Homeowners Sue Rumson In Response to Confidential Negotiations, Affordable Housing

1797
Hundreds of residents packed the Forrestdale Middle School gymnasium Jan. 14 to learn about Rumson’s affordable housing plan. Photo by Allison Perrine

By Allison Perrine | aperrine@tworivertimes.com

RUMSON – A group of residents have filed a lawsuit against the borough and other parties involved in the confidential negotiations that led to the current affordable housing plan for Rumson.

The group, dubbed Rumson Open Space and Affordable Housing (ROSAH), is made up of borough residents and individuals with property interests within and around the proposed affordable housing sites. Its members take issue with two resolutions that authorized settlement agreements between the borough and Cherry Hill-based affordable housing advocates Fair Share Housing Center, and between the borough and Yellow Brook Properties, Inc.

ROSAH’s hope is that the court invalidates the resolutions and declares the settlement agreements invalid.

Currently, the borough’s total affordable housing obligation is 603 units. It’s realistic development potential (RDP), however, is 51 units. The remaining obligation, an unmet need of 552, will be addressed with inclusionary overlay zoning and additional ordinances. The inclusionary overlay zoning will allow property owners to keep a property as is or, if they choose, to one day develop multifamily housing with affordable set-asides.

As part of Yellow Brook’s agreement, housing will be constructed on Rumson Road, Bingham Avenue and Carton Street. Developer Roger Mumford will build luxury market-rate units on rezoned areas of Bingham Avenue and Rumson Road. Mumford will also contribute $1.35 million toward the town’s construction of affordable housing at 62 Carton St. In addition, he said he will convey his land on Carton Street to the borough for $1.

In response, ROSAH’s lawsuit was filed Feb. 28 in state Superior Court. It alleges that the adoption of the resolutions “was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and contrary to public policy,” because the adoption was done under “substantial duress” by Rumson. “The proposed settlements are not consistent with the strong preference for municipalities to continue to hold control over their zoning processes, particularly where there is no demonstrable nexus between the proposed settlements and the achievement of any goal under the Fair Housing Act,” it claims.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the borough council did not comply with the Open Public Meetings Act during the litigation. It says Rumson “unlawfully delegated its authority to negotiate and settle” the litigation to a standing committee. “This delegation necessarily taints the determinations of the Borough Council up to and including the adoption of the Resolutions,” it continues.

The Two River Times reached out to Rumson borough attorney Martin Barger and asked him to comment on the lawsuit. He did not immediately return a phone call Wednesday.


The article originally appeared in the March 5-11, 2020 print edition of The Two River Times.