Howell Resident, Project Developer Threaten Town With Lawsuit

HOWELL, NJ — Arguments over the 100-Unit project known as The Fountains led to a heated debate at the Howell Council meeting on Tuesday.

With two of the five members missing, the resolution ended up being tabled for the second time in a row, but not before one resident told the council she was suing the town over a denied OPRA request and a representative of the developer reaffirmed that the town would face litigation if they continued making efforts to block the project from moving forward.

"You have some fiduciary obligations not to set yourselves up for litigation which, in case you have any questions, it will come if you don't agree to this," said Louis Kaufman, a representative of the developer (6461 Route 9 Howell LLC).

Kaufman was referring to a developer's agreement which the council voted down in a meeting on Sept. 14.

The township attorney then warned council members that the developer could sue the town and potentially be allowed to build 408 unrestricted units because of a settlement agreement dating back many years.

The project has had many iterations over the course of three decades. In 2015, the developers agreed to limit the project to 100 restricted units and to donate 43.6 acres of land to the township. That application was already approved by the planning board.

"You've been recommended to sign it by your director of development, by your attorney," Kaufman said during public comment.

He added that they wouldn't be able to get building permits before the resolution was approved by the council.

"I don't understand why everybody thinks this is some kind of backroom deal. The developer's agreement is simply a consolidation of all of our obligations," he said. "I thought it was a little tough but we agreed to it. There's nothing onerous for the township about it."

Kaufman also stressed that the terms of the development had already been negotiated and that that was not the council's job at this moment.

"I don't think you have a defensible position, but if you force us to find out we will," he said.

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

READ MORE: 100-Unit Howell Project Tabled As Developer Drafts Complaint

Councilman John Bonevich said that he didn't see any reference to the donation of land in the current developer's agreement.

"I'm confident the donation is going to occur," township attorney Joseph Clark said in response to doubts about the issue. "I can send a new one to Mr. Kaufman and I'm sure they're not gonna have any issue with it."

One resident addressed the council to say that she had filed a lawsuit against the township after her request to get access to the developer's agreement was denied.

"It was denied because they said the developer's agreement was not accepted and not until it was accepted would I be able to see it," she said. "It seems almost as if the town doesn't really look favorably on giving out public information."

Another resident also said that he has put in an OPRA request for the same documents and that he was not able to get a copy.

"If it was agreed to 18 years ago why can't we see it?" he asked.

Clark said that the document was included in the list of exemptions from OPRA requests.

"Draft documents under OPRA are considered advisory, consultative and deliberative, so we don't produce them," Clark said.

There was some back and forth earlier in the meeting between the attorney and councilman Bonevich, who stated that he had not seen the developer's agreement before the Sep. 14 meeting, when himself, Mayor Theresa Berger and councilwoman Pamela Richmond voted "no" on the resolution.

"I did not have it and it was not in any attachments at the council, it was sent in a separate email before the 28," Bonevich said.

Clark refuted that claim, saying that all council members had been sent a packet from the town clerk with the resolution and developer's agreement prior to a meeting on Aug. 17, when the resolution was tabled.

"On or about August 24th I specifically sent a copy to the developer's agreement around to all council, including councilman Bonevich. Everybody was given a copy of the developer's agreement," Clark said.

"I will tell you I was not," Bonevich countered.

The attorney continued by waiving in the air a copy of the document signed by the mayor.

"All along everybody's been given enough information and if you say you didn't get it I suggest you check your emails," Clark said.

The attorney was also asked why the resolution was put back on the agenda at the last meeting.

"I just put it on there because I'm not about to have the town engage in litigation unnecessarily," Clark said. "I've always maintained the position and it's been consistent. We're gonna get sued."

He also had some strong words for councilman Bonevich after the official suggested that some specifics should be discussed in executive session.

"Well, transparency councilman, correct? Let's do it out here," he said. "I'm not gonna have you sit there and allege that you're not getting information when the facts are that you did."

Deputy mayor Thomas Russo clarified that the reason the resolution was being tabled once again on Tuesday was the absence of mayor Theresa Berger and councilwoman Pamela Richmond.

"We feel that we need a full council for this decision," he said.