to thetestimony presented in the CDA trial, I had indicated to the Court that I did not believethat Cranford was eligible for any rental bonuses arising from units that were built after1999 in fulfillment of the prior round obligation. I had based this opinion on a strictreading of the Appellate Division's October 8,2010, decision invalidating large portionsof COAH's Rules, including its Rules pertaining to the award of rental bonuses for rentalunits that had been proposed as a way to meet the prior round obligation but thatremained unbuilt more than a decade after the expiration of the prior round period.

At the time I offered my opinion to the Court, the Appellate Division's decision was stillrelatively new and was still being interpreted by other Court Masters and by otherSuperior Court Judges. In the year and a half that has followed the submission of mySupplementary Report, I have had an opportunity to reconsider my original position inlight of how the Appellate Court's ruling is being applied elsewhere, and I have modifiedit accordingly. It is now my recommendation that Cranford be permitted to take rentalbonus credits for eligible completed affordable units (but not from affordable units thatare proposed but remain unbuilt) up to the maximum number of units for which rentalbonuses can be claimed in the prior round, or 37 units. Consequently, Cranford mayclaim rental bonuses for the eligible group home bedrooms, since they exist.

Unfortunately, because the four (4) bedrooms in the SERV Center of NJ facility do notappear to be creditworthy, they are also not eligible for rental bonuses. The eligibility ofthe bedrooms in the two Community Access Unlimited facilities for crediting, and,hence, rental bonuses, will depend upon the information contained on the survey formsfor these facilities, and these survey forms have not yet been provided for evaluation. Itis thus my (revised) opinion that the Township may claim up to eight (8) rentalbonuses for eight (8) special needs bedrooms, pending the submission ofadditional documentation.

10


13/76

In sum, the Township's plan for meeting its 148 unit prior round obligation fallsshort by 8 credits due to the fact that the SERV Center group home facility doesnot appear to be eligible for crediting or for rental bonuses because of theinsufficient length of the affordabllity controls to which it is subject. There maybe other as yet undiscovered flaws in the Township's prior round complianceplan, but, until all of the requisite documentation is submitted, it is not possible toknow this.

Despite the foregoing findings, however, it is my opinion that the Township canreadily comply with its entire prior round obligation, assuming all of the pendingdocumentation is found to be in order. The Township has held several projects inreserve to be used to address the third round obligation. Among these are the oneaffordable unit in the 24 unit Lehigh project that is not being applied to the priorround obligation, the Needlepoint Homes unit (which, if occupied, and once fullyand satisfactorily documented, may be eligible for a rental bonus, as well) and the19 still unbuilt but approved units in the Riverfront Developers, LLC, project(subject to further information being submitted as to the particulars of this development,as previously described in this report).

The Township's prior round compliance plan readily satisfies both the minimum rentalobligation of 37 units and the maximum age-restricted limit of 47 units established in theRules.

Rehabilitation Obligation

As to the Township's 55 unit rehabilitation obligation, the Township is claiming credit for15 units rehabilitated by the County of Union, leaving 40 additional units remaining to berehabilitated. The Township must produce the documentation needed to confirm theeligibility for crediting of the 15 units rehabilitated under Union County's rehabilitation

11


14/76

program. Even though the Court's December 9, 2011, Order acknowledged that 15units had been rehabilitated by Union County, because this had been assertedrepeatedly by the defendants, neither the Court nor the Court Master have seen anydescription of the units, the work undertaken, the income eligibility of the owners, thestart and completion dates, and the affordability controls placed on the units. Thisinformation must be supplied to confirm the creditworthiness of these 15 units forpurposes of obtaining the Court's approval of the 2012 Housing Plan Element and FairShare Plan.

The Township intends to address the remaining 40 unit rehabilitation obligation with itsown rehabilitation program, which is contemplated to be consistent with COAH's currentRules and to be a shared services program with other municipalities in the samehousing region. This is a perfectly acceptable means of accomplishing a rehabilitationprogram, but the method of funding, the administration, the program rules andprocedures and other elements of the rehabilitation program must be established andpresented for approval by the Court before compliance with the rehabilitation obligationcan be confirmed.

It is noteworthy that, even though the 2010 U.S. Census data should be available now,the Department of Community Affairs/COAH has yet to publish new municipalrehabilitation obligations based on these data. When the municipal rehabilitationobligations are updated based on the 2010 data, and new rehabilitation share numbersare issued, they will supersede those that were determined based on 2000 Censusdata, and Cranford's third round rehabilitation obligation may rise or fall accordingly.

Third Round Obligation

In 2008, the Township had arranged for the preparation of an analysis of the Township'sthird round obligation based upon the growth potential of the remaining vacant

12


15/76

developable land in the Township plus the "growth share" impact of the actual growth injobs and housing that had occurred in Cranford between 2000 and 2008. The analysiswas prepared by T&M Associates as part of the 2008 Housing Element and Fair SharePlan. At my recommendation, Cranford appended this study to its 2012 Plan to supportthe notion that the Township would be able to qualify for an adjustment to whatever thirdround obligation it was ultimately assigned based on the insufficiency of the Township'sremaining vacant land resources. It had been my intention to have the Township utilizethe vacant and developable land data that had already been assembled in the T&Mstudy and not have to redo that part of the analysis. It had not been my intention tohave the growth share methodology implicit in the T&M study applied to thedetermination of Cranford's capacity to address a third round obligation. I amresponsible for the misunderstanding that has occurred and that has resulted in theTownship preparing a plan that addresses an artificially inflated third round number.

The application of the growth share calculations to the vacant land data have yieldedwhat I consider to be an artificially inflated computation of Cranford's ability to satisfy athird round affordable housing obligation. The correct use of the vacant land data wouldhave been to analyze the raw data assembled by T&M to identify those privately-ownedand uncommitted publicly-owned sites that are of sufficient size to accommodate adevelopment of at least five (5) units based on a density of at least 8 units per acre(COAH's minimum presumptive density for sites in Planning Area One, the MetropolitanPlanning Area, in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan) and to assignappropriate densities to those sites that could reasonably be expected to generateinclusionary developments. The analysis would be similar to a prior round RealisticDevelopment Potential (RDP) analysis but using higher densities ranging from 8 toperhaps 18 units per acre depending on the specific site.

To the credit of Birdsall Engineering, the Township's current planning consultants, arecently vacated .4355 acre gas station site has been identified and added to the

13


16/76

original vacant land analysis. However. in reviewing T&M's original 2008 analysis Inoticed that the 1.74 acre Myrtle Avenue site was excluded from the third round vacantland study on the grounds that this site had already been considered in the calculationof the prior round RDP. In light of the Court's determination that Cranford can meet itsentire 148 unit prior round obligation, however, and is not entitled to a vacant landadjustment for the prior round. the Myrtle Avenue site should be added back in forpurposes of determining the Township's capacity to address its third round obligation.Parenthetically. the 555 South Avenue East (Lehigh) property was excluded by T&M forthe same reason, but that site is already being used to address the prior roundobligation, so its exclusion is permissible.

My evaluation of the lists included in the T&M vacant land analyses for both the priorround and the third round (both of which are included in the Appendices to this report)suggests that the Township probably has less than five (5) acres of qualifying land.much of it in small parcels of less than an acre. This estimated total includes both the.4355 acre vacated gas station site and the 1.74 acre Myrtle Avenue site.Consequently, a third round RDP for Cranford, at best, is probably fewer than 20units.

Although I am recommending to the Court that Cranford probably has no more than a20 unit third round obligation based on its RDP or vacant land capacity, I am notsuggesting that 20 or fewer units is the entirety of the third round obligation that shouldor will be assigned to Cranford. The Township could well be assigned a much higherobligation - depending on the methodology ultimately used. If the Supreme Courtupholds the Appellate Court's.ruling that growth share is not an appropriatemethodology to use in calculating third round fair share obligations, then Cranford willundoubtedly be able to rely on its capacity (based on its RDP) to satisfy its third roundobligation within the repose period. Any portion of the third round obligation ultimatelyassigned to Cranford that the Township does not have the capacity to address within

14


17/76

the repose period will remain as its Unmet Need obligation. The Unmet Need is thatportion of the obligation that may be fulfilled over an extended period of time throughopportunities that are not currently anticipated, such as private redevelopmentproposals. Cranford will be able to fulfill up to 25 percent of its Unmet Need (if it hasone) with some of the remaining Lincoln Apartments age-restricted units as well as withany excess third round credits that are not needed to satisfy the RDP.

There is, of course, always the possibility that the Supreme Court will overtum theAppellate Division's ruling invalidating the growth share methodology. If this is the case,then Cranford's use of a 68 unit third round obligation as a target would not be far off themark.Third Round Proposal

If all of the credits the Township is seeking for existing and proposed affordable housingunits are indeed creditworthy and if the two builder's remedy sites are constructed inaccordance with the terms of the Court's Orders, Cranford may come close to satisfyingthe 68 unit third round obligation projected in its 2012 Plan.

An underlying premise of this conclusion (apart from the caveat that creditworthinesshas yet to be fully demonstrated in connection with all of the existing affordable housingunits in the Township) is that once the two builder's remedy sites are constructed,Cranford should be able to take rental bonuses (in addition to the 8 rental bonuses itshould be able to claim now) for up to 29 of the new affordable rental units created inthese developments. This will push an equivalent number of units that are currentlybeing counted toward the prior round into the third round.

15


18/76

The Township's proposals for meeting a 68 unit third round obligation are as follows:

Lincoln Apartments (age-restricted units) = 17 (25% of 68)Lehigh = 1 unit not used in prior roundNeedlepoint Homes = 1 unitRiverfront Developers = 19 unitsLehigh/COA units reallocated to third round = 25 units(due to eligibility for rental bonuses on completed units - oncecompleted - yielding excess affordable units in prior round)Myrtle Avenue Special Needs/Other Affordable Housing = 9 unitsTOTAL = 72 credits

According to the Township's Plan, there would be 4 excess credits left over, assumingthe Myrtle Avenue site were to produce 9 affordable units (although there is no firm planat this time to proceed with that development) plus the remaining 36 age-restricted unitsat Lincoln Apartments for which no credit can be claimed now due to the age-restrictedhousing cap.

The discovery that the SERV Center group home will not qualify for crediting or forrental bonuses changes the Township's Plan somewhat in terms of the allocation ofcredits between the prior round and the third round. To satisfy the prior roundobligation, 8 units (the 24th Lehigh unit, the Needlepoint Homes unit and 6 of the unitsproposed in the Riverfront Developers, LLC, project) will have to be reallocated from thethird round plan to the prior round plan to fill the prior round gap.

This would remove 8 of the credits the Township had been counting on to meet its thirdround obligation, although 4 of these credits could be made up once the CDA andLehigh projects are completed by taking 4 more rental bonuses in the prior round anddisplacing 4 more prior round units to the third round. Still, there would be a 4 unitshortfall relative to a 68 unit third round obligation. In addition, I cannot recommend the

16


19/76

Court's approval at this time of the 9 special needs housing units contemplated for theMyrtle Avenue site. One of the aspects of COAH's third round Rules that wasspecifically invalidated by the Appellate Court was the award of credits for projects thatwere proposed but that were not yet funded or sponsored. The Myrtle Avenue proposalis not yet funded and sponsored. Consequently, at best, Cranford would have a total of57 credits available to meet a 68 unit third round obligation, if and once the Lehigh andCDA sites are developed. Of course, if the revised vacant land analysis justifies a lowerthird round RDP, as I believe it will, then the RDP should be easily satisfied.

The entire foregoing analysis is dependent upon satisfactory documentation ofal/ of the credits the Township is seeking for the existing and approved affordablehousing units In the Plan.

Repose Issues

In the Supplementary Report of the Special Master dated December 1, 2010, I hadrecommended that the Court consider permitting Cranford to submit a revised HousingElement and Fair Share Plan covering not only the prior round obligation and therehabilitation obligation. but also an "adjusted" third round obligation. The revised Planwould encompass the settlement with Lehigh, the CDA builder's remedy, some LincolnApartments units, the group home bedrooms, the Riverfront redevelopment units, andthe Needlepoint Homes unit, along with a program for addressing the Township'sremaining rehabilitation obligation. Any "excess" new construction units from the priorround would be treated as third round units. Some or all of the remaining LincolnApartments units could also be applied to the third round Unmet Need, if there is one.

I had recommended this rather unorthodox approach in Cranford's case because of myconviction that no matter what the Township's third round obligation is determined to be,it is unlikely that the Township will be able to address it fully, and a vacant land

17


20/76

adjustment will be warranted. Cranford would be able to rely on an extended repose (tothe end of 2018) now, would see an end to the litigation, and would have the ability tofocus municipal planning efforts and resources on other important local issues.I had pointed out at the time that while it would be a relatively simple matter todetermine what Cranford's adjusted number (or RDP) should be, there would still beuncertainty regarding the extent of the Unmet Need once Cranford's third roundobligation has been determined by COAH or a successor agency.

This issue of the uncertainty associated with the Unmet Need has been raised on behalfof Fair Share Housing Center in a letter to me from Kevin D. Walsh, Esquire, datedJune 5,2012 (appended to this report). I do not agree with all of the argumentspresented by Mr. Walsh in support of his position that the Township should not begranted extended repose (or, indeed, any repose as to the third round obligation), and Ibelieve that he has misinterpreted the Court's December 9,2011, Order and my originalrecommendation. Nevertheless, the sixth point in his letter, that mechanisms foraddressing the Unmet Need should be part of any third round plan, is valid. Since wedo not know the extent of the Unmet Need as this point, it is not possible to address it atthis time.

I remain convinced that it is appropriate for the Court to approve a third round vacantland adjustment, although a more precise calculation of Cranford's capacity to absorbdevelopment (the RDP) will need to be supplied by the Township in support of theadjustment. In response to the Unmet Need issue, however, it would be reasonable torequire Cranford to return to the Court or to COAH or its successor agency within three(3) years, or not more than one year following the time given to other municipalities inthe State to comply with their third round obligations, and present its proposals foraddressing whatever Unmet Need obligation it may have based on the third roundobligation assigned to it. If a third round obligation remains unassigned, this deadline

18


21/76

could be extended, provided the Township is successfully fulfilling its prior roundobligations and the third round RDP.

Although Cranford's third round obligation cannot be known at this time, its ability tocalculate with some precision its RDP (capacity for meeting a third round obligation) is arelatively simple matter. The Township should be able to proceed with the Court'sblessing to implement that portion of the third round obligation that it can satisfy withinthe repose period and which is not subject to change. The plan to address the UnmetNeed, once the third round obligation has been quantified, can be reviewed andapproved as an amendment to the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan that the Courtwill be approving as part of the Judgment of Compliance and Repose. If it is necessaryto perfect the plan for the Myrtle Avenue project to help address the Unmet Need, thenit can be done at that time.

Additional Matters

The Township has submitted, as part of its Fair Share Plan, a number of supplementarydocuments. We have already identified the material that will be needed to support thecredits the Township is seeking for its previous affordable housing efforts.

In addition to the missing documentation that we have already identified in this report,the Township will need to prepare and adopt by resolution an Affirmative MarketingPlan, ordinances creating the positions of Municipal Housing Liaison and AdministrativeAgent and resolutions naming persons to those positions. The Administrative Agent isalmost always an outside entity qualified to administer an affordable housing program.While it is up to the municipality to contract with the Administrative Agent, the fees forthe Administrative Agent's services can be required by ordinance to be paid by thedeveloper, seller or owner of the affordable unit.

19


22/76

The rehabilitation program will need to be established. Once a qualified rehabilitationprogram administrator has been contracted to run the program, a program manual mustbe prepared (usually by the program administrator) and adopted by the governing body.The rehabilitation program will need a stable source of funding, and if the Townshipintends to rely on development fees to fund the program, it will need to adopt aresolution of intent to cover any shortfall in the available funds.

The zoning ordinances for all of the inclusionary development sites (the RiverfrontDevelopers, LLC, site, the CDA site and the Lehigh site) should be included in theAppendix to the Fair Share Plan. The Fair Share Plan should also include an executedcopy of the Settlement Agreement with Lehigh and copies of any RedevelopmentAgreement and/or Developer's Agreement with Riverside Developers, LLC.

The Township HAS submitted a draft Affordable Housing Ordinance and a draftDevelopment Fee Ordinance and Spending Plan. I will be reviewing these documentsfor compliance with the regulations and comparing them to the models on the NJDCAwebsite. The above-mentioned resolution of intent to fund any shortfall as well as theescrow agreement covering the Affordable Housing Trust Fund established to receivedevelopment fees should also be prepared and included in the Fair Share Plan.

CONCLUSION

It is undoubtedly apparent to the Court that there is still quite a bit of work to be done onCranford's Plan before it is ready to be the subject of a Compliance Hearing. It isrespectfully requested that the Court consider giving Cranford an additional 90 days tocalculate an accurate third round RDP, to continue documenting credits and to completethe Fair Share Plan in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report.

20


23/76

PRIOR ROUND VACANT LAND ANALYSIS DATAFROM T&M ASSOCIATES STUDY

2008 HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN


24/76

0iiiInInI -: 0o ~.iii O J::I S'0'


25/76


26/76

~0i1.I ,.[ 0- . fi-.: : r l l !-6' ' ' ;1. . - . ., is:O ' ;~ ~0.~ g ~ .I ~E

~iII


27/76


28/76


29/76

1 . 7


30/76

THIRD ROUND VACANT LAND ANALYSIS DATAFROM T&M ASSOCIATES STUDY

2008 HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN


31/76


32/76

. ;l !! i~i i \ 1

! I , '1

i !I!i

JJ iii I i.. . ~.I B: i ~: I O f

I l

..I~


33/76


34/76

Ii,~iIII


35/76

; i i

IiI~III

, "

I

1 i i ji Ii 1 I!~ I ~ I ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~j , i

! I I I I II I I

iji

; ! I I I I I I ! I CI I

I

i ,: '


36/76

~" I J

r 1 I I i

Ii,qfIII

I I

I

i

! I I I C

nC ! { I

:!

i i i ' , . ,I, . ,

nI !

II

" ! :

t11 1 1


37/76

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER LETTEROF JUNE 5, 2012


38/76

Peter J. O'Connor. Esq.Kevin D. WalSh . Esq.

Adam M. Gordon. Esq.loura Smi th-Denker. Esq.

FAIRSHAREH OU SIN G C EN TE R

June 5, 2012Elizabeth C. McKenzie, P.P., P.A.9 Main StreetFlemington, New Jersey 08822

Re: Cranford Development Associates, LLC v. Township of Cranford, DocketNo. UNN-L-3759-08.

Dear Ms. McKenzie:Please accept this letter as Fair Share Housing Center's (FSHC) comments regarding CranfordTownship's recently adopted fair share plan. FSHC, founded in 1975, is New Jersey's onlypublic interest organization dedicated solely to the preservation and growth of the Mount Laureldoctrine. We work to ensure that every municipality in New Jersey provides its fair share of low-and moderate-income housing in order to promote housing opportunities for all New Jerseyansand racially and economically diverse communities. As you know, we appear regularly in MountLaurel proceedings as a plaintiff or objector or as part of a fairness hearing.We submit these comments without formally intervening in the above-captioned matter andwithout appealing Cranford's adoption on May 22, 2012 of its fair share plan. We do so with thegoal of avoiding the need for adversarial proceedings given that our prinCipal concern is easilyaddressed as part of your review of Cranford's fair share plan and the Court's response to thatreport. We reserve our right to intervene and to file an action in lieu of prerogative writchallenging the Township's May 22, 2012 adoption of a fair share plan.Our principal concern involves a court order indicating that Cranford will receive ten years ofrepose and, apparently, not have to comply with the CounCil on Affordable Housing's (COAH)Third Round regulations. The Honorable Lisa F. Chrystal, J.S.C. by order dated December 9,2011 awarded Cranford ten years of immunity from Mount Laurel litigation, stating at paragraph6 that upon the adoption of the necessary implementing orders Cranford "will have satisfied:among other things, "its prospective (post-1999) need obligation." The order further suggests(but does not explicitly state) at paragraph 12that Cranford will receive immunity throughDecember 31,2018. We object to these findings and urge the Court to adopt a revised positionthat does not adjudicate the Township's Third Round obligations or provide an extended periodof immunity for six reasons.First, we note that the builder's remedy did not rely in any way on the failure of Cranford to meetits Third Round obligation. Paragraph 1 of the December 9, 2011 order states that Cranfordfailed to meet its Prior Round obligation by 54 units "regardless of what its prospective (post-1999) need obligation might be." The fact that the Third Round obligation was not needed todemonstrate the violation of the doctrine suggests that the prospective repose is unnecessaryand that Cranford should simply await the Third Round regulations. Further, anything that is notnecessary to the adjudication of the builder's remedy matter would appear to be properlysubjected to a fairness hearing at which the municipality's compliance with the doctrine isevaluated. A Prior Round builder's remedy need not and should not adjudicate Third Roundissues and thus unnecessarily exclude the public from the process.

510 Pori


39/76

June 5, 2012

Second, we note that as a practical matter, the Township is already planning to apply to reduceits obligation if it is assigned a lower Third Round obligation. The Township notes as muchrepeatedly in its fair share plan, stating, for instance, at page 4 that it "reserves the right toamend all portions of this Plan, including Prior and Third Round portions of the Plan and thethird round vacant land adjustment based upon any new affordable housing regulations,legislative action, or court decision." As framed by the Township, its ability to return to court is aone-way ratchet; the obligation can only go down during the next decade. The Township'sinterest in amending its fair share plan should cut both ways. Requiring the Township to file anamended fair share plan for the Third Round is thus consistent with the TownShip's overallexpectations.Third, demonstrating the practicality of requiring the municipality to return to court is that theTownship already acknowledges that it must return to court when the new regulations areadopted because of incomplete details regarding part of its Third Round plan. It writes on page29 of its fair share plan that it plans to develop a nine-unit special needs development, howeverthe township has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate a realistic opportunity. Itsplan states that "[t]he Township will provide a detailed Plan for addressing the 9-unit componentof its potential third round obligation upon the adoption of amended affordable housingregulations.~ In short, its existing plan is not intact and needs to be finalized. In light of the gapand the municipality's failure to provide sufficient credits, the court cannot grant repose.Granting credits for sites whose realistic nature cannot be determined would violate theAppellate Division's decision in In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97, 416 N.J.Super. 462,487-88 (App. Div. 2010).Fourth, the Township's Third Round obligation will change and in all likelihood will not be basedon the invalidated approach of growth share and the growth projection adjustment schemeauthorized by N.J.A.C. 5:97-5.6. It would be especially anomalous if the trial court immunizedCranford from litigation based simply on the remnant of a need allocation scheme that wasinvalidated by the Appellate Division. There is no reason to rely on an invalidated scheme whenthe municipality could simply be required to amend its fair share plan when new regulations arereleased.Fifth, numerous other courts have required municipalities to meet parts of their Third Roundplans and to likewise return to court or COAH when revised Third Round regulations arereleased. This approach was used in Cinnaminson, a matter in which you are involved as thespecial master and likely more than ten other matters in Burlington and Gloucester Counties.See, for example, attached orders. Those courts provide "immunity and repose againstexclusionary zoning litigation through the time for submission of a third round Compliance Plan,if any, once established by regulation, statute, or decision of a court with appropriatejurisdiction. "Sixth, the Township has proposed no mechanisms for meeting what is likely to be a significantunmet need once the Third Round regulations are adopted. This is inconsistent with COAH'sregulations on unmet need, which are entitled to considerable deference. COAH does not"intend 'unmet need' to become 'a permanent adjustment to municipal affordable housingobllqations." In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:94 & 5:95, 390 N.J. Super. 1, 87-88 (App. Div.), certif.denied, 192 N.J. 71 (2007)(quoting 36 N.J.R. 5770 (December 20,2004. Based on thatrepresentation and COAH's history of requiring plans to meet unmet need, the AppellateDivision has found that COAH's approach to unmet need met the requirements of the MountLaurel doctrine. Ibid. See also In re Fair Lawn Borough, 406 N.J. Super. 433, 445 (App. Div.

2


40/76

Juns 5, 2012

2009) (noting in case inwhich COAH required overlay zoning that COAH carefully scrutinized-a municipality's "plan to be sure the vacant land adjustment did not become a hollow promise").COAH has indicated that its regulations are intended to "require meaningful plans for' unmetneed," 40 N.J.R. 5965(a), 6005 (October 20, 2008). It is also important to note that COAH andthe courts have taken the requirements that municipalities impose overlay zoning very seriously,going so far as exposing a municipality to builder's remedy litigation because it failed to providea mechanism to meet unmet need when directed to do so by COAH. See In re Fair Lawn,supra, 406 N.J. Super. at 444-45. This demonstrates that the adoption of overlay zoning is animportant part of the fair implementation of the Mount Laurel doctrine.We therefore respectfully suggest that you advise the court that the Township's fair share plandoes not entitle it to ten years of repose and that instead the municipality should be directed toreturn to court or to COAH when new regulations are adopted to demonstrate its compliance inthe Third Round with the Mount Laurel doctrine.Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Staff Attorneyc: Stephen Eisdorfer, Esq.Philip Morin, Esq.

3


41/76

J U DGE B OOK BI N DE R f a x : 6 09 - 5 1B- 2 852 Dec 6 2011 15; 06 P.01

F ileNo . 0 47 19 -0 13 7LawOf6eesPARKER McCAY, P.A.9000 Mldhmtie D rive, Suite 300P.O~Dos !054M ount Laurel, N ew Jersey 08054-1539(856) 5 9 6 " & 9 4 ) 0Attorneys fo r Petitioner, Tow nsh ip o f C in nam in so n

F l E D w a n IIIQat. D E C - g 2 D 1 I

1toIaId'"'~jJI4

SU PERIO R C OURT O F N EW JERSEyLAW DIV IS IONBURLINOTON COUNTYDOCXET NO. BUR -L -00 04 76 -06IN THE MATTER OF TImA PPLIC AT IO N O P T IlE TO WN SH IPO F C INNAM IN SO N, a m unicip alCoIporation of th e State ofN cw Je rse y,

Petitioner

Civil Action(Mount lAurel)ORDER GRANTING STAY OFT H IR D RO UN D PR OC EED IN GSAND PROVIDING CONTINUEDIMMUNITY AND REPOSE

THIS MAT 'I'ER. having b e e n b rough t be fo re t~ Court on th e a pp lic at ion o fPetitioner Township of Cinnamins~ ("ToWDShip" and/or "Cb:mam~' pursuant to theSuperior Co~ Appell at e D i vis io n's d e cis io n in Intk e ~1he AdQption oUl.U&oS!96 and S'37n t h t : N e w J!;Q!y Com on Aft 'Qrd@_k l lo u i ! P & . (416N.L.~. 462 (App.!>iv. 2010)~ the Court i nv a li dat ed the revised third round growth s~ rulesadopted by theNew Jersey ~WlCi l on Affordablc H o usin g (U COAH " ) and directed COAHto co mp le te n ew rulem.aking ~d release revised t hi rd r ou nd fair share numbtft fu r aU NewJersey municipalitios b y M a tch 8, 2011;And it appearing that t he Ap pc lla te D iY isio n " dc cl: Jn e[ d] to issue a b bm k et stay of

P r o c e e d i n g s before COAH or inthe courts peruUng com pletion of a rem and to COA!f ' inview of '-rhe fact that more than te n years have now elapsed s iD ce e x: pUat io n o f the second


42/76

J U DG E B O OK B I N DE R F a x : 6 09 - 518 - 2B52 Dec 6 2011 15: 07 P , 0 2

J : O U n c l rules", Ins tead . the Appella te Cour t i n d ica t e d t h a : t " , , , my municipality or otheri n t e r e s t ed party m a y a pply for a s t ay to COAH or th e Court inwhicb aM o u n t L a u re l case ispend ing . Any s uch a pp lica tion s hould be d e cid e d inlig ht o f the status of the individualmunicipa l i ty ' s c o m p 1 i a n c . e with its a f fo rd a b le h ous in g o blig at io n s BD dall other r e l evan t

And itfurther appearing that t he S up rem e Court g ra n te d p et it io n s fa t c er tific at io nfiled by v a rio us p ar tie s s ee kin g ~ of the 2010 App ella te D iv is io n d e cis io n andthereafter gn mte d a s ta y of C OAH ' s M arch 8, 2011 ru l ema ldng d e .a d lin e a n d that n on e of theS66municipa l i t ie s inNew J er s ey c ur re n t ly have knowledge orb magnitude or nature oft he i r third l 'O l D l d fair share numbe r s ;

And itturtb.er appearing t ha t the petitions for certification before the SupJ:ett lC Courtr ema in pending a n d undecided w hich im p ed e s the ability of trial courts to d is pos e of the tbil'dround compliance proceedings 1 h a t are under the Court' $jurisdiction;

And it further appearing that COAH e le cte d to s t ay the review o f th e th ird ro uo .dC om p lia n ce P la n s fo r th e JD un icip alit ie s u n d e r its admin i s t r a1 ive review jurisdict ion inrespome to th e Appellate Division's 2010 decision pending tb e resolution of the a w e a I s . ofthat decision th a t w e re filed with the Supreme Court;

And itfu r t he r appearing t ha t both COAH a n d th e Court determined during priornnmd a ffo rd a ble h ou sin g c om p lia n ce proceed ings that C in n am in s on . is n e ar in g full build-outa n d that v a ca n t d e ve lo pa ble land is a s ca rce IeSOW'te inthe ToWDShip ;

And itfurther appem.iDg that the Govcmor issued Ad ln in is tr at iv e Ag en c yR .e orga Diz ation Pla n N o. 0 01 -2 01 1 on Jun e 2 9, 2 01 1 w hich e J.im in a te d COAH a s th e stateadnrln is t ra t ivc agency re sp on s ib le fo r guidblg mun ic ip a l a f fo rd a b le housing compliance

2


43/76

J U DGE B OOK B I N DE R F a x : 6 09 - 5 18 - 2 85 2 Dec 6 2011 15 : 09 P . 0 3

effectiv e A ug ust 2 9~ 2 01 1 an d 1IaruIf~ th o oblisation to MSis t municipali t ies wtth theiraflilrdable housing compl iance in it ia t ives to t h e New J er se y D c_p ar tm ent o f CommunityAf&iJs ( "DCA j;

And it . farther appear ing t ha t DCA e le cte d to contbme COAH "s p rio r stay of reviewo ftb ird ro un d C om p lia nc e Plans until th e d is po sit io n o fllie a pp ea ls pending befure theSupreme Court;

And it further appear ing that DCA began impleme:nting interim p olic ie s a ndguidelines on Sep1I:m.ber 15. 2011 w hich were c h e . 1 l e n g e d and stayed by th e ApplClllatcD iv isio n o n O cto ber 1 8,2 01 1 th ro ug h litig atio n file d by Fair Share Housmg Center becausesaid interim policies and g uid elin es h av e th e effect o f ru les w h ic h wa-e not adop ted inaccordance with th e Administratkre Proce


44/76

J U DGE B OOK BI N DE R F aK: 6 09 - 5 18 - 2 852 Dec 6 2011 15: 10 P . 0 4

And itfurther appearing. despite t h e a:foxemcntioned confusion and turmoil,

4

surrounding third round mun ic ip al a ffo rd abl e hous ing c omp lianc e, that Cinnaminson hasbeen directed by th e C o urt and t h e ! Special Mas te r to provide opportuni t ies tomee t its as yetunquan t i6ed tbhd r ound o b l is at io n aD d ha s entered in to a n Ag re emen t with Luth era n S o cia lMinistries ( "LSM") to convey the 2 .7S-a r. re Cinnaminson Home property on Rive rton Roadtha t th e Town sh ip acqui red in 2 00H o en ab le L SM to c re at e 54 a ff or da b le units ins a 1 i s f ' a c t i o I 4 inwhole OJ inpart, of the T ow nsh ip ', third ro un d fair share obligation whe n tha tob1igat i .on is eventually established by th e judicial, legislative o r ex ec utive b ranehes o fgovernment;

And it further appearing that th e New Jersey Depart roem: o fEnvi1 'OD11 le !11a1 Protection( "DEP" ) has taken b p os itio n th at th e C iD n amm s on H om e parc el is considered b y D EP tob e o n the T ow ns hip 's Oteen A1 :J .e sR e c .re at io n Op en Spa ce I nv en to ry ( ''RO S I" ) and may notbe used f o r a ffordab le housing l lDless the Townsh ip i ni ti at es th e Green Acres diversionp ro c es s c n'c n though the property was no t acquired with Green Acres Open Space funding;

And itf w . 1 . h e r appearing tha t Cinnamil lSOP d is pu .te s D E P 's d cUm l in atio n in thisxegard, which resul ted in th e T O W I I S b i p filing Order to Show Caus e p IOCeed ings again$t D E P1 1 D d c rD o c k et N o . BUR -I,-2 68 8-1 1 (Moun t LauIel) seeking a Court O rder com pelling D E Pto remove th e Cinnaminson Hom e p arc el from the R O S! so that th e T ow oship c an c.onveythe property 1 0 L SM to facilitate t he cons tr uc t io n of 5 4 a ffo rd ab le u nits inthe ' tb iTd ronnd;

And it fu r ther appearing that th e t ri al c ou rt inthe a fo rementi on ed p ro c ee d in g en te r edan o r o e r o n Sep tem b er 28 , 201 1 uansfexring the matter to th e Appellate Division;AD d itfurther appear ing that Cinnaminson heJ ;: eto fore t en ta tive ly a s r e e d 10 c on:vey a

"scant lo t that it o wns o n 1Dman Street tbr~ " t a X . foreclosure to Habitat fot Humani ty ,


45/76

J U DGE B OOK B I NDE R f a x : 6D9 - 5 18 - 2 85 2 Dec 62011 15: 12 P . D S

B u r J i o s t o n County ~pter ('~i1at") to e n a b l e Habitat to c o D S t : r 1 1 e ttwo (2) affordableduplex units to a pp ly a g ai ns t its unknown third round fair share obligation, but is nowimpaired inits ability to d o s o b eca us e that p rop erty m a y h av e 1 :0 be added to tbe ROSll i s tan d encumbered with a DEP-imposed open space restriction inex cha ng e for D BP 'swHljognea to remove the la tg er C in n atD in so n Home property from the Rool to enable LSMto p ro du ce 5 4 a ffo rd ab le u nits ;

And it further sppcaring that the a fo remen ti on ed c ir cumsta n ce s i nvolv :ln g DEP andthe Tow n sh ip "s ROSI n eg a ti ve ly impact th e TownshipY s a b ility to produce affordablehousing on th e CimJaminson H ome p arce l and the Iuman Street lo t until th e Township 'sl i t igation is disposod ofby th e Appena t e Divis ion and/or the Supres:ne Court.

Inlight of th e foregoing the trial Court bas found and determined good cause basbte.n shown for entry of a s tay ofCi.tul3'lnioSOD.TownshipY s third round a f fo rdab le housingcODlPl iance proceedings , dis mis sa l of the Township"s t h i J : d round clcc:laratOlY judgmentComplaint and providing cxtended immunity and repose against exclusion.y zoningl i tigation through 1he tb e for su bm iss ion of a third rcnm.d Comp lia n ce P la n , ifmy, oncee sta b lis he d b y regula tion, s t a t. u tt ; (Jf decision of a cou rt w ith appropriate jurisdietion.

IT IS, onthis i::__ay of Qa &Dl~c ._32011,ORD~ as foUows:

1 . C in n am in son Township 's Petition for a Stay O f third round comp1.ianceproceedings is g ramed s u b je ct to th e Towns lU p 's c on ti n ue d implementation of its Court-

LAwamell a pp rov ed p rior cy cle Compl iaDle P la n . .ulJlDJlcCAYI'.A.2 . T his ca se is hox eb y d ism is s ed w i th ou t prejudic;e. CWn am in son T ow nship is

granted extended immunity and repose against exclusionary zoning litigation through th e

s


46/76

J U DGE B OOK BI N D E R F a ) ( : 6 0 9 - 5 1 8 - 2 8 5 2 Dec S 201, 15: 14 P.06

tim e fo r su bm iss io n o f a third r o u n d Comp l i ;mcc ; Plan, ifa n y, o n ce established by regula t ion.statute, o r dec i s ion . o f a . court wi th app rop r iB1e j u r isd ic t ion .

n \"---

"

3. C iDwuD in so n sha ll be freely p e rm i t t ed to ref i le with th e C ou rt for third :rounddccIaatory j u d gmen t telief pu r suan t to N,1.S.A. 52:21D- 313(a) once its third round fair shareo blig atio n is known ox, inthe a lte rn ative , m a y e le ct to in vo ke the D C A a dm in is tra tive reviewp ro ce ss p u rs ua nt to th e G ove rn or 's 1u ne 29 ,2 011 R eo rg an iza tio n Plan.

4. DCAshal l Q()nt inue to monitor, r ev iew and approve th e Towuhip'saf t 'o rdab le housing dev e l o pmen t fe e o rdiD an~ Tru s t Accoun t and Sp~ Plan and th eTownsh ip shal l f i le all r eq uir ed a ec o un tiD g b a la nc es and m o nito rin g fo rm s .

~ . C in n am in so n m ay conUnuc its e f fo r t s to c om pe l DEP to pcn:oi t th e l ' emova l ofth e Cin n am in so n Home parce l f rom the ROS I so that itmay be u se d f or a ff or da ble hous ingp ro du ctio n p urp os es s ub se qu en t to the dism issa l o f the w it hi n p r oc e ed in g s and shall JepOrt tothe Mas 1m ' and Fair Sharo Housing Cen te r on a quarterly bas i s regarding the status of thise f fo r t . Inth e o ve nt the To wn sh ip c ha ng es its c ou rse o f act ion, it s ha ll n o ti fy the Court.

6. The T owm hip sha ll a pp oin t a qu alif ie d a dtn in ist:ra 1i"V c agent by A pril 1 , 2012 .7. The T ow n sh ip s ha ll C O D $ _ the bills o f El izabeth c.M c Ke Dzi~ S pe cia l

Mas t e r , by Dec emb e r 23~2011 . The Townsh ip shal l no t i fy Ms. McKen z i e o f any ques t ion so n her b i l l s by January 13, 2012 . The To wn ship sb all p ay ' those bills which it do e s n o tquestion by January 31. 2012 .

RONALD E . BOOKB INDER , A .l.S .C .

__ _....:...._ ~sed_____ Unop p o sed

6


47/76

08126/2011 1 5:1 3 S w ed es bo ro (FAX)7326123101 P.003/010R E C E IV E D A U G 8 1 : 2 0 1 1

~FREY R. SURENIAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC \ " - ; ; - ' - ; ; : ' - I ! ! . l i \ r E ' ~ ~ ~ & - F l [ E o .\Brielle Galleria . R E l I ~ u t k.I. \70 7 U nion A ven ue, S uite 3 01Brielle, NJ 08730 \ A U G 'I . 9 2 0 1 \ \(732) 6123100 '\ '\A tto rn ey s fo r th e Borough of Swedesboro 'OH COLl !~T.O~.:;:.l.~.~. ,SUPEROIUt . t ;v 1~1\.1lt.,'hh.!, ..lG Lo C I'! I ,., 0"-"~-..:..--.-'. . . ' ..

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLA W D IV IS ION : GLOUCESTER COUNTYDOCKET NO. L-2233-08

Civil Action(MOUNT LAUREL)ORDER GRANTING PRIOR ROUNDJUDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE ANDREPOSE AND STAY OF TIllRD ROUNDOBLIGATIONS

10 the Matter ofthe Application oftheTownship of Swedesboro, County ofGloucester

Whereas, the Borough of Swedesboro ("Borough") adopted a Housing Elementan d F air S hare P lan ("Affo rdab le H ou sing P Ian ") inDecembe r o f2 008; and

Whereas, th e Borough filed the Af fo rd ab le Hous in g Plan with COAR an d broughta decla ra tory relief action seeking a pp ro va l o f said p la n p ur su an t to N .J .S .A . 5 2:2 7D -3 13 ;an d

Whereas, no objections were filed with respect to the Affordable Housing Plan;a n d

Whereas, the Court entered an Order on D ecem ber 5, 2008 granting the Boroughtemporary immunity from M ount L aurel law suits; and


48/76

08/26/2011 1 5:1 3 Sw ed es bo ro (FAX )7326123101 P.004/010

Whereas. the Appellate Division decided In re th e Adoption of 5:96 and 5:97 onOctober 8, 2010; and

Whereas, the Court invalidated the growth share component of eachmunicipality's fair share obligation and validated the rehab component and prior cyclecomponent of the fair share obligation; and

Whereas, the Appellate Division specifically contemplated that a stay would beappropriate under certain circumstances because of its invalidation of th e round threeregulations and various other regulations:

[Aloy municipality or other interested party may apply for a stay toCOAI-I or the court in which aMount Laurel case is pending. Any suchapplicndon should be decided in ligbt of tbe status of the individualmunicipality's compliance witb its affordable bousing obligations andaU otber relevant circumstances. In Re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and5:97 by th e New Jersev Council o n A f fo rd ab le Housing. 416 N.J. Super.462,476 CA ppoDiv. 2010) (emphasis added).Whereas, several m un icipalities respon ded to the Appellate Division's invitation

for to wn s to move for a stay; andWhereas, on December 8, 201 0, COAH granted all of the motions, and issued a

resolution in favor of the six towns that took action; andWhereas, COAH eliminated tbe Deed for a municipality to me a motionfor a stay if the municipality was not seeking to stay its rehab and priorcycle components of its affordable housing plan: "Whereas, ... goingforward munlcipalities are not required to seek a stay from COAHproceediogs concerning tbird round prospective growth shareobligations"; andWhereas, th e Borough sought a stay of its third round obligation from the Court

on November 24, 2010; andWhereas, the Court has adopted an alternative procedure which was

recommended by the master, Phil Caton, in light of the Appellate Decision and reflected

2


49/76

08/26/2011 1 5:1 3 Swed es bo ro (FAX)7326123101

in this Court's Case Management Order on June 3, 2011. Under this procedure the Courthas considered the Borough's application for a stay in light of the status of its satisfactionof its rehabilitation and prior cycle fair share obligations and the extent to which it ismaking a reasonable effort to address its - as yet unspecified - third round obligation.

Whereas, the Case Management Order required a hearing on: 1) the Borough'sapplication for a judgment of compliance and repose on 1he Borough's rehabilitationobligation and prior round obligation; and 2) the Borough's request for a stay on its thirdround obligation; and

Whereas, the Case Management Order further required the Borough to provide II.45 day notice of the hearing to local housing advocates and Fair Share Housing Center;and

Whereas, the Case Management Order further required the submission by theMaster of a Master's Report by July 20, 2011 and required any objections to theBorough's applications to be submitted in writing to the Court, the Borough and theMaster by July 27, 2011; and

Whereas, it also required the Borough to make the changes to its AffordableHousing Ordinance as requested in the Master's Report dated January 18,2010; and

Whereas, on June 16, 2011, the Borough submitted its application fur e, priorround judgment of compliance and repose (hereinafter "JOR") and stay of its third roundobligations to the Court; and

Whereas, the Borough made those documents available for public inspection andI

provided public notice in the Gloucester County Times of the availability of thosedocuments and the hearing date; and

3

P.005/010


50/76

08/2612011 15 :14 Swedesboro (FAX)7326123101 P.006/010

Whereas the Borough also prepared a letter enclosing a copy of that legal noticeto Fair Share Housing Center, the known affordable housing advocacy groups in theregion and all developers in th e B oro ug h w ho ex pres sed an interest inaffordable housing;and

'Whereas, no objections were received , although Fair Share Housing Centersubmitted a letter dated July 28, 20 I I which did not object Lo the relief sought, but ratherobjected to the logic employed by the Borough in seeking a stay; and

Whereas, the Master issued bis report on July 20, 2011 ("Report"); and

Whereas. the Report acknowledged the Borough's 9-unit rehabilitation obligationand 23-writ prior round obligation; and

Whereas, as to the rehabilitation obligation. the Report recognized the Borough'sparticipation in the Gloucester County Rehabil i tat ion program, and recognized 8 creditsresulting therefrom; and

Whereas, the Master recommended the granting of a waiver of the $10,000average per-unit rehab cost because, among other reasons: 1) the $9.379.00 average perunit cost was a de rninimus departure from the $10,000.00 per unit requirement; and 2)the Borough had exceeded the average cost requirement on its separate RCA rehabprogram with Woolwich; and

Whereas, the Master deemed the rehabilitation obligation satisfied as long as theBorough agrees to rehabilitate any rental unit not covered by the County program untilsuch time as the Borough completes its rehabilitation obligation; and

W h erea s, th e M a ster a lso deemed the 23-unit prior r ou nd ob li g ati o n satisfied withSlX (6) senior rental units from the King's Way apartments which have already been

4


51/76

08/26 /2011 1 5;1 4 Sw ea es bo ro (FAX)7326123101 P.007/010

constructed, one (1) bonus rental credit from the Kings Way apartments; and eighteen(18) affordable uni ts f rom Valley View Land Company, lnc.; and

Whereas, the Master recommended that the Affordable Housing Plan be revisedto satisfy the prior round obligation in the manner set forth above; and

Whereas, the Master recognized two surplus units from Valley View and the 30surplus credits from King's Way Apartments to be carried over to future housingobligations; an d

Whereas, the Master recommended spending plan approval and required theBorough to conduct monitoring of its affordable housing trust fund using the eTMsystem to ensure that funds are properly tracked; and

Whereas, the Master approved the revised Affordable Housing Ordinance andrequired the Borough to adopt an Affirmative Marketing Plan; and

Whereas, the Master also required a resolution appointing an affordable housingadministrator and a contract with an affordable housing administrator when the ValleyView affordable units are ready for occupancy; and

Whereas, the Master also required a for-sale operating manual for Valley Viewwhen the units when the units are ready for occupancy; and

Whereas, the Master also recommended the grant of a third round stay noting thatthe Borough has credits for more than twice its prior round obligation (55 credits VS. a23-unit obligation); and

Whereas, the Master concluded his report by recommending: 1) approval of theplan subject to the six conditions noted therein; 2) that the period of repose and immunityfrom exclusionary zoning litigation run until the municipality's deadline for submission

5


52/76

08/26/2011 15:14 Swedesboro (F AX )7 32 61 2 31 0 1 P .OOS /010

of a third round Fair Share Plan pursuant to revised third round rules or a deadline createdby revised third round rules or the N ew Jersey State L egislature; and 3) a stay of pI anningfor im plem enting a F air Sbare P lan for the third round obligation; and

W hereas, the B orough (appearing through D onna A. M cBm on, Esq.), the M asterand F air Share H ousing C enter (appearing through K evin W alsh, Esq.) participated in ahearing before the C ourt on A ugust 3, 2011 at 1 :30 p.m .; and

Whereas, no party objected to the relief sought by the Borough; although FairShare Hous in g Ce nt er r ei te ra te d its concern regarding the logic em ployed by the B oroughin seeking a stay; and

W hereas, in view of th e f or eg oin g, th e Com's review of the docum ents subm ittedinto evidence identified on the Table of Contents attached hereto as Exhibit "A /' aconsideration of the argum ents of the Borough and the comments of FSHC and aconsideration of the report and testim ony of the C ourt appointed master,

It is onthls'J~ay of Augu st 2 011 o rd er ed a s f ol low s:] . The Borough is entitled to a judgment of compliance and repose on its

r eh ab ili ta tio n a nd p rio r r ou nd o bli ga ti on s.2. The Borough s ha ll r eh ab ilit ate a ny r en ta l u nit i f r eh ab il it ati on is requested (to

the extent the C ounty program rem ains closed to rental units) until such tim eas th e B oro ug h comp lete s its r ehabi li ta ti on ob li g at ion .

3. The Borough Planning Board shall adopt an d am ended A ffordable H ousingP lan to satisfy the prior round obligation in th e m an ner in dicated inTable I ofthe M aster's R eport, including the m axim um perm itted bonus credits, within90 days of the date of this O rder.

6


53/76

08/26/2011 1 5:1 4 S w ed esb oro ( FA) ( ) 7326123101 P.009/010

4. The Borough shal1 conduct monitoring of its affordable housing trust fundusing the CTM system to ensure that funds are properly tracked.

5. The Borough shall adopt an Affirmative Marketing Plan, via resolution of theGoverning Body, to set forth the affirmative marketing requirements within90 days of the entry of this Order.

6. The Borough shall adopt th e revised Affordable Housing Ordinance within 90days of the date of this Order.

7. TIle Borough shalt adopt a resolution appointing an affordable housingadministrator and enter into a contract for same prior to the Valley View unitsbeing ready fo r occupancy.

8. The Borough shall prepare an operating manual for sale units on the ValleyView project prior to the units being ready for occupancy.

9. The Borough's Spending Plan (revised September 14.2010) is consistent withthe third round substantive rules, N.J.A.C. 5:97-8; however, approval of theSpending Plan must be granted by COAH or it s successor.

10. The Borough is granted a stay of its third round planning obligation subject tothe Borough maintaining the current zoning of the Valley View property ..

1 1. T he B oro ug h shall rem ain im mune from exclusio nary zo ning challenges andbuilder's remedy suits until the time for submission of a third roundcompliance plan, ifa ny . is e sta blis he d by regulation, statute or decision of acourt with appropriate jurisdiction, provided that immunity will be extendedupon the filing by the Borough of a duly adopted and endorsed housingelement and fair share plan for the third round for such time as COAH, the

7


54/76

08/26/2011 1 5:1 5 S we de sb oro (FAX )7326123101 P.Ol0/010

DCA Commissioner or the Court, with the input of its Master, may deemappropriate.

12. The Borough shall submit annual reports to the Court and Master, with a copyto Fair Share Housing Center, on the status of the rehab obligation and theV alley V iew p ro ject comm en cin g o n th e o ne-y ear an nive rs ary of th e e ntr y oft hi s Order .

13. Valley View Land Company, Inc. shall pay the sum of $9,675.00 to ClarkCaton Hintz within 30 days of the entry of this Order for services owed inconnection with the Valley View project.

A nne M cD onnell, P 1 . C h.

8


55/76

CREDENTIALS


56/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE" P.P.,. PA.COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVElOPMENT

9 MAIN STREETFLEMINGTON, NEW JERSEY 08822

TELEPHONE908) 7825564TELEFAX(908) 7824056

[email protected]

CURRICULUM VITAEELIZABETH C. MCKENZIE, AICP, PP

SERVICESProfessional planning consultant with expertise in all phases of land use planning,including the preparation of master plans and master plan elements, developmentordinances, environmental and community impact statements, special studies andreports for public and private clients, subdivision and site plan reviews, and testimonybefore planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment and in court.Experienced in over two hundred (200) different municipalities in the State of NewJersey.Licensed as a professional planner in the State of New Jersey (#2294). Certified by theAmerican Institute of Certified Planners.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCEElizabeth C. McK enzie. P .P .. P .A . President of community planning and developmentconsulting firm established February, 1980, incorporated November, 1985.R utg ers, th e S ta te U niv ersity , School of Urban Planning and Policy Development, asVisiting Lecturer, 1981-1983. Teaching principles of land use planning toundergraduates in the engineering and planning programs.Alvin E. Gershen Assoc ia tes (formerly Gershen and Coppola Associates), as Planner-in-Charge, 1978-1980. Responsibilities included all phases of community planning:preparation of master plans and master plan elements, land development ordinances,capital improvement programs, site plan and subdivision reviews and special studies
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


57/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE" P.P." P.A.

for over a dozen municipal clients; special planning studies and development proposalsfor private clients.Eas t B runswic k Town sh ip , first as an intern and later as assistant planner, 1977-1978.Responsibilities included designing and implementing a comprehensive retail marketanalysis as well as a survey of major industrial sectors; developing, administering andevaluating the results of a consumer questionnaire; evaluating demographic data; andanalyzing environmental constraints, zoning and impacts of development proposals.

EDUCATIONM.C.R.P. Ru t~er s Un iv er si ty , New Brunswick, New Jersey. The

Graduate School, Department of Urban Planning and PolicyDevelopment. Awarded January I 1978.B.A. Briarc li ff Col lege , Briarcliff Manor, New York.

Major: English Literature. Awarded August, 1968.

AWARDS AND HONORSFellow, Ea~ le to n In stitu te o f Politic s, 1976-1977.B loustein School A lum nus o/the Year, 1999.N1APA Bud d Cha vo osh ia n Awa rd fo r O utsta nd in ~ P ro fessio na l P la nn er, 2 01 1.

OTHER

R aritan T ow nsh ip P lan ning B oard, member and vice-chairman, 1974-1978. Chaired siteplan and subdivision review committee, technical coordinating conunittee, and masterplan committee. Collaborated in preparation of numerous ordinances and ordinanceamendments, including soil erosion and sediment control and flood plain andstormwater management ordinances.Rarita n T ow nsh ip E nviro nm en ta l C omm issio n, member and liaison with Planning Board,1975-1978.

-2-


58/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE" P.P., PA.

N ew T ase y F ed era tio n o f P la nn in g O fficia ls, served on Local Response Committee, 1976-1978. Collaborated in preparation of several special reports, including housing needs ofthe elderly, hiring a professional consultant, the Municipal Land Use Law.S ou th B ra nc h W a te rs he d A ss oc ia tio n, trustee, 1973-1978. Environmental action group.C itizen s' H ou sin g C orp ora tio n. R arita n T ow nsh ip . New Jersey, trustee and officer, 1976-1978. Non-profit housing sponsor.N orth C ou nQ j C on sero am ;y, trustee 1992-1994. Non-profit affordable housing consultant.

CURRENT PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONSA m eric an In stitu te o f C ertifie d P la nn ers . member.

:v ...

A m er ic an P la nn in g A ss oc ia tio n, member.New Jer se y As so cia tio n 0 ,( Co nsulti ng P la nn er s, member.N ew lers ey P la nn in g O ffic ia ls, Board of Counselors.S ou th B ra nc h W a te rs he d A ss oc ia tio n, member.S oc ie Q j o f C ou rt-A pp oin te d M a ste rs , charter member.N ew lersey Site Im provem ent A dvisory B oard, member.

-3-


59/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE" P.P." P.A.

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS

The Borough of Little Ferry, Bergen CountyThe Borough of Ramsey, Bergen CountyThe Borough of Saddle River, Bergen CountyThe Township of Wyckoff, Bergen CountyThe Borough of Haddonfield, Camden CountyThe Township of Cherry Hill, Camden CountyThe Township of Bloomfield, Essex CountyThe Township of Millburn, Essex CountyThe Township of Verona, Essex CountyThe Township of Alexandria, Hunterdon CountyThe Borough of Califon, Hunterdon CountyThe Town of Clinton, Hunterdon CountyThe Township of Delaware, Hunterdon CountyThe Township of East Amwell, Hunterdon CountyThe Borough of Flemington, Hunterdon CountyThe Borough of Frenchtown, Hunterdon CountyThe Borough of Glen Gardner, Hunterdon CountyThe Township of Holland, Hunterdon CountyThe Township of Princeton, Mercer CountyThe Township of Washington, Mercer CountyThe Township of Wall, Monmouth CountyThe Borough of Chatham, Morris CountyThe Borough of Lincoln Park, Morris CountyThe Borough of Bloomingdale, Passaic CountyThe Township of Branchburg, Somerset CountyThe Borough of Manville, Somerset County

-4-


60/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE,.. P.P.,. PA.

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS(continued)

The Township of Fredon, Sussex CountyThe Township of Green, Sussex CountyThe Borough of Andover, Sussex CountyThe Borough of New Providence, Union CountyThe Township of Springfield, Union CountyThe Township of Greenwich, Warren CountyThe Township of Harmony, Warren CountyThe Township of Hope, Warren CountyThe Township of Lopatcong, Warren CountyThe Township of Pohatcong, Warren CountyBorough of Ramsey Zoning Board of Adjustment, Bergen CountyBloomfield Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Essex CountyMillburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Essex CountyCity of Lambertville Zoning Board of Adjustment, Hunterdon CountyTownship of Holmdel Planning Board and Environmental Commission, Monmouth CountyMiddletown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Monmouth CountyBorough of Lincoln Park Zoning Board of Adjustment, Morris CountyFranklin Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Somerset CountyBerkeley Heights Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Union CountyFlemington-Raritan Regional School District, Hunterdon CountyWarren Hills Regional School District, Warren County

-5-


61/76

ELIZABETH c. McKENZIE~ P.P -. P.A.

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS(continued)

With Frost Associates:Borough of Metuchen, Middlesex CountyTownship of Bernards, Somerset County

With C. Douglas Cherry and Associates:Township of Mansfield, Warren County

With Charles C. Nathanson and Associates:Township of Ewing, Mercer County

With Garmen Associates:Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen County

With Mace Consulting Engineers:Borough of Alpha, Warren County

With PMK Associates/Neglia Engineering:Borough of Little Ferry, Bergen County

-6-


62/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE ...P.p ....P.A.

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTSON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BYMUNICIPALITY

ATLANTIC COUNTYTownship of Galloway

BERGEN COUNTYBorough of AlpineCity of EnglewoodBorough of Fort LeeBorough of Franklin LakesCity of HackensackBorough of HillsdaleBorough of Little FerryTownship of LyndhurstTownship of MahwahBorough of MontvaleBorough of OaklandBorough of ParamusBorough of RamseyTownship of River ValeTownship of Rochelle ParkBorough of RutherfordBorough of Saddle RiverTownship of TeaneckBorough of TenaflyBorough of Upper Saddle RiverBorough of WaldwickTownship of Wyckoff

BURLINGTON COUNTYTownship of BordentownTownship of FlorenceTownship of HainesportTownship of Pemberton

-7 -


63/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE ... P.p....P.A.

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTSON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BYMUNICIPALITY(continued)

ESSEXCOUNTYBorough of CaldwellTownship of Cedar GroveTownship of FairfieldBorough of Glen RidgeTownship of LivingstonTownship of MaplewoodTownship of MillburnTownship of MontclairCity of NewarkTownship of North CaldwellTown of NutleyBorough of RoselandTownship of South Orange VillageTownship of Borough of VeronaTownship of West Orange

GLOUCE ST ER COUNTY

Township of DeptfordHUDSON COUNTY

City of HobokenCity of Jersey City

HUNTERDON COUNTYTownship of AlexandriaTownship of BethlehemBorough of BloomsburyTown of ClintonTownship of ClintonTownship of DelawareTownship of East Amwell

-8-


64/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE ... P.P." PA.


HUNTERDON COUNTY (continued)Borough of FlemingtonTownship of FranklinBorough of FrenchtownBorough of HamptonBorough of High BridgeTownship of KingwoodCity of LambertvilleBorough of LebanonTownship of LebanonTownship of RaritanTownship of ReadingtonBorough of StocktonTownship of UnionTownship of West Amwell

MERCER COUNTY

Township of East WindsorTownship of EwingTownship of HamiltonBorough of HightstownTownship of HopewellTownship of LawrenceBorough of PenningtonBorough of PrincetonTownship of PrincetonCity of TrentonTownship of WashingtonTownship of West Windsor

-9 -


65/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE" P.P....PA.


MIDDLESEX COUNTYTownship of CranburyBorough of DunellenTownship of East BrunswickTownship of EdisonBorough of Highland ParkCity of New BrunswickTownship of North BrunswickTownship of Old BridgeTownship of PiscatawayTownship of PlainsboroTownship of South BrunswickBorough of South PlainfieldTownship of Woodbridge

MONMOUTH COUNTYTownship of Colts NeckBorough of EatontownTownship of FreeholdTownship of HolmdelTownship of HowellBorough of Little SilverTownship of ManalapanTownship of MarlboroTownship of MiddletownTownship of MillstoneTownship of OceanBorough of Red BankBorough of RumsonBorough of Sea GirtBorough of Spring Lake HeightsBorough of Tinton FallsTownship of Wall

-10-


66/76

EUZABETH C. McKENZIE ...P.P....P.A.


MORRIS COUNTYTownship of BoontonBorough of ButlerBorough of ChathamTownship of ChathamBorough of ChesterTownship of ChesterTownship of DenvilleTown of DoverBorough of Florham ParkTownship of HanoverTownship of HardingTownship of JeffersonBorough of KinnelonTownship of Long Hill (formerly Township of Passaic)Borough of MadisonBorough of MendhamTownship of MontvilleTownship of MorrisBorough of Morris PlainsTown of MorristownBorough of Mount ArlingtonTownship of Mount OliveBorough of Mountain LakesBorough of NetcongTownship of Parsippany-Troy HillsTownship of RandolphBorough of RiverdaleTownship of RockawayTownship of RoxburyTownship of Washington

-11-


67/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE_, P.P....PA.


OCEAN COUNTYBorough of Bay HeadTownship of Little Egg HarborBorough of Point PleasantBorough of Point Pleasant BeachBorough of Seaside ParkTownship of Stafford

PASSAIC COUNTYCity of CliftonTownship of Little FallsTownship of West MilfordBorough of West Paterson

SOMERSET COUNTYTownship of BedminsterTownship of BernardsBorough of BernardsvilleBorough of Bound BrookTownship of BranchburgTownship of BridgewaterBorough of Far HillsTownship of FranklinTownship of HillsboroughBorough ofMillstoneTownship of MontgomeryBorough of North PlainfieldBorough of Peapack and GladstoneTownship of WarrenBorough of Watchung

-12-


68/76

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE ....P.P....PA.

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTSON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS; BYMUNICIPALITY(continued)SUSSEXCOUNTY

Borough of AndoverTownship of AndoverBorough of HopatcongTown of NewtonTownship of SpartaBorough of StanhopeTownship of StillwaterTownship of Vernon

UNION COUNTYTownship of Berkeley Heig

special master preliminary report-june 2012

Documents