RINGWOOD BOROUGH

Passaic County Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan

Adopted: November 28, 2005

Prepared by the Ringwood Borough Planning Board

In Consultation with Banisch Associates, Inc.
Sergeantsville, New Jersey

The original of this document has been signed and sealed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:41-1.3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .. 1

CUMULATIVE PRIOR ROUND AND THIRD ROUND OBLIGATION .. 1

COAH-CERTIFIED SECOND ROUND UNITS AND CREDITS . 3

MEETING THE RECALCULATED PRIOR ROUND OBLIGATION .. 3

MEETING THE THIRD ROUND COAH OBLIGATION .. 4

PLANNING FOR FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING .. 4

FAIR SHARE PLAN .. 5

APPENDIX A - HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS . 6

APPENDIX B - GROWTH SHARE FORECAST .. 16

INTRODUCTION

This Housing Plan Element has been prepared in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28b(3) to address Ringwood Borough’s cumulative housing obligation for the period 1987- 2014. This Plan has also been prepared pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:27D-310, which outlines the mandatory requirements for a Housing Plan Element, including an inventory and projection of the municipal housing stock; an analysis of the demographic characteristics of the Borough’s residents; and, a discussion of municipal employment characteristics. It also responds to the affordable housing mandates of the Third Round Substantive Rules of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) (N.J.A.C. 5:94-1 et seq.).

As required by the Fair Housing Act, municipalities that choose to enact and enforce a zoning ordinance are obligated to prepare a Housing Element as part of the community's Master Plan. The Fair Housing Act also established the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) as the State agency to administer municipal implementation of municipal plans and to create rules and regulations to develop low- and moderate-housing in the State.

COAH has established both procedural and substantive rules for a Compliance Plan to address the affordable housing obligation, based on a regional fair share allocation formula. Municipal land development regulations are now entitled to a ten-year presumption of validity against a builders remedy challenge when a local Housing Element/Fair Share Plan either receives substantive certification from COAH.

The first round COAH regulations covered the 1987-1993 time period. In 1994, COAH adopted substantive rules establishing the requirements for the Second Round of affordable housing plans, covering a twelve-year cumulative period from 1987-1999. The substantive rules for COAH’s Third Round were adopted on December 20, 2004, covering the period from January 2000 to December 2013, although compliance is to be achieved during the period from January 2004 to December 2013.

Affordable housing obligations assigned to municipalities by COAH for the Third Round (through 2013) have been adjusted from prior forecast estimates, based on population and housing data from the 2000 Census. COAH recalculated each municipality’s prior round obligation, remaining rehabilitation component and anticipated residential and non-residential growth through the year 2013, to generate a new affordable housing obligation for each municipality, which is to be met during the period January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2014.

COAH Third Round rules provide that a growth share obligation accrues, beginning January 1, 2004, in relation to new residential and non-residential development. One (1) affordable housing unit is required for every 8 market units and for each 25 new jobs after that date. Pending readoption of the State Plan, with revised forecasts, COAH’s Third Round rules utilize household and job forecasts prepared by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to calculate growth share, and also require municipalities to compare these numbers to locally-derived estimates based on approved or expected growth according to a new COAH methodology..

As shown on Table 1, the MPO forecast results in a growth share obligation of 22 affordable units. The analysis of approved and potential development activity in the Borough indicates lower residential growth but more jobs than projected by the MPO with a net result that the 13-unit growth share component based on the Borough’s development information is 9 units lower than the MPO estimate. Given the impact of the Highlands regulations, which have sharply curtailed the Borough’s development potential, it appears appropriate to utilize the locally-derived growth share estimate in calculating Ringwood’s fair share housing obligation.

TABLE 1

MPO AND LOCALLY-DERIVED GROWTH SHARE

The total Third Round obligation, which is cumulative for all prior cycles, includes three components, as shown in Table 2. The 12-unit growth share estimate is combined with an 8-unit rehabilitation requirement and the 39-unit recalculated prior round obligation to yield a 59-unit cumulative obligation for the period 1987 through 2013.

TABLE 2

RINGWOOD BOROUGH’S THIRD ROUND

AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION

COAH requires monitoring actual growth at intervals during the 10-year period of certification (Years 3, 5 and 8) and can adjust the obligation upward or downward if actual growth differs from projected growth.

COAH-CERTIFIED SECOND ROUND UNITS AND CREDITS

Ringwood Borough received second round substantive certification on August 4, 1999, and the components of that plan were acknowledged in the COAH Compliance Report dated September, 30, 2005. The certified plan included a total of 11 rehabilitation credits leaving a remaining obligation of 62 units, consisting of 51 new units and an 11-unit rehabilitation obligation. The new construction components and rental bonus credits were computed as follows:

• 16 units (15 age-restricted and 1 non-age-restricted unit/bed) in the Sisters of Saint Francis Assisted Living facility
• 10 for-sale units in a municipally sponsored construction project
• 12 beds in a group home
• 12 bonus credits for the group home units
• 11 units in rehabilitation program

According to the COAH Compliance report of September 30, 2005, COAH subsequently determined that the municipal construction site would not be developed as anticipated, and that another municipally-owned vacant site was selected as a replacement. In accordance with an Administrative Order issued by COAH, Ringwood adopted an amended Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and submitted its petition for substantive certification on June 27, 2001. An objection was filed, followed by COAH mediation that has not been concluded. However, the site in question is now within the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region and the project has not yet secured Planning Board approval. COAH has not certified the amended June 27, 2001 Housing Element.

MEETING THE RECALCULATED PRIOR ROUND OBLIGATION

While COAH may continue to recognize the Sisters of Saint Francis site as presenting a realistic opportunity to address part of Ringwood’s fair share obligation if submitted as part of Ringwood’s Fair Share Plan (pending resolution of the Highlands issues), this compliance element appears unduly burdensome on the Borough. With only 15 affordable units as the 10% set aside inclusionary component of a 150-unit project, as cited in the COAH Compliance report of September 30, 2005, the Borough will accrue an additional 10-unit growth share obligation from this project, as only 60 of 135 market units will be excluded from growth share according to NJAC 5:94-2.4 (a) 4, based on a minimum 20% set-aside requirement for excluding market units.

A more appropriate approach is seen in the municipal construction project, which remains a viable option to create 10 for-sale units (subject to the impact of the Highlands’ Preservation Area controls). The Spectrum for Living group home actually includes 16 beds for developmentally disabled adults occupied as of December 2002, not the 12 beds acknowledged by COAH and credited with 12 rental bonus credits. These 16 units qualify for 16 rental bonuses. Table 3 illustrates the 42 credits Ringwood is applying toward the 39-unit recalculated new construction obligation, leaving a 3-unit surplus toward the Third Round.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF RINGWOOD BOROUGH’S RECALCULATED SECOND ROUND

AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLETION STATUS

MEETING THE THIRD ROUND COAH OBLIGATION

Ringwood’s Third Round Obligation includes the post-2000 rehab obligation (8 units) and the 12-unit growth share obligation, as seen in Table 4,

TABLE 4

RINGWOOD’S THIRD ROUND GROWTH SHARE OBLIGATION

AND PRIOR ROUND SURPLUS UNITS

PLANNING FOR FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COAH Third Round rules permit municipalities to meet growth share obligations with a combination of techniques, and also specify how the growth share obligation must be satisfied, including:

• up to 50% of growth share addressed within the municipality may be age-restricted units (up to 6 units);
• up to 50% of total growth share (up to 6 units) can be transferred to another municipality via Regional Contribution Agreements (at $35,000/unit minimum);
• at least 25% of growth share (at least 3 units) must be rental units (rental obligation);
• no more than 50% of the rental obligation may be met with age-restricted units;
• rental bonuses are not available for age-restricted units;
• rental bonuses for non-age restricted units only apply after the rental obligation has been met.

FAIR SHARE PLAN

Ringwood will utilize the following affordable housing strategies, which will complement the Borough’s land use goals and policies and meet local needs, to meet the 17-unit Third Round obligation:

FAIR SHARE PLAN

Ringwood may utilize the following funding tools to meet the COAH obligation:

• Developer fee ordinance – development fees of one percent for residential development and two percent for non-residential development may be charged through a COAH approved development fee ordinance that can fund out of town construction including RCA units.

• Growth share ordinance – builders whose new development produces a growth share may be required to build affordable units at the required rate (1 affordable/8 market units or 25 jobs) or to pay an in-lieu fee to cover the pro-rated cost of partial-unit obligations.

As an alternative to the foregoing approaches, or in the event monitoring of actual growth requires a greater growth share in the future, the Borough may elect to pursue a small 100% affordable senior housing project, to encourage and permit other group homes or similar facilities for low and moderate income persons, or to encourage mixed use of existing commercial facilities in order to provide affordable units.

APPENDIX A - HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Inventory of Municipal Housing Conditions

The primary source of information for the inventory of the Borough’s housing stock is the 2000 U.S. Census, with the data reflecting conditions in 2000.According to the 2000 Census, the Borough had 4,221 housing units, of which 4,108 (97%) were occupied. Table 1 identifies the units in a structure by tenure; as used throughout this Plan Element, "tenure" refers to whether a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied. While the Borough largely consisted of one-family, detached dwellings (98% of the total, compared to 43% in the County), there were 101 units in attached or multi-family structures. The Borough had a lower percentage of renter-occupied units, 6%, compared to 43% in Passaic County and 32% in the State.

TABLE 1: Units in Structure by Tenure

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary Tape File 3 (STF-3) for Borough, QT-H10 and DP-4.

Table 2 indicates the year housing units were built by tenure, while Table 3 compares the Borough to Passaic County and the State. Approximately 66% of the owner-occupied units and all renter occupied units in the Borough were built before 1970.

TABLE 2: Year Structure Built by Tenure

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, STF-3 for Borough, QT-H7.

Table 3 compares the year of construction for all dwelling units in the Borough to Passaic County and the State. The Borough had a much larger percentage of units built between 1960 and 1979 than the County or State, and a smaller percentage of units built between before 1950 and between 1990 and 2000. This is clearly seen in the median year built between the State, County and Borough.

TABLE 3: Comparison of Year of Construction for Borough, County, and State

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-4.

The 2000 Census documented household size in occupied housing units by tenure, and the number of bedrooms per unit by tenure; these data are reported in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Table 4 indicates that renter-occupied units generally housed smaller households, with 55% of renter-occupied units having 2 persons or fewer compared to 43% of owner-occupied units. Table 5 indicates that renter-occupied units generally had fewer bedrooms, with 57% having two bedrooms or fewer, compared to 13% of owner-occupied units.

TABLE 4: Household Size in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, H-17.

TABLE 5: Number of Bedrooms per Unit by Tenure

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, QT-H8 and QT-H5.

Table 6 compares the Borough's average household size for all occupied units, owner-occupied units, and renter-occupied units to those of the County and State. The Borough's average household size for owner-occupied units was higher than the County and the State’s. The Borough’s renter occupied units had an average household size lower than the County but higher than the State.

TABLE 6: Average Household Size for Occupied Units for Borough, County, and State

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-1 for Borough, County, and State, DP-1.

The distribution of bedrooms per unit, shown in Table 7, indicates that the Borough contained fewer small units (0-3 bedroom) than the County or State in 2000, and more large units (four or more bedroom) than either the County or State.

TABLE 7: Percentage of All Units by Number of Bedrooms

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, QT-H4.

In addition to data concerning occupancy characteristics, the 2000 Census includes a number of indicators, or surrogates, which relate to the condition of the housing stock. These indicators are used by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) in calculating a municipality's deteriorated units and indigenous need. In the first Two Rounds of COAH’s fair share allocations (1987-1999), COAH used seven indicators to calculate indigenous need: age of dwelling; plumbing facilities; kitchen facilities; persons per room; heating fuel; sewer; and, water. In the Round Three rules, COAH has reduced this to three indicators, which in addition to age of unit with more than 1 person per room (Pre-1940 units in Table 2), are the following, as described in COAH's rules.

Plumbing Facilities Inadequate plumbing is indicated by either a lack of exclusive use of plumbing or incomplete plumbing facilities.

Kitchen Facilities Inadequate kitchen facilities are indicated by shared use of a kitchen or the non-presence of a sink with piped water, a stove, or a refrigerator.

Table 8 compares the Borough, County, and State for the above indicators of housing quality. The Borough had fewer units with inadequate plumbing and kitchen facilities than the County and State.

TABLE 8: Housing Quality for Borough, County, and State

Notes: ¹ The universe for these factors is all housing units.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State QT-H4.

The last factors used to describe the municipal housing stock are the housing values and gross rents for residential units. With regard to values, the 2000 Census offers a summary of housing values, seen in Table 9, which indicate that 87% of all residential properties in the Borough were valued over $150,000 with 43% valued between $150,000 and 199,999. The median housing value for the Borough was $193,400.

TABLE 9: Value of Owner Occupied Residential Units

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-4.

The data in Table 10 indicate that in 2000 virtually all housing units rented for more than $750/month (93%) with the largest percentage, 36.4%, found between $1,000 and $1,499 per month, and 17.5% of the units renting for over $1,500/ month.

TABLE 10: Gross Rents for Specified Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Note: Median gross rent for Ringwood Borough is $1,137.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, QT-H12.

The data in Table 11 indicate that in 2000 there were 71 renter households making less than $35,000 annually. At least 43 of these households were paying more than 30% of their income for rent; a figure of 30% is considered the limit of affordability for rental housing costs.

TABLE 11: Household Income in 1999 by Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in 1999

Note: The universe for this Table is specified renter-occupied housing units.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, QT-H13.

Analysis of Demographic Characteristics

As with the inventory of the municipal housing stock, the primary source of information for the analysis of the demographic characteristics of the Borough's residents is the 2000 U.S. Census. The Census data provide a wealth of information concerning the characteristics of the Borough's population in 2000.

The 2000 Census indicates that the Borough had 12,396 residents, or 227 fewer residents than in 1990, a decrease of 1.8%. The Borough's 1.8% decrease in the 1990's compares to a 12% increase in Passaic County and an 8% increase in New Jersey.

The age distribution of the Borough's residents is shown in Table 12. The age classes remain relatively evenly split between males and females with a predominance of males in the age range of 0-19 and a female predominance in the 19+ age groups.

TABLE 12: Population by Age and Sex

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-1 for Borough, QT-P1.

Table 13 compares the Borough to the County and State for the same age categories. The principal differences among the Borough, County, and State occurs the age categories 20-34 where the Borough had fewer residents and 35-69 age groups where the Borough had a higher percentage of population located in those cohorts.

TABLE 13: Comparison of Age Distribution for Borough, County, and State (% of persons)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-1 for Borough, County, and State. QT-P1.

Table 14 provides the Census data on household size for the Borough, while Table 15 compares household sizes in the Borough to those in Passaic County and the State. The Borough had a lower percentage of households with 1 person but a higher percentage of households with 2 to 5 persons than the County or State.

TABLE 14: Persons in Household

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, STF-1 for Borough, QT-P10.

TABLE 15: Comparison of Persons in Household for Borough, County, and State

(% of households)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-1 for Borough, County, and State, QT-P10.

Table 16 presents a detailed breakdown of the Borough’s population by household type and relationship. There were 2,446 family households in the Borough and 662 non-family households; a family household includes a householder living with one or more persons related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption, while a non-family household includes a householder living alone or with non-relatives only. In terms of the proportion of family and non-family households, the Borough had more persons in family households than the County or State (84% for the Borough, 73% for the County, and 70.3% for the State).

TABLE 16: Persons by Household Type and Relationship

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, QT-P11 and QT-P12.

Table 17 provides 1999 income data for the Borough, County, and State. The Borough’s per capita and median incomes were higher than those of the County and State. The definitions used for households and families in Table 17 are similar to those identified in the description of Table 16, so that the households figure in Table 17 includes families.

TABLE 17: 1999 Income for Borough, County, and State

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-3.

Table 18 addresses the lower end of the income spectrum by providing data on poverty levels for persons and families. The determination of poverty status and the associated income levels are based on the cost of an economy food plan and ranged from an annual income of $8,501 for a one-person household to $28,967 for an eight-person family for the year 1999. According to the data in Table 18, the Borough had proportionately fewer persons and families qualifying for poverty status than the County and State. The percentages in Table 18 translate to 342 persons and 70 families in poverty status. Thus, the non-family households had a larger share of the population in poverty status.

TABLE 18: Poverty Status for Persons and Families for Borough, County, and State (% with 1999 income below poverty)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-3.

The U.S. Census includes a vast array of additional demographic data that provide insights into an area's population. For example, Table 19 provides a comparison of the percent of persons who lived in the same house since 1995; this is a surrogate measure of the mobility/stability of a population. The data indicate that the percentage of Borough residents residing in the same house as in 1995 was more than that of the State and County.

TABLE 19: Comparison of 1995 Place of Residence for Borough, County, and State

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, QT-H7.

Table 20 compares the educational attainment for Borough, County, and State residents. The data indicates that more Borough residents achieved a high school diploma or higher or a bachelor’s degree or higher than the County or State.

TABLE 20: Educational Attainment for Borough, County, and State Residents

(Persons 25 years and over)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-2.

The 2000 Census also provides data on the means of transportation which people use to reach their place of work. Table 21 compares the Census data for the Borough, County, and State relative to driving alone, carpooling, using public transit, and using other means of transportation. The Borough had a relatively high percentage of those who drive alone, and a relatively low percentage of workers who carpool or use public transit. Of the 4.4% of workers who resided in the Borough and used other means of transportation to reach work, 249 workers worked at home and 16 workers walked to work.

TABLE 21: Means of Transportation to Work for Borough, County and State Residents

(Workers 16 years old and over)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF-3 for Borough, County, and State, DP-3.

APPENDIX B - GROWTH SHARE FORECAST

Residential Growth Share

Table R1: NJTPA Residential Growth Projection

Table R2:

Ten-year Historic Trend of Residential Certificates of Occupancy and Demolition Permits

Table R3: Net Actual Residential Growth

Table R4:

Anticipated Developments & Number of Residential Units

Based on CO’s Minus Demolitions (2005 – 2013)

Table R5:

Total Net Residential Growth (Sum of Actual and Projected Growth)

January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2014

Table R6:

Second Round Affordable and Market-Rate Units in Inclusionary Developments

To Be Excluded from Growth Projection

Table R7:

Net Residential Growth Projections After Subtracting

Second Round Affordable and Inclusionary Market-Rate Units

Table R8:

Residential Growth Share Projection

Non-Residential Growth Share Obligation

Table NR1: NJTPA Non-Residential Growth Projection

Table NR2:

Ten-year Historic Trend of Certificates of Occupancy

and Demolition Permits by Square Feet

Table NR3:

“B” USE GROUP: Actual Developments

by Year that CO’s Were Issued (3 jobs/1,000 sq ft)

Table NR4:

“M” USE GROUP: Actual Developments

by Year that CO’s Were Issued (1 jobs/1,000 sq ft)

Table NR5:

“S” USE GROUP: Actual Developments

by Year that CO’s Were Issued (.2 jobs/1,000 sq ft)

Table NR6: Summary Table

Total Actual Growth (in jobs), 2004

Table NR7: “B” USE GROUP: Developments and Anticipated Developments

based on CO’s Anticipated to be Issued

January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2014 (3 jobs/1,000 square feet)

Table NR8:

“S-Storage” USE GROUP: Developments and Anticipated Developments

Based on CO’s Anticipated to be Issued

January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2014 (.2 jobs/1,000 sq ft)

Table NR9: Summary Table

Total Projected Growth (in jobs), January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2014

Table NR10: Total Net Non-Residential Growth in Jobs

(Sum of Actual and Projected Growth)

January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2014

Table NR11:

Affordable Housing Unit Obligation Generated by Non-Residential Development

Total Projected Affordable Housing Obligation

Table T1:

Total Projected Affordable Housing Obligation Generated

by Residential and Non-residential Development 2004-2014