Fountains Project Rejected By Howell Council, Sparks Squabbles

HOWELL, NJ — The developer's agreement for The Fountains project on Route 9 was rejected by the Howell Township council in a meeting on Tuesday.

The project has been the source of much controversy for the past few meetings and once again this week led to a tense meeting, with moments of confrontation and a lot of back and forth between some of the residents and Mayor Theresa Berger.

The resolution was rejected in a 4-1 vote, with only Deputy Mayor Thomas Russo voting yes.

"I can see we're gonna probably end up in litigation with the developer on this, so I would not speak too much about what motivated votes previously," township attorney Joseph Clark said.

The council had voted against this same resolution back in September, but it was put back on the agenda after Clark clarified that because of a decades-long history of prior agreements regarding this project, the developer's could sue the town and potentially be able to build 408 non-age-restricted units instead of the current 100 age-restricted units that are being proposed.

READ MORE: Howell Might Be Sued After Rejecting 100-Unit Development

The project has already had approval from the planning board, but the developer still needs the board to vote yes on the developer's agreement in order to get building permits.

In the last meeting, a representative of the developer made it clear that litigation was next to certain if the board refused to approve the document.

"In case you have any questions, it will come if you don't agree to this," he said.

READ MORE: Howell Resident, Project Developer Threaten Town With Lawsuit

Councilman John Bonevich once again stated that his main reason to vote no was the fact that this is a four-story development when the current zoning only allows for two stories. The exception was due to the four stories being grandfathered in with a 2003 settlement.

Councilwoman Pamela Richmond was absent for most of the meeting but joined in later over the phone specifically to allow the council to finally vote on this matter — which had been tabled two times in a row. She summarized the night as a "circus of a meeting."

Multiple residents called on different members of the council asking them to resign and the meeting had to be called to order several times during public comment.

One resident took the microphone to read an email that was sent from the mayor to the township clerk.

"Please shred the document I have signed since it hasn't been approved. I would like to change the process," he said.

It was later clarified to the mayor that that email had been released with an OPRA request.

The document in question was the developer's agreement, which has been signed by the mayor prior to the Sept. 14 meeting. Berger said that this was simply standard procedure and that the process has been in place for 20 years. The document would in reality only become effective after it was approved by the council.

According to the mayor herself, in the email she also said "I would like to change the process so that documents get signed post-approval."

Former Mayor Joe DiBella criticized Berger on that same point during public comment.

"From a procedural perspective, having served as mayor, no document would ever have been signed by me until it was acted on by the council," he said. "There would be no reason to shred a document if it was irrelevant from a legal perspective. You know why we shred it? Because we don't want the people to find out what happened."

Berger doubled down on her position.

"This process has been in place for as long as I've been mayor," she said. "I am more than happy with the process that is in place. I trust Mr. Harris (township clerk) and I'm good with it."

The township attorney clarified that the document has in fact not been shredded, adding that he has custody of it. Because of impending litigation, the document is evidential and can't be destroyed.

"I don't really care one way or another about whether documents are signed ahead of time as long as they are reviewed and understood and read," Clark added.

A couple of residents also took the microphone to argue that the signing of the document was a non-issue that was being politicized and that it was nothing more than standard common practice.

"It's not something that doesn't happen in tons of municipalities," one resident said.

Other residents argued that the meeting had gotten out of hand and called for decorum.

"I thought school board meetings were bad, but I think this tops the cake. It's embarrassing," one resident said. "I know you might not like what people have to say, you (Mayor Berger) gotta keep some decorum."