Page 15 of 50

ORDINANCES, FIRST READING:

ORDINANCE: 30-16

ORDINANCE: 30-16 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, COUNTY OF OCEAN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE TOWNSHIP CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, SO AS TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT CHAPTER 244, ENTITLED, "LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS," SO AS TO CREATE S 244-53.1, TO BE ENTITLED, "PIC PLANNED INCLUSIONARY COMMUNITY ZONE"

Attorney Cipriani explained this ordinance was presented and prepared by the developer, EL @ Jackson, per the terms of a Consent Order. The Township has been involved in Affordable Housing litigation and EL @ Jackson is also involved in that litigation, as this is the old Hovbilt project which was approved many years ago. It was not built by Hovbilt and the property was sold off. EL is currently in the plan to be converted to a certain amount of family units. The existing ordinance reflects the prior project and the developer is seeking the creation of alternative zoning, by way of this ordinance. The Consent Order states that the developer could propose an ordinance for Council’s consideration. Mr. Maczuga and I made requests/suggestions that were incorporated into this proposed ordinance.

She advised that as part of Council’s consideration, she would read Mr. Maczuga’s 11-16-16 report on the proposed ordinance into the record and that we need to put our reasons for any action on record. Ms. Cipriani read the report into the record advising the 9-16-16 Consent Order in this matter requires the Township to “hold a hearing to consider and vote to either adopt the draft ordinance submitted by EL or shall place upon the record at a public hearing its reasons for not adopting the draft ordinance proposed by EL.” EL @ Jackson submitted a draft ordinance on 9-21-16 and my memorandum dated 10-21-16 listed 12 comments pertaining to that draft ordinance. A meeting was held on 11-1-16 attended by representatives of EL @ Jackson, Jackson Township and Phil Caton, Court Master. My 10-21-16 memorandum served as the basis for the discussions. On 11-9-16, Frank Petrino, Attorney for EL @ Jackson, submitted a revised draft dated 11-9-16 stating “the revised draft” has been conformed to incorporate the changes in items 1 to and including 11 of Mr. Maczuga’s 10-21-16 memorandum”. The statement is totally inaccurate. Beginning with the comments in my previous memorandum, the following comments are offered:

  1. Item 1 of my 9-21-16 memo indicated “the ordinance as proposed contains no reference to any specific property to be rezoned “PIC” and would not rezone the EL @ Jackson property or any property for that matter”. The revised draft ordinance has not addressed this comment and doesn’t identify any property to be rezoned. If adopted as drafted, it would only create a PIC Zone.
  2. Item 2 of my 9-21-16 memo was a statement.
  3. Item 3 of my previous memo referenced the provisions dealing with the required affordable housing set-asides per the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA), as amended. The current affordable housing agreement requires 20% of the total units to be set-aside as affordable units regardless of whether the units are for sale, rental or mix. The revised draft ordinance Section H.(2) provides that the affordable housing set-aside would be 15% “if said units are rental”. This provision is contrary to the existing AHA and would require an amendment of the AHA. It also unclear what quote “said units” refers to.
  4. Items 4 & 5 of my previous memo, the revised ordinance would remove the former provision permitting 50% of the required affordable units to be constructed at an unspecified off-site location(s). The revised ordinance would require the affordable units to be constructed onsite.
  5. Item 6 of my previous memo, section 244-224C of the Land Development regulations providing that “affordable units shall be situated on the development tract in locations no less desirable than the market priced dwelling units in the development and shall be accessible to the common open space, common facilities and shopping facilities”. The revised ordinance purports to address the concern expressed by the Township about overly concentrating large numbers of affordable units in a given location through the addition of the following sentence found in section H.(2) of the revised draft. “Affordable units may be aggregated by building and/or neighborhood, if they are for rent”. It is not clear to me what this means but since “aggregated” means combined into one it doesn’t address the concern. Furthermore, section L of the revised ordinance provides that “any multi-family and/or affordable housing units may be part of a separate homeowner’s association”. This