TINTON FALLS — A proposed resolution would prohibit Borough Council members from commenting on pending applications.
The resolution was drafted after a controversy resulted in following e-mails sent by a council member proposing a resolution in opposition to an application before the Zoning Board.
A discussion of the new resolution was held during the workshop portion of the council’s Feb. 17 meeting after a special meeting was held Feb 10.
“At our meeting last week; our special meeting, we had asked that a resolution be drafted … so the independent boards and commissions of the borough understand our wishes not to in any way infringe on their legal rights and responsibilities,” said council President Gary Baldwin.
The council held a special meeting on Feb. 10 to consider whether to take formal action against Councilman Michael Skudera, who e-mailed a draft resolution to council members and residents using his personal e-mail account on Feb. 3.
Skudera’s proposed resolution stated the council’s objections to two separate applications to build asphalt plants on Shafto Road that are currently before the Zoning Board.
“It would be in the best interest of the borough and those of the Zoning Board in the pending applications that no public comment be made,” said James Berube, the borough’s director of law, at last week’s council meeting.
Berube was instructed to draft a resolution and send it to each member of council after the special meeting.
He said the resolution he drafted would recognize the independence of the respective boards and reaffirm the council’s intent to bar public comment on pending applications.
“As a result of the discussion that happened at our last council meeting on Feb. 10 … that discussion centered around my advice to council members that comments on pending applications before the Zoning Board of Adjustment might be inappropriate for a number of reasons,” said Berube.
“One of which is the fact that council members appoint Zoning Board members, and under some circumstances an appeal could be made if variances are granted by the board and the appeal could be taken to the council itself,” he continued.
Berube explained that public comments on any pending application could potentially jeopardize an application before the Zoning Board and the board’s ability to render an impartial and a fair hearing.
“We have pressing issues such as affordable housing, road programs, development and we’re spending time talking about this,” protested Skudera, whose attorney defended his right to send the disputed e-mails at the Feb. 10 meeting.
The council did not vote on the resolution and, according to the Borough Clerk, it was unclear on Friday whether the resolution would be discussed at the next meeting.
The next Borough Council meeting is scheduled for March 3 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building at 556 Tinton Ave.