Borough, TI argue over club's expansion, housing fee

Princeton Borough officials discussed their ongoing negotiations with Tiger Inn on Tuesday over the club's affordable housing payment obligation, which has come into question due to the invalidation of a statewide policy by an appellate court.

Under a Borough ordinance, a proposed several thousand square foot expansion of TI would require the club to pay the Borough about $450,000, Borough councilman David Goldfarb said.

In January, a New Jersey appellate court struck down rules imposed by the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) upon which the Borough ordinance was based.

The ruling required that COAH revise those regulations. But the decision is in the process of being appealed in the state Supreme Court, Borough councilman Roger Martindell said.

"Essentially, the state court pulled the rug out from the COAH regulations, and we had passed our ordinance based on the COAH regulations," Martindell said.

Goldfarb added that it is "unclear whether our ordinance is going to require changes or not" based on modified COAH rules. It is also unknown whether the revised rules would still result in a payment from Tiger Inn, he added.

In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects the affordable housing rights of residents to prevent what is known as exclusionary zoning, in which low-income individuals cannot afford to live in the communities where they work.

The state legislature created COAH as part of the Fair Housing Act of 1985 to legally support affordable housing. The Borough wrote an ordinance to apply this to new construction within its jurisdiction.

"COAH's [subsequent] requirements imposed on towns — depending on their size, their locality and various other factors — a mandate to devote resources to affordable housing," Martindell said.

Under these rules, any new construction in New Jersey incurs an affordable housing obligation that is calculated using a COAH-determined formula. Builders must either create housing units to meet the obligation or pay an equivalent sum to the municipality in which the construction takes place.

The units are meant to provide affordable housing to support the theoretical increase in an area's population as a result of the new construction.

"The proposed addition to Tiger Inn involves one affordable housing unit," Goldfarb explained, the value of which has been calculated as about $450,000. This amount could vary, as COAH rules might change if the appellate court decision is upheld.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"The regulations that allow these [local] ordinances have been struck down," David Kenny, an attorney representing Tiger Inn, said. Therefore, the current ordinance could be considered invalid while the appeal is pending, he added.

Tiger Inn graduate board president Hap Cooper '82 said he was unfamiliar with the details of the situation. Other Tiger Inn officials could not be reached Wednesday evening.

"We're trying to avoid prompting Tiger Inn to challenge our ordinance in court," Goldfarb said. "They may prevail, in which case they would not have to pay, but we would both have to pay legal fees."

A potential solution to costly litigation, Goldfarb said, could be "establishing an escrow account until we see if we're entitled to that money or not." The money will remain untouched until the state Supreme Court rules on the case or COAH issues new guidelines. Then the Borough or Tiger Inn will receive the money in the account plus interest accrued, Goldfarb said.

Martindell and Kenny both said that negotiations will continue as both parties review the issue. "We're doing this because the state Supreme Court said that towns had to do this," Martindell said. "It's not like we're picking on anybody."

Likewise, Tiger Inn is trying to determine the amount it would be required to pay under the appellate court ruling, Kenny said. "I don't think [the club is] taking the position that they shouldn't pay anything."