100-Unit Howell Project Tabled As Developer Drafts Complaint

HOWELL, NJ — The Howell council tabled the approval of a developer's agreement for 100 age-restricted units on Route 9 in a meeting on Tuesday.

Councilwoman Pamela Richmond said that the council should wait until Mayor Theresa Berger and Councilman John Bonevich — who were absent on Tuesday — could be present.

"Councilman Bonevich did mention in the last meeting he thinks the developers should come and speak to him," she added.

Township Attorney Joe Clark confirmed that he had spoken to the developers and that they agreed to come in to address the council. The next meeting will be on Oct. 12.

Council voted against the resolution to approve the developer's agreement in the last meeting on Sept. 14.

Clark warned officials that the developer would likely start litigation to push forward with development and that a settlement agreement dating back many years could allow them to build 408 non-restricted units as opposed to the 100 they currently plan on building.

On Tuesday, Clark said they were getting ready to go to court.

"I have spoken to the developers at length. They have informed me they are in fact drafting a complaint that they intend to file," he said.

Plans for the development known as The Fountains date back decades.

There was a 1989 agreement that allowed for 404 units to be built, Clark explained. Then a 2003 plan was put forward to build 304 units.

"If there was anything done to thwart that plan then the original agreement for 400+ units would kick in," Clark said.

In 2015 the developers filed an application with the planning board where they voluntarily limited the development to 100 age-restricted units. They also abandoned a separate plan to build 26 residential units and agreed to donate 43.6 acres of land to the township.

"There's some controversy or there's some question as to whether it's buildable. It's buildable," Clark clarified. "By approving it and moving forward with the 100 age-restricted units and accepting the donation of property we are taking land out of circulation."

That application was approved by the planning board.

Councilwoman Richmond said some "misinformation" had been spread recently about some construction equipment seen on the development site.

"Just because the developer's agreement was voted down the last time doesn't mean they're not able to continue working, because the planning board already has approved the application," Richmond stated, asking the attorney to confirm.

Clark said that they are not building anything right now but emphasized that this is an approved development by the planning board.

According to Clark, the developer's agreement is something the town insists on to get some control over the nature of the development, timing etc.

"They can proceed without it and, in fact, there's a clause in the planning board resolution that says that the developer shall execute a developer's agreement with the township if the township deems it necessary," Clark said. "One of their positions they could take in litigation is that a no vote means that you didn't deem it necessary, so then all of the sudden we run out of the ability to control timing, we run out of the ability to control the donation of the land necessary, we hamstring ourselves and they still could proceed with the development."

Clark said that the developers had many options and that the town is sort of "left guessing" until there is a complaint.

One of the issues raised by Councilman Bonevich in the last council meeting was that the buildings would be four stories.

Even though the current zoning ordinances don't allow for the construction of that height, the number of stories, under the previous zoning, was grandfathered into the agreement.

"I would recommend until we meet with the developer and we have them in to address council that council not discuss anything more," Clark said. "They have threatened litigation."