By Bernadette Marciniak
Reporter

RUTHERFORD (Dec. 13, 2008, 9:00 a.m.) — With officials saying their backs were against the wall, the Rutherford Planning Board reluctantly approved the proposed Housing Element and Fair Share Plan that will fulfill the borough's affordable housing obligations at a meeting Dec. 11. The decision could bring housing to the controversial Highland Cross site in the Borough of Trees.

The plan, which is due to the Council on Affordable Housing by year's end, addresses Rutherford's obligation of putting 106 new affordable units in the municipality and rehabilitating 96. A majority of these units are being proposed on the Highland Cross land area on the traditionally non-residential part of Route 17.

The fate of the plan rests with the borough council, which will vote on the matter at its next meeting, Tuesday, Dec. 16.

"This is like a state-sponsored episode of 'The Sopranos,' " said Council President John Genovesi, who pleaded for the planning board to carry out a decision with a level of protest and courage. "They are forcing your pen to paper … that's the Trenton bureaucracy."

If the planning board had not approved the plan, the borough may in the future become susceptible to builder's remedy lawsuits where developers themselves would largely decide where to place housing units.

And, while each municipality has a set number of units that must be "affordable," this figure is fluid since Rutherford lies within the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, which has its own obligation to fulfill (which includes each municipality's obligation) and can move up to half of one municipality's obligations to another.

"No matter what happens today, it means nothing," said resident Frank Wilson, who said that the state could just not approve the plan and sue Rutherford regardless of complying.

"I don't think anyone on the board likes this," said Mayor John Hipp, who speculated the board was not voting out of fear, but rather voting to "prepare for battle."

Efforts to extend the Dec. 31 deadline have been made by legislators, but nothing official has been declared yet. The board expressed that relying on this hope would be irresponsible. However, if an extension is granted, Board Chairman David Porter said the plan would be amended.

"COAH regulations are just offensive," he said. "The concept is great, but the execution is over the top."

The resolution passed 9-1, with board member Jack Boyle opposing.