Artist rendering, Linque

By Susan C. Moeller
Senior Reporter 

RUTHERFORD (Nov. 7, 2008, 10:40 a.m.) — Housing at the controversial Highland Cross redevelopment site will be included in Rutherford’s plan to meet its Council on Affordable Housing obligation.

With members of its municipal planning firm in the room and waiting for guidance, Rutherford’s planning board reluctantly said that the borough’s zoning plan for affordable housing could include housing at the redevelopment site and other areas east of Route 17. No one seemed happy about it.

“It stinks,” said Mayor John Hipp at the Nov. 6 meeting.

Both time and land are running out for Rutherford when it comes to meeting the state’s Council on Affordable Housing guidelines. A zoning plan that provides for 114 additional affordable units is due at the COAH office by Dec. 31. And, only about five acres of possibly suitable land remains in Rutherford, west of Route 17.

The requirements are a serious issue, because the state Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing opportunities in their zoning plans. The series of rulings, know as the Mount Laurel decisions, were initiated in 1975. COAH was created in 1985 to help municipalities meet the court-established obligation.

If Rutherford doesn’t receive COAH approval for its affordable housing plan, it faces a gamut of legal consequences.

“The affordable housing card is often one that’s played by developers who are disgruntled,” said Fred Heyer from Heyer, Gruel & Associates, the borough’s planning firm. “Even really terrible things get approved by the courts as a result of non-compliance.”

Heyer was referring to what is commonly called a builder’s remedy lawsuit, in which a developer can appeal to the courts for permission to build developments that include COAH units. East Rutherford and Carlstadt are embroiled in a builder’s remedy lawsuit with the TOMU developer, and Bergen County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Harris has consistently upheld the right to build.

Heyer’s conclusion: It’s safest for Rutherford to satisfy its COAH obligation in a way that’s “least uncomfortable to you.”

The planning board ran through a number of scenarios before coming to a prickly landing on the Highland Cross solution. None of the other ideas — including buying market rate units and converting them to affordable units and building high density developments on all five available acres in Rutherford proper — netted enough units.

In the end, without Highland Cross, the borough will not be able to satisfy its COAH requirement, Heyer said.

Noting that no one on the planning board wanted to be tagged with giving permission for Highland Cross housing options, planning board member John Daub said, “We’re jammed up here politically, physically and in a lot of ways.”

Residential development at Highland Cross is the only viable alternative, Daub concluded. “This is a tough situation,” he said. “We’re behind the eight ball.”

 “We don’t have any choice,” said Councilwoman Rose Inguanti, who sits on the planning board. “It stinks.”

 With the planning board’s guidance established, Heyer and his team will create Rutherford’s COAH plan and present it to the board at special meeting Dec. 11. If it is approved, the borough council will vote on it Dec. 16.

To read more about the Highland Cross proposal click here.