BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer
A proposal to build a high-rise complex in a residential zone in Oceanport may be just a scare tactic on the part of the developer, an attorney retained by the borough said Monday
“The strategy of the plaintiffs is to give [the borough] something that will scare the hell out of them and make them settle for something else,” Jeffrey Surenian, Toms River, an attorney who specializes in affordable housing, said Monday night at a borough workshop meeting.
Oceanport Holdings LLC has proposed to construct a 60-unit complex, with a percentage of units slated for affordable housing, in a single-family zone on River Street.
Residents crowded borough hall to protest the development.
“We can stand up here and say, ‘No, no, no,’ [to the proposed project] but council can go ahead and say, ‘We have invested $200,000 in this lawsuit and this is the best we can do,’ ” Michael Rescinio, Morris Place, said.
“I do view us as being on the same team, but I think we need to be included in the process and the only way is for us to get somebody to represent us.”
Surenian told residents they should retain an attorney if they believe it is in their best interest.
But another resident thought that retaining another attorney would not make sense since the residents are paying for Surenian to represent the borough.
“I do believe we have someone representing taxpayers,” Pete Pellera, of Oceanport, said.
“Why do we need an attorney when we already have one.”
But Surenian said he cannot talk behind closed doors with residents, while another attorney could provide attorney/client privilege.
“I am against this project. We need to figure out how we can get away without putting a high-rise there,” Pellera said.
In February, Oceanport Holdings requested a zone change on River Street in order to allow the developer to construct the proposed project, according to Mayor Maria Gatta.
The request was forwarded to the Planning Board, which is standard procedure, Gatta explained. In May, the board decided to deny the zoning change.
“The Planning Board prepared a resolution [denying the request] for the council to vote on, but before the council could vote, we were told that Oceanport did not meet its affordable housing requirement,” Gatta said at the meeting.
On May 26, Oceanport Holdings filed a builders’ remedy lawsuit in state Superior Court in Freehold against the borough, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.
Surenian explained that in 1975, “The New Jersey Supreme Court decided to create a realistic opportunity for affordable housing,” as a result, builders’ remedy suits can be filed to force a municipality to fulfill its affordable housing quota.
“To be a successful litigant, I would argue that it is not enough to prove [the borough] is short [of its affordable housing quota]. You must prove you are a catalyst for change,” Surenian said.
The lawsuit is seeking to have the borough’s land-use ordinances declared unconstitutional and to require the borough to implement an affordable housing plan, according to Surenian.
“When I came here the borough was putting things in order regarding [an affordable housing plan], then the lawsuit came,” Surenian said.
“We are in the process of evaluating [the borough’s affordable housing quota],’ Surenian told residents, but he was unable to give an exact number of units the borough needs to meet the quota.
Surenian explained that he could not be too specific on details regarding the lawsuit because the borough is in the midst of litigation, and everything at the meeting is public record and can be used by the plaintiff.
He added that before any decisions are made, he wants input from residents.
“The developers are pushing for a quick result,” he said. ”Before anything meaningful happens, the public weighs in. My standing operation is that I make it clear that nothing is binding until I hear from the public.”