ELIZABETH

COMMUNITY

C. McKENZIE,
PLANNING

P.P., P.A.

AND DEVELOPMENT STREET JERSEY 08822

MAIN

FLEMINGTON,

NEW

TELEPHONE(908) 782-5564
TEL.EFAX (908) 782-4056

ecmcke@embarqmail.com

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER

PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT

in Lehigh Acquisition 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

Submitted to The Honorable Lisa Chrystal, JSC

June 18, 2012 .

License No. 33L100229400

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE CRANFORD'S FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION HOUSING ACTIVITIES

3 5 8 8 11
12

CRANFORD'S PAST AFFORDABLE

CRANFORD'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE PLAN Prior Round Obligation Rehabilitation Obligation Third Round Obligation Third Round Proposal Repose Issues Additional Matters

15
17 19

CONCLUSION

20
following page 20

APPENDICES

Prior Round Vacant Land Analysis Data, T&M Associates Third Round Vacant Land Analysis Data, T&M Associates Fair Share Housing Center Letter of June 5, 2012

CREDENTIALS

following Appendices

INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the extent to which Cranford Township's current Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan, originally adopted on May 2,2012, and readopted on May 16,2012, addresses and satisfies the Township's known and anticipated fair share for low and moderate income housing.

It is the conclusion of this report that Cranford's 2012 Housing Plan Element and Fair Share 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 on year 2000 U.S. Census data, subject to the validity of the documentation that still

needs to be provided in support of a number of the projects and programs contained within the Plan.

The Township's capacity to accommodate new development to meet a third round obligation is severely limited, due to the lack of vacant and underdeveloped land remaining in the Township, and it is recommended that the Court approve an adjustment to the third round obligation based upon an analysis of the Township's Realistic Development Potential (RDP) for meeting a third round obligation. This adjustment will not eliminate any additional third round obligation the Township may have once new third round numbers have been assigned by COAH or a successor agency, and the Township will still need to address a yet to be quantified Unmet Need obligation for the third round.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

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

The property proposed for a builder's remedy by Lehigh was a 5.05 acre former Class II railroad property located at 555 South Avenue East (Block 511, Lot 1). The Lehigh property had already been declared an area in need of redevelopment by the Township and a redevelopment plan had been adopted for it in January of 2006 pursuant to N.J.S.A.40A:12A-7. The Township's adopted redevelopment plan had permitted 80

age-restricted condominium units, of which 9 were to be affordable. Prior to Lehigh's filing of the lawsuit, there had been a period of negotiations between Lehigh and the Township during which time Lehigh had presented proposals for a higher density of development (and asked for removal of the age-restriction) but the density could not be agreed upon and the Township had not at the time consented to remove the agerestriction, so Lehigh sued, seeking the Court's approval for 186 units, with a 15% setaside for affordable housing. In addition to the builder's remedy, Lehigh's complaint also 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 against the Township of Cranford.

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

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

The two lawsuits are captioned, respectively, Lehigh Acquisition Corp. v. Township of Cranford. 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 approving the settlement was entered by the Court in January, 2011 following a Fairness Hearing held in November, 2010.

CDA's proposal was the subject of a lengthy trial, and CDA was ultimately awarded a builder'S remedy permitting that site to be developed with 360 total units, of which 15 percent, or 54, would be affordable to low and moderate income households. An Order approving the builder's remedy was entered by the Court on December 9, 2011. As part of that Order, the Honorable Lisa Chrystal, JSC, ordered Cranford to revise its Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan and adopt zoning regulations that would address its fair share obligation.

CRANFORD'S FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION

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

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

In light of the void that currently exists at the State level with respect to valid regulations for the determination and fulfillment of municipal third round affordable housing obligations, it is not possible to assign Cranford a definitive third round fair share obligation. This does not mean that the Township does not have a third round obligation, 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 the Appellate Court in 2010, and it was subsequently abolished as a separate agency of the State of New Jersey under the Governor's Administrative Reorganization. The Appellate Division ruled that the abolition of COAH was illegal and ordered its reinstatement, and, earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected the Governor's request to stay the Appellate Division's decision. Nevertheless, COAH has yet to reconvene and resume its duties under the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act invests COAH with certain powers and responsibilities, including the determination of municipal fair share allocations, that cannot be implemented unless COAH resumes its former role.

The Appellate Division's 2010 decision invalidating large portions of COAH's third round Rules has been appealed, and the Supreme Court has accepted certification, but it is not known when oral argument will be heard or when the Supreme Court might rule.

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

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

CRANFORD'S PAST AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

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

The Township does have some affordable housing, however.

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

up to 25 percent of the third round obligation (or, assuming a vacant land adjustment is called for, up to 25 percent of the third round Realistic Development Potential (RDP) and up to 25 percent of the third round Unmet Need). To evaluate the creditworthiness of these units, however. additional documentation date the certificate of occupancy the project is in compliance is still required to confirm the

was issued for the newer units; to confirm that Controls

with the Uniform Housing Affordability

(UHAC Rules) at N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1, et seq., or is specifically requirements;

exempted from such marketed as

and to confirm that the units are being affirmatively

they become vacant.

The Township also has a redevelopment project (the "Riverfront Redevelopers, LLC, Project") which is expected to yield 19 affordable family rental units. The Redevelopment Plan for this project has been adopted, the redeveloper has been selected and the project has site plan approval. The requisite site suitability documentation information must still be submitted for this development, along with and

concerning

the bedroom mix, low/mod split, the deed restriction

the affordable housing agreement applicable to the affordable units.

There is also one (1) affordable housing unit that was approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the Needlepoint Homes development. According to the Township, this unit has been completed, although it is not known if it is occupied and how its occupancy was accomplished. still be submitted The requisite site suitability documentation must

for this unit, along with the deed restriction

and affordable

housing agreement applicable to this unit. It is not known whether this unit is a low income unit or a moderate income unit and how many bedrooms it contains.

For any of the foregoing developments information

that are completed and occupied, controls are being

must be provided as to how the affordabi/ity

administered

and by whom and whether or not the units have been and/or are marketed.

being affirmatively

The Township has three group homes within its boundaries that provide housing for low income persons with special needs. The unit of crediting for such facilities is the bedroom. These three group homes contain a total of 12 bedrooms (at four bedrooms each). A review of the Supportive and Special Needs Housing Survey submitted for one of these facilities (SERV Center of NJ) shows that SERV Center only has 14 year aHordability controls and is not funded through a 20 year capital contract that would qualify it for crediting in lieu of a 30 year deed restriction. Thus, it

would appear that the four (4) bedrooms in this facility will not qualify for crediting unless the Township is able to negotiate with SERV to place a 30 year deed restriction

on the property.

The survey forms for the two Community

Access Unlimited facilities have not yet been provided for evaluation.

Union County operates a housing rehabilitation program and has allegedly rehabilitated 15 properties in Cranford Township that are owned and occupied by low or moderate income households. The Union County rehabilitation program is limited to owner occupants and does not meet some of the other criteria in the current Rules for rehabilitation crediting. The extent to which Cranford will be eligible for credits for these 15 units against its 55 unit rehabilitation obligation will depend upon the date rehabilitation was started (after April 1, 2000, and prior to December 20,2004), the amount expended on each rehabilitation project (an average of at least $8,000 in hard costs) and whether or not a "major system" was involved. Any rehabilitation projects undertaken 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), the availability of the program to rental units and the imposition of 10 year affordability controls (instead of 6 year affordability controls) on all completed units, whether for sale

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

CRANFORD'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE PLAN

Cranford's proposed compliance plan is embodied in its 2012 Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan, adopted May 2,2012 (and readopted on May 16, 2012). The 2012 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 been approved in Cranford to address the prior round obligation and most of the third round obligation. Additionally, Cranford has proposed a new nine (9) unit special needs facility on land owned by the Township on Myrtle Avenue, should these additional credits be needed. Additional information needs to be provided as to the suitability However, there is, as yet, of the

Myrtle Avenue site for development.

no identified

special needs housing provider or firm commitment

of funding for this project, so

it 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-restricted

housing is permissible based upon the formula set forth at N.J.A.C. 5:97-3.1 O(c)1, which is 25 percent of the prior round obligation plus the rehabilitation obligation less any rehabilitation credits). It is noteworthy that

if the Township

is not entitled to all 15 of the

rehabilitation credits that it is claiming as a result of Union County's rehabilitation program, it may be able to claim more than 47 age-restricted units for prior round compliance, based on this formula. These 47 credits are acceptable subject to the

acceptability

of the additional documentation

required, as identified in the

preceding section of this report.

2.

12 group home bedrooms in three group homes. With the exception of the

four (4) bedrooms in the SERV Center facility, which do not appear to be creditworthy after all, eight (8) of these credits will likely be acceptable subject to the evidence to be provided in the additional preceding section of this report. documentation required, as identified in the

3.

54 credits for the family affordable rental units to be constructed

by CDA

on the builder's remedy site. As this project was the subject of a lengthy trial with
extensive site suitability documentation, no further documentation is needed to justify the creditworthiness of this project, although the project will have to comply with UHAC Rules regarding administration, affirmative marketing and affordability controls, as well as all provisions of the December 9, 2011, Order Granting Relief in Exclusionary Zoning Litigation and all requirements of N.J.A.C. 5:97-6.4 pertaining to inclusionary developments. These 54 credits are acceptable.

4.

23 out of 24 possible credits for the family affordable rental units to be by Lehigh on the settlement site. As this project was the subject of a

constructed

Fairness Hearing, and sufficient site suitability documentation was presented in support of the settlement, no further documentation is needed to justify the creditworthiness of this project, although the project will have to comply with UHAC Rules regarding administration, affirmative marketing and affordability controls, as well as all provisions of the January 28, 2011, Consent Judgment for Builder's Remedy and all requirements of N.J.A.C. 5:97-6.4 pertaining to inclusionary developments. All 24 of the units in this project are eligible for crediting, although the Township has been planning to use only 23 of the credits from this project for prior round compliance.

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 the testimony presented in the CDA trial, I had indicated to the Court that I did not believe that Cranford was eligible for any rental bonuses arising from units that were built after

1999 in fulfillment of the prior round obligation. I had based this opinion on a strict
reading of the Appellate Division's October 8,2010, decision invalidating large portions of COAH's Rules, including its Rules pertaining to the award of rental bonuses for rental units that had been proposed as a way to meet the prior round obligation but that remained 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 still relatively new and was still being interpreted by other Court Masters and by other Superior Court Judges. In the year and a half that has followed the submission of my Supplementary Report, I have had an opportunity to reconsider my original position in light of how the Appellate Court's ruling is being applied elsewhere, and I have modified it accordingly. It is now my recommendation that Cranford be permitted to take rental bonus credits for eligible completed affordable units (but not from affordable units that are proposed but remain unbuilt) up to the maximum number of units for which rental bonuses can be claimed in the prior round, or 37 units. Consequently, Cranford may claim 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 not appear to be creditworthy, they are also not eligible for rental bonuses. The eligibility of the bedrooms in the two Community Access Unlimited facilities for crediting, and, hence, rental bonuses, will depend upon the information contained on the survey forms for these facilities, and these survey forms have not yet been provided for evaluation. It is thus my (revised) opinion that the Township may claim up to eight (8) rental bonuses for eight (8) special needs bedrooms, pending the submission additional documentation. 10 of

In sum, the Township's plan for meeting its 148 unit prior round obligation

falls

short by 8 credits due to the fact that the SERV Center group home facility does not appear to be eligible for crediting or for rental bonuses because of the insufficient length of the affordabllity controls to which it is subject. There may

be other as yet undiscovered

flaws in the Township's prior round compliance is submitted, it is not possible to

plan, but, until all of the requisite documentation know this.

Despite the foregoing findings, however, it is my opinion that the Township can readily comply with its entire prior round obligation, documentation assuming all of the pending

is found to be in order. The Township has held several projects in

reserve to be used to address the third round obligation. Among these are the one affordable unit in the 24 unit Lehigh project that is not being applied to the prior round obligation, the Needlepoint Homes unit (which, if occupied, and once fully and satisfactorily documented, may be eligible for a rental bonus, as well) and the

19 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 rental obligation of 37 units and the maximum age-restricted limit of 47 units established in the Rules.

Rehabilitation Obligation

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

11

program. Even though the Court's December 9, 2011, Order acknowledged that 15 units had been rehabilitated by Union County, because this had been asserted repeatedly by the defendants, neither the Court nor the Court Master have seen any description of the units, the work undertaken, the income eligibility of the owners, the start and completion dates, and the affordability controls placed on the units. This information must be supplied to confirm the creditworthiness of these 15 units for purposes of obtaining the Court's approval of the 2012 Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan.

The Township intends to address the remaining 40 unit rehabilitation obligation with its own rehabilitation program, which is contemplated to be consistent with COAH's current Rules and to be a shared services program with other municipalities in the same housing region. This is a perfectly acceptable means of accomplishing a rehabilitation program, but the method of funding, the administration, the program rules and procedures and other elements of the rehabilitation program must be established and presented for approval by the Court before compliance with the rehabilitation obligation can 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 municipal rehabilitation obligations based on these data. When the municipal rehabilitation obligations are updated based on the 2010 data, and new rehabilitation share numbers are issued, they will supersede those that were determined based on 2000 Census data, 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's third round obligation based upon the growth potential of the remaining vacant 12

developable land in the Township plus the "growth share" impact of the actual growth in jobs and housing that had occurred in Cranford between 2000 and 2008. The analysis was prepared by T&M Associates as part of the 2008 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. At my recommendation, Cranford appended this study to its 2012 Plan to support the notion that the Township would be able to qualify for an adjustment to whatever third round obligation it was ultimately assigned based on the insufficiency of the Township's remaining vacant land resources. It had been my intention to have the Township utilize the vacant and developable
land data that had already been assembled in the T &M

study and not have to redo that part of the analysis. It had not been my intention to have the growth share methodology implicit in the T&M study applied to the

determination of Cranford's capacity to address a third round obligation. I am responsible for the misunderstanding that has occurred and that has resulted in the Township preparing a plan that addresses an artificially inflated third round number.

The application of the growth share calculations to the vacant land data have yielded what I consider to be an artificially inflated computation of Cranford's ability to satisfy a third round affordable housing obligation. The correct use of the vacant land data would have been to analyze the raw data assembled by T&M to identify those privately-owned and uncommitted publicly-owned sites that are of sufficient size to accommodate a development 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 Metropolitan Planning Area, in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan) and to assign appropriate densities to those sites that could reasonably be expected to generate inclusionary developments. The analysis would be similar to a prior round Realistic Development Potential (RDP) analysis but using higher densities ranging from 8 to perhaps 18 units per acre depending on the specific site.

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

13

original vacant land analysis. However. in reviewing T&M's original 2008 analysis I noticed that the 1.74 acre Myrtle Avenue site was excluded from the third round vacant land study on the grounds that this site had already been considered in the calculation of the prior round RDP. In light of the Court's determination that Cranford can meet its entire 148 unit prior round obligation, however, and is not entitled to a vacant land adjustment for the prior round. the Myrtle Avenue site should be added back in for purposes 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 for the same reason, but that site is already being used to address the prior round obligation, so its exclusion is permissible.

My evaluation of the lists included in the T&M vacant land analyses for both the prior round 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, units.

a third round RDP for Cranford, at best, is probably fewer than 20

Although I am recommending to the Court that Cranford probably has no more than a 20 unit third round obligation based on its RDP or vacant land capacity, I am not suggesting that 20 or fewer units is the entirety of the third round obligation that should or will be assigned to Cranford. The Township could well be assigned a much higher obligation - depending on the methodology ultimately used. If the Supreme Court upholds the Appellate Court's. ruling that growth share is not an appropriate methodology to use in calculating third round fair share obligations, then Cranford will undoubtedly be able to rely on its capacity (based on its RDP) to satisfy its third round obligation within the repose period. Any portion of the third round obligation ultimately assigned to Cranford that the Township does not have the capacity to address within 14

the repose period will remain as its Unmet Need obligation. The Unmet Need is that portion of the obligation that may be fulfilled over an extended period of time through opportunities that are not currently anticipated, such as private redevelopment proposals. Cranford will be able to fulfill up to 25 percent of its Unmet Need (if it has one) with some of the remaining Lincoln Apartments age-restricted units as well as with any 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 the Appellate 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 the mark.

Third Round Proposal

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

An underlying premise of this conclusion (apart from the caveat that creditworthiness has yet to be fully demonstrated in connection with all of the existing affordable housing units 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 it should be able to claim now) for up to 29 of the new affordable rental units created in these developments. This will push an equivalent number of units that are currently being counted toward the prior round into the third round.

15

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

Lincoln Apartments (age-restricted units) Lehigh = 1 unit not used in prior round Needlepoint Homes = 1 unit Riverfront Developers = 19 units

= 17 (25% of 68)

Lehigh/COA units reallocated to third round = 25 units (due to eligibility for rental bonuses on completed units - once completed - yielding excess affordable units in prior round) Myrtle Avenue Special Needs/Other Affordable Housing = 9 units TOTAL = 72 credits

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

The discovery that the SERV Center group home will not qualify for crediting or for rental bonuses changes the Township's Plan somewhat in terms of the allocation of credits between the prior round and the third round. To satisfy the prior round obligation, 8 units (the 24th Lehigh unit, the Needlepoint Homes unit and 6 of the units proposed in the Riverfront Developers, LLC, project) will have to be reallocated from the third 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 third round obligation, although 4 of these credits could be made up once the CDA and Lehigh projects are completed by taking 4 more rental bonuses in the prior round and displacing 4 more prior round units to the third round. Still, there would be a 4 unit shortfall relative to a 68 unit third round obligation. In addition, I cannot recommend the

16

Court's approval at this time of the 9 special needs housing units contemplated for the Myrtle Avenue site. One of the aspects of COAH's third round Rules that was specifically invalidated by the Appellate Court was the award of credits for projects that were proposed but that were not yet funded or sponsored. The Myrtle Avenue proposal is not yet funded and sponsored. Consequently, at best, Cranford would have a total of 57 credits available to meet a 68 unit third round obligation, if and once the Lehigh and CDA sites are developed. Of course, if the revised vacant land analysis justifies a lower third round RDP, as I believe it will, then the RDP should be easily satisfied.

The entire foregoing analysis is dependent upon satisfactory

documentation

of

al/ of the credits the Township is seeking for the existing and approved affordable housing units In the Plan.

Repose Issues

In the Supplementary Report of the Special Master dated December 1, 2010, I had recommended that the Court consider permitting Cranford to submit a revised Housing Element and Fair Share Plan covering not only the prior round obligation and the rehabilitation obligation. but also an "adjusted" third round obligation. The revised Plan would encompass the settlement with Lehigh, the CDA builder's remedy, some Lincoln Apartments units, the group home bedrooms, the Riverfront redevelopment units, and the Needlepoint Homes unit, along with a program for addressing the Township's remaining rehabilitation obligation. Any "excess" new construction units from the prior round would be treated as third round units. Some or all of the remaining Lincoln Apartments 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 my conviction 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

adjustment will be warranted. Cranford would be able to rely on an extended repose (to the end of 2018) now, would see an end to the litigation, and would have the ability to focus 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 to determine what Cranford's adjusted number (or RDP) should be, there would still be uncertainty regarding the extent of the Unmet Need once Cranford's third round obligation has been determined by COAH or a successor agency.

This issue of the uncertainty associated with the Unmet Need has been raised on behalf of Fair Share Housing Center in a letter to me from Kevin D. Walsh, Esquire, dated June 5,2012 (appended to this report). I do not agree with all of the arguments presented by Mr. Walsh in support of his position that the Township should not be granted extended repose (or, indeed, any repose as to the third round obligation), and I believe that he has misinterpreted the Court's December 9,2011, Order and my original recommendation. Nevertheless, the sixth point in his letter, that mechanisms for addressing the Unmet Need should be part of any third round plan, is valid. Since we do not know the extent of the Unmet Need as this point, it is not possible to address it at this time.

I remain convinced that it is appropriate for the Court to approve a third round vacant land adjustment, although a more precise calculation of Cranford's capacity to absorb development (the RDP) will need to be supplied by the Township in support of the adjustment. In response to the Unmet Need issue, however, it would be reasonable to require 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 in the State to comply with their third round obligations, and present its proposals for addressing whatever Unmet Need obligation it may have based on the third round obligation assigned to it. If a third round obligation remains unassigned, this deadline

18

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

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

Additional Matters

The Township has submitted, as part of its Fair Share Plan, a number of supplementary documents. We have already identified the material that will be needed to support the credits 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 Marketing Plan, ordinances creating the positions of Municipal Housing Liaison and Administrative Agent and resolutions naming persons to those positions. The Administrative Agent is almost 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 for the Administrative Agent's services can be required by ordinance to be paid by the developer, seller or owner of the affordable unit.

19

The rehabilitation program will need to be established. Once a qualified rehabilitation program administrator has been contracted to run the program, a program manual must be 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 Township intends to rely on development fees to fund the program, it will need to adopt a resolution of intent to cover any shortfall in the available funds.

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

The Township HAS submitted a draft Affordable Housing Ordinance and a draft Development Fee Ordinance and Spending Plan. I will be reviewing these documents for compliance with the regulations and comparing them to the models on the NJDCA website. The above-mentioned resolution of intent to fund any shortfall as well as the escrow agreement covering the Affordable Housing Trust Fund established to receive development 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 on Cranford's Plan before it is ready to be the subject of a Compliance Hearing. It is respectfully requested that the Court consider giving Cranford an additional 90 days to calculate an accurate third round RDP, to continue documenting credits and to complete the Fair Share Plan in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report.

20

PRIOR ROUND VACANT LAND ANALYSIS DATA FROM T&M ASSOCIATES STUDY 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN

I i
~
;u

iii
In In

o ~.
iii
::I OJ

-:0
S'

0'<
-I~

a. ..

I
~
Cl

y(')

l~ O!:a
~!.
o '" ::I ~
0.., o III

.I
S!

I
~

~;;\'

- 3
if
10

!
j;
::I
Q. III

I,
..
~

i1. ,.

[0

i-. ::rll! - .. is:

-6''';1

-.f

I
i II
~ ~

O';

~ ~ 0,.
E

g ~.
~

1.7

THIRD ROUND VACANT LAND ANALYSIS DATA FROM T&M ASSOCIATES STUDY 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN

.
1
i

I,'
\1

l
!

~i i

I
!

...

~ ..

JJ

iii

~a

: I

IB
Of

l
I~

..

Ii
,
i
~

1
!

i i

i
I

,
I

~
I

~
!

~ ~
I

~ ~ ~
I
I I

Ii
~ ~

I
I

"

'

~"

r1I

Ii
,
q

n n
I
C

t1

111

iii',.,
I

II

"

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER LETTER OF JUNE 5, 2012

FAIRSHARE HOUSING CENTER

June 5, 2012 Elizabeth C. McKenzie, P.P., P.A. 9 Main Street Flemington, New Jersey 08822 Re: Cranford Development No. UNN-L-3759-08. Associates, LLC v. Township

Peter J. O'Connor. Adam M. Gordon. loura Smith-Denker.

Esq.

Kevin D. WalSh. Esq.

Esq.
Esq.

of Cranford, Docket

Dear Ms. McKenzie: Please accept this letter as Fair Share Housing Center's (FSHC) comments regarding Cranford Township's recently adopted fair share plan. FSHC, founded in 1975, is New Jersey's only public interest organization dedicated solely to the preservation and growth of the Mount Laurel doctrine. We work to ensure that every municipality in New Jersey provides its fair share of lowand moderate-income housing in order to promote housing opportunities for all New Jerseyans and racially and economically diverse communities. As you know, we appear regularly in Mount Laurel 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 and without appealing Cranford's adoption on May 22, 2012 of its fair share plan. We do so with the goal of avoiding the need for adversarial proceedings given that our prinCipal concern is easily addressed as part of your review of Cranford's fair share plan and the Court's response to that report. We reserve our right to intervene and to file an action in lieu of prerogative writ challenging 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 of repose 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 paragraph 6 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 12 that Cranford will receive immunity through December 31,2018. We object to these findings and urge the Court to adopt a revised position that does not adjudicate the Township's Third Round obligations or provide an extended period of immunity for six reasons. First, we note that the builder's remedy did not rely in any way on the failure of Cranford to meet its Third Round obligation. Paragraph 1 of the December 9, 2011 order states that Cranford failed to meet its Prior Round obligation by 54 units "regardless of what its prospective (post1999) need obligation might be." The fact that the Third Round obligation was not needed to demonstrate the violation of the doctrine suggests that the prospective repose is unnecessary and that Cranford should simply await the Third Round regulations. Further, anything that is not necessary to the adjudication of the builder's remedy matter would appear to be properly subjected to a fairness hearing at which the municipality's compliance with the doctrine is evaluated. A Prior Round builder's remedy need not and should not adjudicate Third Round issues and thus unnecessarily exclude the public from the process.

510 Pori< Blvd. Cherry Hill. New Jersey 08002856-665-5444

fax: 856-663-8182'

www.foirshorehousing.org

June 5, 2012

Second, we note that as a practical matter, the Township is already planning to apply to reduce its obligation if it is assigned a lower Third Round obligation. The Township notes as much repeatedly in its fair share plan, stating, for instance, at page 4 that it "reserves the right to amend all portions of this Plan, including Prior and Third Round portions of the Plan and the third 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 a one-way ratchet; the obligation can only go down during the next decade. The Township's interest in amending its fair share plan should cut both ways. Requiring the Township to file an amended fair share plan for the Third Round is thus consistent with the TownShip's overall expectations. Third, demonstrating the practicality of requiring the municipality to return to court is that the Township already acknowledges that it must return to court when the new regulations are adopted because of incomplete details regarding part of its Third Round plan. It writes on page 29 of its fair share plan that it plans to develop a nine-unit special needs development, however the township has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate a realistic opportunity. Its plan states that "[t]he Township will provide a detailed Plan for addressing the 9-unit component of its potential third round obligation upon the adoption of amended affordable housing regulations.~ In short, its existing plan is not intact and needs to be finalized. In light of the gap and 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 the Appellate 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 based on the invalidated approach of growth share and the growth projection adjustment scheme authorized by N.J.A.C. 5:97-5.6. It would be especially anomalous if the trial court immunized Cranford from litigation based simply on the remnant of a need allocation scheme that was invalidated by the Appellate Division. There is no reason to rely on an invalidated scheme when the municipality could simply be required to amend its fair share plan when new regulations are released. Fifth, numerous other courts have required municipalities to meet parts of their Third Round plans and to likewise return to court or COAH when revised Third Round regulations are released. This approach was used in Cinnaminson, a matter in which you are involved as the special master and likely more than ten other matters in Burlington and Gloucester Counties. See, for example, attached orders. Those courts provide "immunity and repose against exclusionary 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 appropriate jurisdiction. " Sixth, the Township has proposed no mechanisms for meeting what is likely to be a significant unmet need once the Third Round regulations are adopted. This is inconsistent with COAH's regulations on unmet need, which are entitled to considerable deference. COAH does not "intend 'unmet need' to become 'a permanent adjustment to municipal affordable housing obllqations." 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 that representation and COAH's history of requiring plans to meet unmet need, the Appellate Division has found that COAH's approach to unmet need met the requirements of the Mount Laurel doctrine. Ibid. See also In re Fair Lawn Borough, 406 N.J. Super. 433, 445 (App. Div.

Juns 5, 2012

2009) (noting in case in which COAH required overlay zoning that COAH carefully scrutinizeda 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' unmet need," 40 N.J.R. 5965(a), 6005 (October 20, 2008). It is also important to note that COAH and the 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 provide a 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 an important 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 plan does not entitle it to ten years of repose and that instead the municipality should be directed to return to court or to COAH when new regulations are adopted to demonstrate its compliance in the Third Round with the Mount Laurel doctrine. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Staff Attorney c: Stephen Eisdorfer, Esq. Philip Morin, Esq.

JUDGE BOOKBINDER

fax:609-51B-2852

Dec

6 2011

15;06

P.01

FileNo. 04719-0137 LawOf6ees

PARKER McCAY, P.A.

FlED wan IIIQat

. DEC - g 2D1I
1toIaId'"'~jJI4

9000 Mldhmtie Drive, Suite 300

P.O~ Dos !054

Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054-1539 (856) 596"&94)0 Attorneys for Petitioner, Township of Cinnaminson

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEy

LAW DIVISION
BURLINOTON COUNTY DOCXET NO. BUR-L-000476-06

IN THE MATTER OF TIm

APPLICATION OP TIlE TOWNSHIP OF CINNAMINSON, a municipal CoIporation of the State ofNcw Jersey, Petitioner

Civil Action (Mount lAurel)

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF THIRD ROUND PROCEEDINGS

AND PROVIDING CONTINUED IMMUNITY AND REPOSE

THIS MAT'I'ER. having been brought before t~ Court on the application of

Petitioner Township of Cinnamins~ ("ToWDShip" and/or "Cb:mam~' pursuant to the AdQption

Superior Co~

Appellate Division's decision in In tke ~1he

J!;Q!y

oUl.U&o
462 (App.
rules

S!96 and S'37n tht:New !>iv. 2010)~

Com on Aft'Qrd@_k

lloui!P&.

(416 N.L.~.

the Court invalidated the revised third round growth s~

adopted by the New Jersey ~WlCil on Affordablc Housing (UCOAH") and directed COAH

to complete new rulem.aking ~d release revised third round fair share numbtft fur aU New Jersey municipalitios by Match 8, 2011;
And it appearing that the Appcllate DiYision "dccl:Jne[d] to issue a bbmket stay of

Proceedings before COAH or in the courts peruUng completion

of a remand to COA!f' in

view of '-rhe fact that more than ten years have now elapsed siDce ex:pUation of the second

JUDGE

BOOKBINDER

Fax:609-518-2B52

Dec

6 2011

15:07

P,02

J:OUncl rules",

Instead.

the Appellate Court indicated tha:t ", , , my municipality or other

interested party may apply for a stay to COAH or the Court inwhicb a Mount Laurel case is
pending. Any such application should be decided in light of the status of the individual municipality's

comp1ianc.e with its affordable housing obligations BDdall other relevant

And it further appearing that the Supreme Court granted petitions fat certification filed by various parties seeking ~

of the 2010 Appellate Division decision and

thereafter gnmted a stay of COAH' s March 8, 2011 rulemaldng de.adline and that none of the
S66 municipalities in New Jersey currently have knowledge orb their third l'OlDld fair share numbers; And it turtb.er appearing that the petitions for certification before the SupJ:ettlC Court remain pending and undecided which impedes the ability of trial courts to dispose of the tbil'd
round compliance proceedings magnitude or nature of

1hat are under the Court' $ jurisdiction; stay the review of the third rouo.d

And it further appearing that COAH elected to

Compliance Plans for the JDunicipalities under its administra1ive review jurisdiction in
respome to

the Appellate Division's 2010 decision pending tbe resolution of the

aweaIs. of

that decision that were filed with the Supreme Court; And it further appearing that both COAH and the Court determined during prior

nnmd affordable housing compliance proceedings that Cinnaminson. is nearing full build-out
and that vacant developable land is a scarce IeSOW'te inthe ToWDShip;
And it further appem.iDg that the Govcmor issued Adlninistrative Agency

R.eorgaDizationPlan No. 001-2011 on June 29, 2011 which eJ.iminated COAH as the

state

adnrlnistrativc agency responsible for guidblg municipal affordable housing compliance

JUDGE BOOKBINDER

Fax:609-518-2852

Dec

6 2011

15:09

P.03

effective August 29~ 2011 and 1IaruIf~

tho oblisation

to MSist

municipalities wtth their

aflilrdable housing compliance initiatives to the New Jersey Dc_partment of Community

Af&iJs ("DCA j;

And it .farther appearing that DCA elected to contbme COAH"s prior stay of review oftbird round Compliance Plans until the disposition ofllie appeals pending befure the Supreme Court;
And it

further appearing that DCA began impleme:nting interim policies and

guidelines

on Sep1I:m.ber 15. 2011 which were che.1lenged and stayed by the ApplClllatc

Division on October 18,2011 through litigation filed by Fair Share Housmg Center because said interim policies and guidelines have the effect of rules which wa-e not adopted in accordance with the Administratkre Proce<lures Act; And it further appearing, based upon (6) the Appellate Division's invalidation oftb& revised. third round growth share rules, (b) the

ru1cmakin&

stay ordered by the Supreme Co'Qtt

and the pending undocidcd appeals of the Appellate Division decision. (c) the of the municipalities in New

mct that none

transfer of its

Jersey know what their third round fair share

obligatiODS arc, (d)

1he Oovemors elimination ofCOAH as a state admioistrati~c agency

functions to ~

and the

(e) the stay of review ofthhd round Plans implemented by COAH and its

continued applioation by DC~ and (f) the stay oithe app1ica1ion of DCA's interim rules,
policies and guide1incs imposed by the AppeUa1e Division on October 18, 2011; that

CinnamjnS(Jn will not be able to comprehend what its affotdable obligation is for the tb.iId round and realistically prepare a third round Housing Element end Fair Sbare Plan (collectively "Conlpliance Plan") until
t}u,

aforeDlentioned issues are resolved by the courts,

JUDGE BOOKBINDER

FaK:609-518-2852

Dec

6 2011

15:10

P.04

And it further appearing. despite

the a:foxemcntioned , confusion

and turmoil

surrounding third round municipal affordable housing compliance, that Cinnaminson has been directed by the Court and the! Special Master to provide opportunities
unquanti6ed tbhd round oblisation aDd
to meet

its as yet

has entered into an Agreement with Lutheran Social

property

Ministries ("LSM") to convey the 2.7S-ar.re Cinnaminson Home

on Riverton Road

that the Township acquired in 200Ho enable LSM to create 54 affordable units in

sa1isf'actioI4 in whole

OJ in part,

of the Township', third round fair share obligation when that

ob1igati.on is eventually government;

established by the judicial, legislative or executive branehes of

And it further appearing that the New

Jersey Departroem: ofEnvi1'OD11le!11a1 Protection

("DEP") has taken b position that the CiDnammson Home parcel is considered by DEP to be on the Township's Oteen A1:J.esRec.reation Open Space Inventory (''ROSI") and may not
be used for affordable housing llDless the Township initiates the Green Acres diversion

process cn'cn though the property was not acquired with Green Acres Open Space funding;
And it fw.1.her appearing that CinnamillSOP dispu.tes DEP's dcUmlination

in this

xegard, which resulted in the TOWIISbip filing Order

to

Show Cause pIOCeedings again$t DEP

11DdcrDocket No. BUR-I,-2688-11 (Mount LauIel) seeking a Court Order compelling DEP
to remove the Cinnaminson Home parcel from the ROS! so that the Towoship can c.onvey

the property 10 LSM to facilitate the construction of 54 affordable units inthe 'tbiTd ronnd;
And it further appearing that the trial court

in the aforementioned proceeding entered

an

oroer on September

28, 2011 uansfexring the matter to the Appellate Division;

ADd it further appearing that Cinnaminson heJ;:etofore tentatively "scant lot that it owns on 1Dman Street tbr~
"taX. foreclosure to

asreed 10 con:vey

Habitat fot Humanity,

JUDGE BOOKBINDER

fax:6D9-518-2852

Dec

62011

15:12

P.DS

BurJioston County ~pter

('~i1at")

to enable Habitat to coDSt:r11ettwo (2) affordable

duplex units to apply against its unknown third round fair share obligation, but is now
impaired in its ability
to

do so because that property may have 1:0 be added to tbe ROSllist

and encumbered with a DEP-imposed open space restriction in exchange for DBP's
wHljognea to remove the latger CinnatDinson Home property from the Rool to enable LSM to produce 54 affordable units; And it further sppcaring

that the aforementioned circumstances involv:lng DEP and TownshipYs ability to produce affordable

the Township"s ROSI negatively impact the

housing on the CimJaminson Home parcel and the Iuman Street lot until the Township's litigation is disposod ofby the Appenate Division and/or the Supres:ne Court. Inlight of the foregoing the trial Court bas found and determined good cause bas
bte.n shown

for

entry

of a stay ofCi.tul3'lnioSOD. TownshipYs third round affordable housing

cODlPliance proceedings, dismissal of the Township"s thiJ:d round clcc:laratOlYjudgment

Complaint and providing cxtended immunity and repose against exclusion.y zoning

litigation through 1he tbe for submission of a third rcnm.d Compliance Plan, if my, once established by regulation, stat.utt; IT IS, onthis ORD~ 1.
(Jf

decision of a court with appropriate jurisdietion.

i:: __day of

Qa &Dl ~c

._3

2011,

as foUows: Cinnaminson Township's Petition for a Stay Of third round comp1.iance

proceedings is gramed subjectto the TownslUp's continued implementation of its CourtLAwamell

.ulJlDJlcCAYI'.A.

approved prior cycle CompliaDle Plan . 2.

This case is hoxeby dismissed without prejudic;e. CWnaminson Township is immunity and repose against exclusionary zoning litigation through the

granted extended

JUDGE BOOKBINDER

Fa)(:609-518-2852

Dec S 201, 15:14

P.06

time for submission of a third round Compli;mcc;

statute, or decision. of

Plan, if any, once established by

regulation.

a. court with appropriB1e jurisdiction.

3.

CiDwuDinson shall be freely permitted to refile with the Court for third :round

dccIaatory judgment telief pursuant to N,1.S.A. 52:21D- 313(a) once its third round fair share obligation is known ox, in the alternative, may elect to invoke the DCA administrative review process pursuant to the Governor's 1une 29,2011 Reorganization
Plan.

4.

DCA shall Q()ntinue to monitor, review and approve the Towuhip's

Plan and the

aft'ordable housing development fee ordiDan~ Trust Account and Sp~ Township shall file all required aecountiDg balances and monitoring forms. ~.

Cinnaminson may conUnuc its efforts to compel DEP to pcn:oit the l'emoval of

the Cinnaminson Home parcel from the ROSI so that it may be used for affordable housing production purposes subsequent to the dismissal of the within proceedings and shall JepOrt to
the Mas1m' and Fair Sharo Housing Center on a quarterly basis regarding the status of this

effort. Inthe ovent the Township changes its course of action, it shall notify the Court. 6. 7. The Towmhip shall appoint a qualified adtninist:ra1i"Vc agent by April 1, 2012.
The Township shall

COD$_ the bills of Elizabeth c. McKeDzi~

Special

Master, by December 23~2011. The Township shall notify Ms. McKenzie of any questions
on her bills by January 13, 2012. The Township sball pay 'those bills which it does not
question by January 31. 2012.

RONALD E. BOOKBINDER, A.l.S.C.

n \"--~sed

__

_....:.... __

_____

Unopposed

"

08126/2011

15:13 Swedesboro

(FAX)7326123101

P.003/010

RECEIVED

AUG 81: 2011

~FREY R. SURENIAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC Brielle Galleria . 707 Union Avenue, Suite 301 Brielle, NJ 08730 \
(732) 6123100

\"-;;-' -;;:'-I!!.li\rE'~~~&-Fl[Eo. '\ RElI~ut

k.I. \

AUG 'I. 9 201\

'\

Attorneys for the Borough of Swedesboro

o C GL ~-..:..--.-' ....
I'! I

SUPEROIUt.t;v

'\ 'OH COLl !~T.O~.:;:.l.~.~ .. ,

1~1\.1lt. ,'hh.!, ..l ,., 0"-"
..
'

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LA W DIVISION: GLOUCESTER COUNTY DOCKET NO. L-2233-08
10 the Matter ofthe Application ofthe Civil Action (MOUNT LAUREL)

Township of Swedesboro, County of Gloucester

ORDER GRANTING PRIOR ROUND JUDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND REPOSE AND STAY OF TIllRD ROUND OBLIGATIONS

Whereas, the Borough of Swedesboro

("Borough")

adopted a Housing Element

and Fair Share Plan ("Affordable Housing PIan") in December of2008; and
Whereas, the Borough filed the Affordable Housing

Plan with COAR and brought

a declaratory relief action seeking approval of said plan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:27D-313; and
Whereas, no objections were filed with respect to the Affordable Housing Plan;

and
Whereas, the Court entered an Order on December 5, 2008 granting the Borough

temporary immunity from Mount Laurel lawsuits; and

08/26/2011

15:13 Swedesboro

(FAX)7326123101

P.004/010

Whereas. the Appellate Division decided In re the Adoption of 5:96 and 5:97 on October 8, 2010; and

Whereas, the
municipality's

Court invalidated

the growth

share

component

of

each

fair share obligation and validated the rehab component and prior cycle

component of the fair share obligation; and

Whereas, the Appellate Division specifically contemplated that a stay would be

appropriate under certain circumstances because of its invalidation of the round three

regulations and various other regulations:

[Aloy municipality or other interested party may apply for a stay to COAI-I or the court in which a Mount Laurel case is pending. Any such applicndon should be decided in ligbt of tbe status of the individual municipality's compliance witb its affordable bousing obligations and aU otber relevant circumstances. In Re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 by the New Jersev Council on Affordable Housing. 416 N.J. Super. 462,476 CAppoDiv. 2010) (emphasis added). Whereas, several municipalities responded to the Appellate Division's
invitation

for towns to move for a stay; and

Whereas, on December

8, 201 0, COAH granted all of the motions, and issued a

resolution in favor of the six towns that took action; and Whereas, COAH eliminated tbe Deed for a municipality to me a motion for a stay if the municipality was not seeking to stay its rehab and prior cycle components of its affordable housing plan: "Whereas, ... going

forward munlcipalities are not required to seek a stay from COAH proceediogs concerning tbird round prospective growth share obligations"; and Whereas, the Borough sought a stay of its third round obligation from the Court
on November 24, 2010; and Whereas, recommended the Court has adopted an alternative procedure which was

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

08/26/2011

15:13 Swedesboro

(FAX)7326123101

P.005/010

in this Court's Case Management

Order on June 3, 2011. Under this procedure the Court

has considered the Borough's application for a stay in light of the status of its satisfaction
of its rehabilitation and prior cycle fair share obligations and the extent to which it is

making a reasonable effort to address its - as yet unspecified - third round obligation. Whereas, the Case Management application for a judgment Order required a hearing on: 1) the Borough's rehabilitation

of compliance and repose on 1he Borough's

obligation and prior round obligation; and 2) the Borough's round obligation; and Whereas, the Case Management

request for a stay on its third

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 Master of a Master's applications Order further required the submission any objections by the to the

Report by July 20, 2011 and required to be submitted

Borough's

in writing to the Court, the Borough and the

Master by July 27, 2011; and Whereas,

it also required the Borough to make the changes to its Affordable in the Master's Report dated January 18,2010; and
its application fur
e,

Housing Ordinance as requested

Whereas, on June 16, 2011, the Borough submitted round judgment

prior

of compliance and repose (hereinafter "JOR") and stay of its third round

obligations to the Court; and Whereas, the Borough made those documents available for public inspection
I

and

provided documents

public notice in the Gloucester and the hearing date; and

County Times of the availability

of those

08/2612011

15:14 Swedesboro

(FAX)7326123101

P.006/010

Whereas the Borough also prepared a letter enclosing a copy of that legal notice to Fair Share Housing Center, the known affordable housing advocacy region groups in the

and all developers in the Borough who expressed an interest in affordable housing;

and

'Whereas, no objections were received , although Fair Share Housing Center

submitted a letter dated July 28, 20 I I which did not object Lo the relief sought, but rather objected 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 and 23-writ prior round obligation; and the Borough's 9-unit rehabilitation obligation

Whereas, as to the rehabilitation obligation. the Report recognized the Borough's

participation in the Gloucester County Rehabilitation program, and recognized 8 credits

resulting therefrom; and Whereas, the

Master

recommended

the granting

of a waiver of the $10,000

average per-unit rehab cost

because, among other reasons:

1) the $9.379.00 average per

and 2)

unit cost was a de rninimus departure from the $10,000.00 per unit requirement; the Borough had exceeded the average cost requirement on its separate

RCA rehab

program with Woolwich; and

Whereas, the Master deemed the rehabilitation obligation satisfied as long as the

Borough agrees to rehabilitate any rental unit not covered by the County program until
such time as the Borough completes its rehabilitation obligation; and

Whereas, the Master also deemed the 23-unit prior round obligation satisfied with SlX (6) senior rental units from the King's Way apartments
which have already been

08/26/2011

15;14 Sweaesboro

(FAX)7326123101

P.007/010

constructed,

one (1) bonus rental credit from the Kings Way apartments;

and eighteen

(18) affordable units from Valley View Land Company, lnc.; and Whereas, the Master recommended that the Affordable Housing Plan be revised

to satisfy the prior round obligation in the manner set forth above; and Whereas, the Master recognized two surplus units from Valley View and the 30 surplus credits from King's Way Apartments to be carried over to future housing

obligations; and Whereas, Borough the Master recommended spending plan approval and required the

to conduct monitoring

of its affordable

housing trust fund using the eTM

system to ensure that funds are properly tracked; and Whereas, the Master approved the revised Affordable Housing Ordinance and

required the Borough to adopt an Affirmative Marketing Plan; and Whereas, the Master also required a resolution appointing an affordable administrator and a contract with an affordable housing administrator housing

when the Valley

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

grant of a third round stay noting that

(55 credits
VS.

the Borough has credits for more than twice its prior round obligation 23-unit obligation); and Whereas, the Master concluded his report by recommending:

1) approval of the

plan subject to the six conditions noted therein; 2) that the period of repose and immunity from exclusionary zoning litigation run until the municipality's deadline for submission

08/26/2011

15:14 Swedesboro

(FAX)73261 231 01

P.OOS/010

of a third round Fair Share Plan pursuant to revised third round rules or a deadline created by revised third round rules or the New Jersey State Legislature; and 3) a stay of pI anning for implementing a Fair Sbare Plan for the third round obligation; and Whereas, the Borough (appearing through Donna A. McBmon, Esq.), the Master in a

and Fair Share Housing Center (appearing through Kevin Walsh, Esq.) participated hearing before the Court on August 3, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.; and
Whereas, no party objected to the relief sought by the Borough; although

Fair

Share Housing Center reiterated its concern regarding the logic employed by the Borough

in seeking a stay; and Whereas, in view of the foregoing, the Com's review of the documents submitted into evidence identified on the Table of Contents attached hereto as Exhibit "A/' consideration of the arguments of the Borough and the comments a

of FSHC and a

consideration of the report and testimony of the Court appointed master,

It is on thls'J~ay

of August 2011 ordered as follows: of compliance and repose on its

] . The Borough is entitled to a judgment rehabilitation and prior round obligations.

2. The Borough shall rehabilitate any rental unit if rehabilitation

is requested

(to

the extent the County program remains closed to rental units) until such time as the Borough completes its rehabilitation obligation. 3. The Borough Planning Board shall adopt and amended Affordable Housing

Plan to satisfy the prior round obligation in the manner indicated in Table I of the Master's Report, including the maximum permitted bonus credits, within

90 days of the date of this Order.

08/26/2011

15:14 Swedesboro

(FA)()7326123101

P.009/010

4. The Borough shal1 conduct monitoring

of its affordable housing trust fund

using the CTM system to ensure that funds are properly tracked. 5. The Borough shall adopt an Affirmative Marketing Plan, via resolution of the within

Governing Body, to set forth the affirmative marketing requirements

90 days of the entry of this Order. 6. The Borough shall adopt the revised Affordable Housing Ordinance within 90 days of the date of this Order.
7. TIle Borough

shalt adopt a resolution

appointing

an affordable

housing

administrator and enter into a contract for same prior to the Valley View units

being ready for occupancy.

8. The Borough shall prepare an operating manual for sale units on the Valley

View project prior to the units being ready for occupancy. 9. The Borough's Spending Plan (revised September 14.2010) is consistent the third round substantive rules, N.J.A.C. 5:97-8; however, approval with of the

Spending Plan must be granted by COAH or its successor. 10. The Borough is granted a stay of its third round planning obligation subject to the Borough maintaining the current zoning of the Valley View property ..

11. The Borough shall remain immune from exclusionary zoning challenges
builder's remedy suits until the time for submission of a third

and
round

compliance plan, if any. is established court with appropriate jurisdiction, upon the filing by the Borough

by regulation, statute or decision of a

provided that immunity will be extended of a duly adopted and endorsed housing

element and fair share plan for the third round for such time as COAH, the

08/26/2011

15:15 Swedesboro

(FAX)73261231 01

P.Ol0/010

DCA Commissioner

or the Court, with the input of its Master, may deem

appropriate.
12. The Borough shall submit annual reports to the Court and Master, with a copy to Fair Share Housing Center, on the status of the rehab obligation and the

Valley View project commencing on the one-year anniversary of the entry of this Order.
13. Valley View Land Company, Inc. shall pay the sum of $9,675.00 to Clark

Caton Hintz within 30 days of the entry of this Order for services owed in connection with the Valley View project.

Anne McDonnell, P 1. Ch.

CREDENTIALS

ELIZABETH
COMMUNITY

C. McKENZIE"
PLANNING

P.P.,. PA.

AND DEVElOPMENT STREET JERSEY 08822

MAIN

FLEMINGTON,

NEW

TELEPHONE (908) 7825564 TELEFAX(908) 7824056

ecmcke@embarqmail.com

CURRICULUM VITAE ELIZABETH C. MCKENZIE, AICP, PP

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

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Elizabeth C. McKenzie. P.P .. P.A. President of community planning and development consulting firm established February, 1980, incorporated November, 1985. Rutgers, the State University, School of Urban Planning and Policy Development, as Visiting Lecturer, 1981-1983. Teaching principles of land use planning to undergraduates in the engineering and planning programs. Alvin E. Gershen Associates (formerly Gershen and Coppola Associates), as Planner-inCharge, 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

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE"

P.P." P.A.

for over a dozen municipal clients; special planning studies and development proposals for private clients. East Brunswick Township, first as an intern and later as assistant planner, 1977-1978. Responsibilities included designing and implementing a comprehensive retail market analysis as well as a survey of major industrial sectors; developing, administering and evaluating the results of a consumer questionnaire; evaluating demographic data; and analyzing environmental constraints, zoning and impacts of development proposals.

EDUCATION M.C.R.P. Rut~ers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Graduate School, Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development. Awarded January 1978.
I

B.A.

Briarcliff College, Briarcliff Manor, New York. Major: English Literature. Awarded August, 1968.

AWARDS AND HONORS Fellow, Ea~leton Institute of Politics, 1976-1977. Bloustein School Alumnus o/the Year, 1999.
N1APA Budd Chavooshian Awardfor Outstandin~ Professional Planner, 2011.

OTHER

Raritan Township Planning Board, member and vice-chairman, 1974-1978. Chaired site plan and subdivision review committee, technical coordinating conunittee, and master plan committee. Collaborated in preparation of numerous ordinances and ordinance amendments, including soil erosion and sediment control and flood plain and stormwater management ordinances. Raritan Township Environmental Commission, member and liaison with Planning Board, 1975-1978.
-2-

ELIZABETH

C. McKENZIE"

P.P., PA.

New Tasey Federation of Planning Officials, served on Local Response Committee, 19761978. Collaborated in preparation of several special reports, including housing needs of the elderly, hiring a professional consultant, the Municipal Land Use Law. South Branch Watershed Association, trustee, 1973-1978. Environmental action group. Citizens' Housing Corporation. Raritan Township. New Jersey, trustee and officer, 19761978. Non-profit housing sponsor. North CounQj Conseroam;y, trustee 1992-1994. Non-profit affordable housing consultant.

CURRENT PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners. member. :v ... American Planning Association, member. New Jersey Association 0,( Consulting Planners, member. New lersey Planning Officials, Board of Counselors. South Branch Watershed Association, member. SocieQj of Court-Appointed Masters, charter member. New lersey Site Improvement Advisory Board, member.

-3-

ELIZABETH

C. McKENZIE"

P.P." P.A.

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS

The Borough of Little Ferry, Bergen County The Borough of Ramsey, Bergen County The Borough of Saddle River, Bergen County The Township of Wyckoff, Bergen County The Borough of Haddonfield, Camden County The Township of Cherry Hill, Camden County The Township of Bloomfield, Essex County The Township of Millburn, Essex County The Township of Verona, Essex County The Township of Alexandria, Hunterdon County The Borough of Califon, Hunterdon County The Town of Clinton, Hunterdon County The Township of Delaware, Hunterdon County The Township of East Amwell, Hunterdon County

The Borough of Flemington, Hunterdon County The Borough of Frenchtown, Hunterdon County The Borough of Glen Gardner, Hunterdon County The Township of Holland, Hunterdon County The Township of Princeton, Mercer County The Township of Washington, Mercer County The Township of Wall, Monmouth County The Borough of Chatham, Morris County The Borough of Lincoln Park, Morris County The Borough of Bloomingdale, Passaic County The Township of Branchburg, Somerset County The Borough of Manville, Somerset County

-4-

ELIZABETH

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

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS (continued)

The Township of Fredon, Sussex County The Township of Green, Sussex County The Borough of Andover, Sussex County The Borough of New Providence, Union County The Township of Springfield, Union County The Township of Greenwich, Warren County The Township of Harmony, Warren County The Township of Hope, Warren County The Township of Lopatcong, Warren County The Township of Pohatcong, Warren County Borough of Ramsey Zoning Board of Adjustment, Bergen County Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Essex County Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Essex County City of Lambertville Zoning Board of Adjustment, Hunterdon County Township of Holmdel Planning Board and Environmental Commission, Monmouth County Middletown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Monmouth County Borough of Lincoln Park Zoning Board of Adjustment, Morris County Franklin Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Somerset County Berkeley Heights Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, Union County Flemington-Raritan Regional School District, Hunterdon County

Warren Hills Regional School District, Warren County

-5-

ELIZABETH

c.

McKENZIE~

P.P -. P.A.

PAST AND CURRENT MUNICIPAL CLIENTS (continued)

With Frost Associates: Borough of Metuchen, Middlesex County Township 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-

ELIZABETH

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

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY

ATLANTIC COUNTY Township of Galloway BERGEN COUNTY Borough of Alpine City of Englewood Borough of Fort Lee Borough of Franklin Lakes City of Hackensack Borough of Hillsdale Borough of Little Ferry Township of Lyndhurst Township of Mahwah Borough of Montvale Borough of Oakland Borough of Paramus Borough of Ramsey Township of River Vale Township of Rochelle Park Borough of Rutherford Borough of Saddle River Township of Teaneck Borough of Tenafly Borough of Upper Saddle River Borough of Waldwick Township of Wyckoff BURLINGTON COUNTY Township Township Township Township of Bordentown of Florence of Hainesport of Pemberton

-7-

ELIZABETH

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

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY (continued)

ESSEX COUNTY Borough of Caldwell Township of Cedar Grove Township of Fairfield Borough of Glen Ridge Township of Livingston Township of Maplewood Township of Millburn Township of Montclair City of Newark Township of North Caldwell Town of Nutley Borough of Roseland Township of South Orange Village Township of Borough of Verona Township of West Orange

GLOUCESTER COUNTY
Township of Deptford HUDSON COUNTY City of Hoboken City of Jersey City HUNTERDON COUNTY Township of Alexandria Township of Bethlehem Borough of Bloomsbury Town of Clinton Township of Clinton Township of Delaware Township of East Amwell

-8-

ELIZABETH

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

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY (continued)

HUNTERDON COUNTY (continued) Borough of Flemington Township of Franklin Borough of Frenchtown Borough of Hampton Borough of High Bridge Township of Kingwood City of Lambertville Borough of Lebanon Township of Lebanon Township of Raritan Township of Readington Borough of Stockton Township of Union Township of West Amwell

MERCER COUNTY
Township of East Windsor Township of Ewing Township of Hamilton Borough of Hightstown Township of Hopewell Township of Lawrence Borough of Pennington Borough of Princeton Township of Princeton City of Trenton Township of Washington Township of West Windsor

-9-

ELIZABETH

C. McKENZIE"

P.P....PA.

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY (continued)

MIDDLESEX COUNTY Township of Cranbury Borough of Dunellen Township of East Brunswick Township of Edison Borough of Highland Park City of New Brunswick Township of North Brunswick Township of Old Bridge Township of Piscataway Township of Plainsboro Township of South Brunswick Borough of South Plainfield Township of Woodbridge MONMOUTH COUNTY Township of Colts Neck Borough of Eatontown Township of Freehold Township of Holmdel Township of Howell Borough of Little Silver Township of Manalapan Township of Marlboro Township of Middletown Township of Millstone Township of Ocean Borough of Red Bank Borough of Rumson Borough of Sea Girt Borough of Spring Lake Heights Borough of Tinton Falls Township of Wall

-10-

EUZABETH

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

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY (continued)

MORRIS COUNTY Township of Boonton Borough of Butler Borough of Chatham Township of Chatham Borough of Chester Township of Chester Township of Denville Town of Dover Borough of Florham Park Township of Hanover Township of Harding Township of Jefferson Borough of Kinnelon Township of Long Hill (formerly Township of Passaic) Borough of Madison Borough of Mendham Township of Montville Township of Morris Borough of Morris Plains Town of Morristown Borough of Mount Arlington Township of Mount Olive Borough of Mountain Lakes Borough of Netcong Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills Township of Randolph Borough of Riverdale Township of Rockaway Township of Roxbury Township of Washington

-11-

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE_,

P.P....PA.

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS, BY MUNICIPALITY (continued)

OCEAN COUNTY Borough of Bay Head Township of Little Egg Harbor Borough of Point Pleasant Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Borough of Seaside Park Township of Stafford PASSAIC COUNTY City of Clifton Township of Little Falls Township of West Milford Borough of West Paterson SOMERSET COUNTY Township of Bedminster Township of Bernards Borough of Bernardsville Borough of Bound Brook Township of Branchburg Township of Bridgewater Borough of Far Hills Township of Franklin Township of Hillsborough Borough of Millstone Township of Montgomery Borough of North Plainfield Borough of Peapack and Gladstone Township of Warren Borough of Watchung

-12-

ELIZABETH

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

APPEARANCES OR SPECIAL PROJECTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CLIENTS; BY MUNICIPALITY (continued) SUSSEX COUNTY Borough of Andover Township of Andover Borough of Hopatcong Town of Newton Township of Sparta Borough of Stanhope Township of Stillwater Township of Vernon UNION COUNTY Township of Berkeley Heights Township of Cranford Borough of Fanwood Township of Hillside City of Linden Borough of Mountainside Borough of New Providence City of Plainfield Township of Scotch Plains City of Summit Township of Union Town of Westfield WARREN COUNTY Township of Blairstown Township of Franklin Township of Frelinghuysen Township of Knowlton Township of Lopatcong Township of Mansfield Township of Oxford Town of Phillipsburg Township of Pohatcong Township of Washington Township of White

-13-

ELIZABETH

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

MASTER PLANS, MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS, AND PERIODIC REEXAMINATION REPORTS COMPLETED

Borough of Chatham, Morris County for Gershen and Coppola Associates Township of Lower, Cape May County for Gershen and Coppola Associates Township of Washington, Mercer County for Gershen and Coppola Associates Township of Springfield, Union County for Gershen and Coppola Associates Borough of Spring Lake, Monmouth County for Richard Thomas Coppola, P.P. Township of Mantua, Gloucester County for Richard Thomas Coppola, P.P. Township of Lopatcong, Warren County Township of Bernards, Somerset County for Frost Associates Borough of Metuchen, Middlesex County for Frost Associates Township of Alexandria, Hunterdon County Township of Pohatcong, Warren County Town of Clinton, Hunterdon County Township of Holland, Hunterdon County Township of Harmony, Warren County Township of Greenwich, Warren County Borough of Flemington, Hunterdon County

-14-

ELIZABETH

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

MASTER PLANS, MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS, AND PERIODIC REEXAMINATION REPORTS COMPLETED (continued)

Borough of New Providence, Union County Township of Springfield, Union County Township of Green, Sussex County Township of Fredon, Sussex County Borough of Califon, Hunterdon County Township of East Amwell, Hunterdon County Township of Princeton, Mercer County Borough of Saddle River, Bergen County Borough of Alpha, Warren County with Mace Consulting Engineers Township of Wyckoff, Bergen County Borough of Frenchtown, Hunterdon County Borough of Manville, Somerset County Township of Branchburg, Somerset County Borough of Lincoln Park, Morris County Borough of Haddonfield, Camden County . Borough of Glen Gardner, Hunterdon County Borough of Little Ferry, Bergen County

-15-

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

COURT APPEARANCES

Middlesex County Superior Court (Hampton Borough - Mount Laurel II) Middlesex County Superior Court (Town of Clinton - Mount Laurel II) Middlesex County Superior Court (Edison Township) Middlesex County Superior Court (South Brunswick Township) Union County Superior Court (Springfield Township) Camden County Superior Court (Haddon Township) Mercer County Superior Court (Washington Township) Essex County Superior Court (Livingston Township) Essex County Superior Court (Township of Borough of Verona) Bergen County Superior Court (Borough of Fort Lee) Bergen County Superior Court (Borough of Little Ferry - Mount Laurel II) Bergen County Superior Court (Mahwah Township - Mount Laurel II . remand) Bergen County Superior Court (Oakland Borough) Bergen County Superior Court (Ramsey Borough) Bergen County Superior Court (Saddle River Borough - Mount Laurel II) Bergen County Superior Court (Waldwick Borough) Passaic County Superior Court (City of Clifton) Passaic County Superior Court (Borough of West Paterson)

-16-

ELIZABETH

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

COURT APPEARANCES

(continued)

Passaic County Superior Court (Borough of Bloomingdale Mount Laurel II) Sussex County Superior Court (Stillwater Township) Somerset County Superior Court (Hope Township - from Warren County) Somerset County Superior Court (Borough of Peapack and Gladstone) Somerset County Superior Court (Borough of High Bridge - from Hunterdon County) Morris County Superior Court (Roxbury Township) Morris County Superior Court (Mendham Borough) Morris County Superior Court (Butler Borough) Morris County Superior Court (Fredon Township from Sussex County) Morris County Superior Court (NJDOY v. Goldmeier (N.J.) Ltd. Condemnation in Byram Township and Hopatcong Borough, Sussex County) Administrative Administrative Law Court (Scotch Plains) Law Court (Roseland Borough)

-17-

ELIZABETH C. McKENZIE"

P.P." PA.

COURT-APPOINTED

MASTER

Manalapan Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round One) Green Brook Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round One) Washington Township (Mercer) Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round One) Aberdeen Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round One) Raritan Borough M<;lUnt Laurel II Litigation (Round One) South Plainfield Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Woodbridge Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Cranbury Township Litigation (Hagerty) Hillsborough Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Carteret Borough Mount Laurel II Compliance Review (Round Two) Demarest Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Edison Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Jamesburg Borough Litigation (SERV) Eastampton Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) West Windsor Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Englishtown Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Green Brook Township Litigation (Renda) Roosevelt Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Essex Fells Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two)

-18-

ELIZABETH

C. McKENZIE,.

P.P....P.A.

COURT-APPOINTED
(continued)

MASTER

Freehold Township Litigation (Hovbilt) Farmingdale Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two) Logan Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Matawan Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Lebanon Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Willingboro Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) West Long Branch Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Farmingdale Borough Judicial Determination (Round Three) Woodbridge Township Judicial Determination (Round Three) Milltown Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) .

Roselle Park Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Oceanport Borough Mount Laurel IILitigation (Round Two/Three) Toms River Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Remand for Builder's Remedy Only - Round Two) Berlin Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Cranford Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Hillsborough Township Judicial Determination (Round Three) Hazlet Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three) Livingston Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three)

-19-

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

COURT-APPOINTED MASTER
(continued)

Haddon Township Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Three) Highland Park Borough Mount Laurel II Litigation (Round Two/Three)
,

Cinnaminson Township Judicial Determination (Round Three) Bethlehem Township Judicial Determination (Round Three)

-20-

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

COURT-APPOINTED

MEDIATOR

East Brunswick Township Litigation (Lapinski) East Brunswick Township Litigation (Bailes) East Brunswick Township Litigation (Heavenly Farms) East Brunswick Township Litigation (Iaria) Edison Township Litigation (TWC Realty) Edison Township Litigation (Alfieri) Monroe Township Litigation (N.J. Builders Association) Scotch Plains Township Litigation (Fantini) Metuchen Borough Litigation (Land Bank, Inc. tja Metuchen I, LLC) Piscataway Township Litigation (Regency Realty/Halper) South Plainfield Township Litigation (Carole Media, et als.)

-21-