Millburn Township Attorney Shares Affordable Housing Update & Residents Weigh In

MILLBURN, NJ – Millburn Township Attorney Jarrid Kantor provided an update on the affordable housing situation. “As everybody knows, this governing body is committed to its affordable housing obligations. It is committed to doing it the right way for the residents, and not only the residents of the township, but also low and moderate income individuals who would be moving into this community.”

Kantor spoke about the township being given the opportunity to find alternate sites. He reported that after spending a great deal of time researching, the administration identified two locations. Kantor also reminded attendees about the problems with building affordable housing at 9 Main Street. “[It] requires significant remediation. In addition, it's located between the DPW garage, which would remain; it's on the Morrison Essex line rail embankment and there's a PSE&G substation that sits behind it, which isn't really very conducive to residential. In addition, it's a fully exclusionary project.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE FREE TAPINTO.NET NEWSLETTER

Kantor talked about the DPW site being a very active DPW and needing to remove the pumping station, salt dome, recycling facilities and other things.

He noted, “The two new sites were not only proposed affordable housing for the township, but also something called workforce housing. The difference is, affordable housing starts at 80% of the median income. Workforce Housing is 80-120% of median income.” Kantor mentioned that one of the two proposed sites would have 29 affordable units with 14 workforce. The other one would have 46 affordable and 21 workforce units. The total affordable count would also have been 75.

He also spoke of Special Master Frank Banisch visiting all three sites, and giving “very positive feedback on the alternate sites.” Kantor explained that the Special Master allowed the developer (RPM), who was already designated on the site with nothing to lose and only to gain by building on the site to participate in the process and submit reports. “We advised the special master of the flaw in allowing them. I also advised the judge that it was against her order. The judge said that she would have allowed it had she been asked, and she was okay with it,” shared Kantor.

Kantor reported that the court adopted Mr. Banisch's report, which said that 9 Main Street was the most feasible way for Millburn to meet its obligations. He stated, “The township is ordered, as of the date of the order, and the order has not been entered yet to pass the RPM redevelopment agreement within 30 days, and there should be no changes to the redevelopment agreement. In addition, the township is to negotiate and adopt the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreement with RPM within four months, and we're going to apprise the court of any changes.”

DOWNLOAD THE FREE TAPINTO APP FOR MORE LOCAL NEWS. AVAILABLE IN THE APPLE STORE AND THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE .

Kantor concluded, “The court wants an updated completion schedule for the project and doesn't want dates adjusted, other than the time. She claims the township has wasted time.” He expressed his and the administration’s disappointment in the outcome, and said that he’s reviewing legal options.

Multiple residents commented on the 9 Main St. issue. Eric Osserman urged the committee not to “back down” from fighting against the location.

Charles Bambara agreed. “I fully expect this township committee to push back, stand firm and appeal this ruling all the way up to the state supreme court.”

Fran Feld concurred, “Let's think about our town, not just the Paper Mill, and how much money are we willing to spend to keep this project away from our DPW site? We must think of our town and its residents first before external pressures. I'm asking all of you to stand strong.”

Lea Cruz encouraged the committee to battle the project because it will have long-term negative effects on the township. “I support you guys pursuing every legal remedy and every appeal possible.” She added, “If memory serves me correctly, we spent close to $8 million on the disastrous Complete Streets project, which was supposed to improve traffic flow. And I think this affordable housing issue is a cause that will have a much longer lasting impact on our community.”

Richie Seibert also agreed. “It's not good for the town, and it's really in your hands now. We've all come out and spoke about it. It's your vote. I hope you do the right thing.”

Jerry Kung shared that he had researched Area of Redevelopment eligibility. He found out that “[if it’s] demonstrably detrimental to the environment of the town” the area in need of development can’t be approved. He commented that the DPW site is an active DPW site that is needed to help residents during natural disasters.

Tom Hildner had questions about 9 Main St. He mentioned, “A lot of money is being spent on this matter, and township sentiment seems to be fine. Some people want to have an unlimited checkbook on this, which may also be fine depending upon the circumstances.” He added, “What are the likelihoods of success? What are the chances of appeal? Could this be stayed? It's my understanding that we've been ordered to pay attorney's fees to fair share and to RPM.”

A couple of residents expressed their desire for the township to acquiesce to the court. Sara Sherman remarked, “I oppose attempts to defy the judge's orders on 9 Main Street because voters didn't give the township committee a blank check and unlimited time to fight this battle.” She continued, “I'm not alone in this opinion. The two newly elected TC members gave it their best shot, but the judge had made it clear that the township had postponed its constitution too long. We had four decades to get this right, and we are still struggling.”

Merrily Riesebeck also opposed appealing the court’s decision. “What have we spent to date on attorney fees and what is the projected cost to appeal this decision?” She added, “If we lose at the appellate level, will they be willing to continue the fight up to the state Supreme Court? How much will that cost?” She commented that the township will be sued by the developer and will incur legal fees to defend itself, as well as potentially pay out a significant judgment.

For more local news, visit TAPinto.net