By KENNY WALTER
Staff Writer
OCEANPORT — The Borough Council remains undecided on where Habitat for Humanity should be permitted to construct a pair of affordable housing units that would meet the borough’s affordable housing requirements.
During a May 12 special meeting, the Borough Council passed a resolution asking for the planning board to recommend one of the three borough lots best suited for the two-unit project, while asking for the courts to grant an extension on immunity from builder’s remedy lawsuits.
“This decision is going to affect one group or another, I would feel better if the planning board looked at it,” Councilman John Patti said.
The three properties being looked at include a lot on Pemberton Avenue, a property on Myrtle Avenue on a portion of the site formerly used at Borough Hall and a property on Horseneck Point Road along a paper street
However, by not reaching a developers agreement by March 30, the borough is currently in violation with an order of repose from the courts which allows immunity from lawsuits.
Borough Planner Elizabeth McManus said a May 25 meeting with the borough’s special master and a judge has been scheduled, and it is possible that because of the violation the borough loses the immunity and is subject to future lawsuits.
“Thus far we’ve been able to move along without any red flags being raised, but at the end of this month will be an opportunity for focus directly on the borough,” she said. “The worst case scenario is that the borough’s immunity to builder’s remedy will be withdrawn.
“Simply because the borough has no immunity doesn’t automatically mean negative consequences, but it does mean on day one you are eligible for the builder’s remedy lawsuit.”
Patti’s resolution, which was only opposed by Councilwoman Patricia Cooper, affirms the commitment to working with Habitat for Humanity, while seeking an extension of the order of repose while the planning board examines all three properties.
However, Mayor Jay Coffey disagreed with the council’s decision.
“We are asking them to do all this analysis without site plans — I think we are sending them on a fool’s errand,” he said. “We are the ones that said we are going to enter into this, we are the ones who said we are going to look at other properties.
“I think the judge looks at this as a Ray Guy-like punt, we are abdicating our responsibilities and not providing the planning board with anything more than, ‘We can’t do our homework, would you do it for us?'”
Coffey also said the borough may need to schedule another special meeting to make a decision after meeting with the judge.
“If this goes south on the 25th, we will be convening a special meeting to rectify the situation,” he said.
In 2012 the council selected Pemberton Avenue as the site for the two units, but Councilman Joseph Irace said borough professionals indicated the Pemberton site would be a placeholder to satsify the courts and the units would eventually be moved to Fort Monmouth.
Irace said the borough in the past has been subject to builder’s remedy lawsuits, particularly one filed in 2005 that was settled in recent years, but has cost the borough at least $800,000 to fight.
In recent months the borough has held meetings to discuss the Pemberton property, which is currently being used as overflow parking for the nearby Oceanport Senior Center and Oceanport First Aid Squad.
Residents and first aid volunteers voiced concerns over the proposal, citing increased traffic and safety concerns for pedestrians with additional street parking as the main concerns.
