INSTRUCTIONS TO SEND COMMENTS TO THE DEP
SEND YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE BIRCHWOOD AVENUE DEVELOPMENT IN A LETTER TO MR. ANDY CLARK AT THE DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (the full address is in the letter below). BE SURE TO PRINT AND INCLUDE THE 1ST PAGE OF THE APPLICATION PROVIDED BELOW IN THE LETTER TO MR. CLARK.
PLEASE SEND ANOTHER LETTER TO MR. ROBERT MARTIN,COMMISSIONER, WHICH IS ALSO BELOW. THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND THE 1ST PAGE OF THE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER.
PAGE ONE OF THE APPLICATION
LETTER TO MR. CLARK
LETTER TO MR. ROBERT MARTIN
JUDGE APPROVES 360 APARTMENTS FOR BIRCHWOOD
Court Approves Construction of 360 Residential Units on Birchwood Avenue
Mayor Daniel Aschenbach plans to appeal the decision.
By Toniann Antonelli
July 29, 2011
The Cranford Patch
Cranford officials plan to appeal a decision made Friday by a Superior Court judge that will allow a developer to construct 360 residential units at the quiet corner of 215 Birchwood Ave., a street that's prone to flooding.
"Cranford has been subject of a builder remedy lawsuit," Mayor Daniel Aschenbach said after the court's decision was handed down.
The mayor has, for months, insisted that he would file an appeal if the development project was approved. "We believe the site specific conditions are such that any development will create more flooding and problems for a larger area of the community," Aschenbach said.
The proposed development called for the construction of 419 residential units on a 15.8-acre lot in Cranford’s 0-1 Low Density Office Building Zone. The property is surrounded by single-family residential zones.
"One of New Jersey’s highest rated schools is located two blocks away and is already at capacity. The judge now has given its ruling that 360 units can be built," Aschenbach said.
The S. Hekemian Group of Paramus bought the property in October 2008 and proposed 356 market rate units and 63 units of low- and moderate-income housing. It then filed a suit in New Jersey Superior Court claiming that Cranford is in violation of its constitutional duty to create sufficient opportunity for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing. Peter Hekemian, the developer, could not be reached for comment immediately following the decision.
More than a year ago, a special master was appointed to study the case and present findings to the judge. The special master, Elizabeth McKenzie, released a report stating that the project should go forward, indicating that she did not give much weight to residents' concerns about traffic and density, given the township's constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing to its residents.
During a special Town Hall meeting early last month that allowed residents to voice their concerns on the "overdevelopment" of the property, Township Attorney Dan McCarthy recounted the Mount Laurel decisions, which state that every community in New Jersey has a constitutional obligation to allow for the building of affordable housing. The Council on Affordable Housing, or COAH, was created to prevent developers from building market-rate housing with only a handful of units used for affordable housing. Under COAH, projects that served people with disabilities and low-income seniors did not count as affordable housing.
In addition to the actual appeal of the decision, Aschenbach said the township will be asking Gov. Chris Christie to "incorporate in state legislation that communities be given an opportunity to put forward a plan to meet affordable housing that meets each community’s residential housing needs and not an arbitrary COAH number."
Further, Aschenbach said Cranford will request that a grant of $8 million be provided to the township to purchase the Birchwood tract for the development of a retention basin to protect residents from flooding.
The town will also ask that Cranford "be given an opportunity to implement its Housing Element through its local Affordable Housing Task Force before having to consider such enormous overdevelopment." It will also ask The State of New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency consider Cranford for tax credit allocation.
"Cranford has a unique senior complex that benefits local and moderate income residents and a new development at the 555 South Ave. site would be a great benefit to the region," Aschenbach said. "Our point is Cranford has done many affordable housing projects. This one is over the top in a flood prone area."
In order to appeal the decision, the Township Committee must first pass an ordinance, the introduction of which will be on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, Aschenbach said, adding that the governing body also plans to send a letter to the governor regarding the matter.
What do you think of the court's decision to approve the development of the Birchwood Avenue site? Do you agree with the decision to appeal to ruling? Tell us in the comments.
LISA CHRYSTAL'S JUDICIAL POST REPRESENTS LIFELONG DREAM
The Westfield Leader and the Times of Scotch Plains-Fanwood
June 15, 2000
By SUSAN M. DYCKMAN
Specially Written for The Westfield Leader and The Times
WESTFIELD — Her appointment as a judge to the Superior Court of New Jersey is a dream come true for Lisa F. Chrystal.
On May 31, the 43-year-oldWestfield resident took her oath of office in the same Union County Courthouse she visited as a child with her father, who argued his own cases there as a real estate businessman.“I’ve always been impressed by the fact that the courts are open to all, not just those represented by counsel,” Judge Chrystal stated in a telephone interview from her new courtroom. The new jurist believes a judgeship is the place in the judicial system where she can really help people.
“A judge has the ability to touch the lives of those who appear in the courtroom every day,” she said.
Her nomination to Superior Court by Governor Christine Todd Whitman was confirmed in March 2000. The governor’s nomination was based on a recommendation from State Senators Donald DiFrancesco and Raymond Lesniak.
Ms. Chrystal’s career as an attorney was launched in 1982 when she was admitted to the bar following her graduation, cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law. She then joined the Essex County law firm of Braff Harris Sukoken for whom she handled civil litigation cases. She later joined the Westfield firm of Woehling & Freedman, where she practiced general litigation that included consumer and employment cases.
At the same time, she worked as a part-time Assistant Union County Counsel (1988-1991).
Ms. Chrystal launched her own practice in 1996, opening an office in Cranford and later, one in Scotch Plains. The new judge has been assigned to Family Part within the county court system. While matters heard by Judge Chrystal will focus primarily on domestic violence matters, Family Part also includes custody and support concerns.
An orientation period will allow the new judge to become acclimated to her new responsibilities on the bench. For the time being, she is hearing cases in the company of other judges. She spends her evenings pouring over the abundance of resource materials provided to her as a new jurist by the administrative court officer in Trenton.
What part of her new job poses the greatest challenge? “To be sure that each litigant, each case, each witness, and ach matter that comes before me, no matter how large or how small, is the most important matter at that time,” she
explained.
The judge wants litigants who come before her to feel they have been treated fairly. She wants to ensure they understand how the legal system operates “so they respect the system and the ruling that the judiciary puts into effect.”
A product of the Union Township public school system, Ms. Chrystal said, “I am looking forward to serving the county where I grew up.” Ms. Chrystal and her husband, Peter Herzberg, an attorney with the Morristown firm
of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, have three children: a son Benjamin, and twin daughters, Ilana and Arielle.
Backed by a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Syracuse University, Ms. Chrystal served as an adjunct assistant legal writing instructor for four years at Seton Hall Law School. She is a Trustee of the Union County Bar Association, Chair of the Elder Law Committee as well as a member of Union County Women Lawyers. She is an associate member of the New Jersey Association of Health Care Facilities and Chair of the Northern New Jersey Hadassah Lawyer’s Council.
CRANFORD COMMISSIONERS VOTED "NO" TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (COAH) CERTIFICATION
Third Round Rules of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)
Township Attorney Renaud discussed the letter from the Council of Affordable Housing regarding Third Round Rules of COAH. Stated that the Township must determine whether to pursue substantive certification for affordable housing. Explained that substantive certification would obligate the Township to provide affordable housing. A plan would be required which must include the housing location, number of units, etc, and the plan must meet the requirements of all three rounds of affordable housing. Stated it would be necessary for the Township to hire a consultant for the development of such a plan. Further explained that certification would exempt the Township from a Builders Remedy Lawsuit. Discussed the impact of a Builders Remedy Lawsuit. A resolution must be adopted by February 20, 2005 if the Township wishes to pursue substantive certification.
Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Darby discussed her concerns regarding a Builders Remedy Lawsuit. Feels the Township should pursue substantive certification.
Mayor Jorn, Deputy Mayor Aschenbach and Commissioner McDonough do not feel the Township should pursue certification. Commissioner Mease was undecided.
Township Committee consensus not to pursue substantive certification.
CRANFORD APPROVES EXPANDED RIVERFRONT PROJECT IN SPLIT VOTE
By Leslie Murray
Cranford Chronicle
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
CRANFORD—In a meeting that drew nearly two hours worth of public comments, the Township Committee passed an amendment allowing 21 more units at the Riverfront Redevelopment Project in a split vote.
The agreement, which allowed 18 market rate units and three affordable units, with Garden Homes gives Cranford $756,000 in sewer and parking impact fees was drew sharp criticism from some residents.
While Commissioner Ed O’Malley, Deputy Mayor Kevin Campbell and Mayor Dan Aschenbach voted to approve the plan, Commissioner Mark Dugan opposed the expanded plan.
However, Commission David Robinson abstained from the vote, asking for more time for the committee to consider the amended redevelopment plan for the site. Robinson said that the committee members had been give the 90-page packet of documents before the Tuesday, June 14 meeting.
The agreement will now allow the Garden Homes, which began demolition at the South Avenue site in May, to construct 126 residential units at the five building mixed use project.
RESIDENTS BLAST NEW APARTMENT UNITS
Cranford Patch
Robert Evans
May 19, 2011
Planning Board holds discussion on Riverfront Redevelopment changes.
A nearly four-hour debate raged at last night's Planning Board of Adjustment meeting, as officials discussed the proposed addition of an entirely new fourth floor on a development that will be contructed on 3.5 acres of South Avenue by Chestnut Street across from the train station.
In turn Cranford Township will receive about $700,000 in sewer and parking "impact fees" that officials say will be used to offset township costs.
Introduced by Garden Homes Development’s, Director of Development, Tony DiGiovanni, the additions to the development, known as the Riverfront Redevelopment area, includes increasing the number of apartment units to 127, from 108, and provisions to provide parking accommodations for the proposed units.
In his presentation DiGiovanni, a Cranford resident, announced that three extra units would sit above the development’s mandated restaurant – a move not previously discussed or agreed upon by the Township Committee.
These new units have drawn large amounts of criticism from members of the Cranford Planning Board and residents alike. Many said they were deeply concerned about how this might exacerbate downtown’s already problematic parking situation.
“My concern is that adding all of these extra people will make parking, an absolute nightmare. The town would not welcome a massive, ugly, parking garage and the water table prevents an underground one," Garry Patti, said a Cranford resident who lives on High Street accross from the Riverfront Redevelopment Area. "But building more apartments and not creating a single new parking space can only lead to more problems.”
By far the most vocal of the committee members was Rita LaBrutto. Concerned, not only about parking, but also what she sees as “balancing the budget by allowing for density.
"The Township Committee never discussed this 4th floor in public, and it is getting this huge increase in cash from the new impact fees, which will go right to the town’s bottom line. I am not willing to set a precedent for sacrificing Cranford’s small-town feel simply to balance out budget. I am simply not willing to make that trade.”
As the night progressed DiGiovanni laid out his parking plan and explained that adding a 4th floor to the buildings would not make either building anywhere close to the tallest building in downtown.
“I am happy to build the 3-story version if that is all that the board will approve,” said DiGiovanni, “however I think it is clear that the partial 4th floor addition would be beneficial to all parties.”
After the meeting was adjourned DiGiovanni stated, “The motives behind shooting this down are purely political. It is not my job, nor this board’s job to balance the budget. Impact fees are an industry standard, not some desperate creation of the Township Committee in an attempt to balance the budget.” He also added, “This creates no new precedent, it only works off of existing laws, and mandates.”
This discussion will conclude at the next Planning Board of Adjustment meeting on June 1, and the official vote of the Township Committee will be taken at its meeting on June 14.
WHY 2 MEETINGS ON SAME NIGHT?
Cranford Chronicle
May 20, 2011
Letters to the Editor
Chris O’Biren
Cranford
As a Cranford resident concerned about the future of the township and the development challenges facing the community at both Riverfront and Birchwood, I am disturbed by the intentional scheduling of conflicting meetings dealing with these important matters. At last Tuesday’s public meeting of the Township Committee several residents and a commissioner requested a rescheduling of the Town Hall Meeting planned by Mr. Aschenbach for May 18, 20011 at 7:30 PM to discuss proposed development at 215 Birchwood Avenue. The Birchwood meeting conflicts with the Cranford Planning Board’s meeting to consider the proposed amendment to the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Aschenbach is a member of the Planning Board. I find it troubling and more than a little odd that he would intentionally disregard his responsibility as a member of that board by deliberately creating a meeting conflict. On May 18, 2011, at the same time that he chose for the Birchwood meeting, the Planning Board will consider a highly irregular request to substantially change the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan adopted in December 2010, after years of discussion and negotiations. Among other changes, the amendment calls for substantial increases in residential and commercial density at the site without adequate safeguards to provide requisite additional parking
To propose such significant changes to the plan at such a late date with no public discussion is wrong. Residents are being asked to accept an impact fee negotiated in private between an attorney and the developer as fair and proper, when instinct and all that we know of New Jersey politics cries out “beware of backroom deals.” Neither the township attorney nor the mayor correctly cited the number of additional units. Both said that 18 additional units were being built. In fact there will be 21 additional units, and the affordable housing units proposed merely cover the developer’s increased requirement based on the new larger number of apartments at Riverfront. As a resident I wish to be present at both meetings: I would hope that Mr. Aschenbach has at least as much commitment.
Cranford awaits the judge’s ruling on the builder’s remedy lawsuit brought at Birchwood by Cranford Development Associates due to Mr. Aschenbach’s firm convictions that Cranford did not need an affordable housing plan. He failed to appear either day at the Fairness Hearing in November 2010, as he promised, and since then there has been no news from the court on the lawsuit. What is so pressing at Birchwood that he must neglect attending the Planning Board meeting? He forces Cranford residents to choose between attending one meeting or the other when a simple change of date to his recently scheduled Birchwood meeting solves the problem. What is he avoiding? What is he hiding?
The proposed change to the Riverfront plan is an attempt to balance the 2011 budget by stealing from the quality of life and property values of those residents living in the vicinity of the Riverfront Redevelopment areas. Mr. Aschenbach should at least have the courtesy to fact the questions of those his newly found love affair with density will harm.
OFFICIALS LOOK TO CLARK FOR SEWER FEE
CranfordPatch
Maryrose Mullen
May 5, 2011
Township officials are looking to Clark for inspiration on how to best change the Cranford sewer fee billing practices, aiming to create a sliding scale determined by how often residents use the sewers. At this time, Cranford's fees are determined by property value.
Democrat mayor Daniel Aschenbach is spearheading the project to tweak the fee, informing the public about the initiative at a meeting April 11. The Township Committee sent township attorney Daniel McCarthy to a meeting with Clark employees to find out more about their system.
"Each year someone’s bill will be adjusted based on useage," he said, adding that he believes the fee will then be fairer to residents.
Clark charges for sewer service on a sliding scale based on the water bill of each household and residents pay a minimum sewer fee of $225 for 0 to 100,000 gallons of water used in the prior year, Clark Business Adminstrator John Laezza said in a phone interview with Patch. If residents exceed 100,000, it's 2 cents for each extra gallon. Senior citizens and residents eligible for tax deduction are the exception.
"Then you only pay half [the price]," Laezza said.
Water use is only tracked from October to April, to avoid counting the heavy water use in the summer -- with residents washing their cars and installing sprinklers on their lawns.
"We had the forsight earlier than most to see the impact this would have on our tax levy and budget," said Clark Mayor Sal Bonaccorso in a previous Patch article about sewer fees in Union County. He added that Clark began the use-based utility in 2006. "The grotesque increases these people have given – our municipal budget cannot absorb them. So we started this sewer utility, and it worked out well. The bigger users pay more."
Laezza added that he has been holding conversations with Cranford township attorney Daniel McCarthy, who asked him about the system to gain insight into how Clark bills residents.
McCarthy said he tapped Clark for information to help the Township Committee create a system they were satisfied with.
"I’ve tried to develop some information so the township committee can have a [sewer billing] system that they're comfortable with," he said. "We have a neighbor that’s been doing that has been very helpful, very forthcoming with information."
If the Township Committee ultimately decides to inact a use-based system, it will need to introduce its tweaked billing system on or around May 24. That's the day the Township Committee votes on its budget for the year, added Cranford Financial Officer Jeff Theriault.
The reason for the deadline is accouting, he explained – $1,700,000 has been added in the budget as projected sewer fee revenue.
"That ordinance should piggyback off the adopted budget," he said. "They go hand in hand."
The sewer fee has been a contentious issue in town hall since last summer, when the Township Committee split the sewer fee from the main property tax and placed the cost in a separate bill. It was an accounting manuever designed to pull the township budget underneath a tax limit imposed by the state government.
Afterwards officials heard complaints from residents, many saying they wanted the sewer bill based off of how much they used the system rather than their property values.
Many also said they wanted to see the sewer charges placed back in the property tax bill, saying that the accounting manuever was a cop-out and that budget cuts at the municipal level needed to be made.
In December the Township Committee passed an ordinance which reinstalled the sewer charges in the main property tax bill, with officials that supported it saying they voted 'yes' in reponse to resident complaints.
This April however, the Township Committee found out that the ordinance did nothing.
Cranford municipal employees informed the Township Committee that the separated sewer tax was not in fact repealed due to a clerical error.
As a result, Theriault said, if the Township Committee decides not to move forward with the ordinance to install a use-based system, the financial office will be collecting the fee in a process similar to last year - with a separated sewer bill.
THOROUGH DISCUSSIONS LEAD TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL
CranfordPatch
Maryrose Mullen
June 3, 2011
A heated Planning Board discussion culminated in a 5-4 decision to recommend the 4th amendment to the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan to the Town Committee for approval.
Ordinance 2011-18, which would allow the Garden Homes Development to add 19 more apartment units to the development area on South Avenue, has created a lot of buzz within the community. Many residents are worried that the building construction will have a negative impact on both the downtown integrity and the taxpayer's wallets. Wednesday's meeting had a sizable turnout, with nearly twenty citizens in attendance. Planner Victor Furmanec laid out the specifications of the amendment, fielding questions from both the board and members of the public.
The Riverfront Redevelopment Plan envisions the construction of three buildings on the 3.5 acre lot on South Avenue. Each building would house both retail and residential units. Essentially, the amendment recommends adding an additional floor to the proposed building at the intersection of Chestnut Street and High Street. The 19 apartment units on the extra floor would be used for residential purposes, and the building would also include a potential restaurant and banquet hall.
Board members questioned whether the added height of the building would enhance the initial Master Plan set forth by the Committee. Furmanec argued that the fourth floor was consistent with the Master Plan, and would serve the community at large.
Board member Rita LaBrutto was one of the most vocal opponents, raising concerns that the proposals would compromise Cranford’s small-town character—a characteristic the Master Plan aimed to maintain.
"I'm a little bit stunned by some of the comments," she said. "I'm a little bit concerned to what it does to the neighborhood there. We want to be friendly to the neighborhood."
Board member Mary O'Connor agreed with LaBrutto, and was not convinced of the fourth floor's necessity.
"I don't understand how the additional density enhances the Master Plan any better than the original project," she said. "It was stated last week that the plan would move forward either in its form today or with the additional ordinance. I'm just not clear then why this fourth floor is so necessary."
Furmanec defended the proposal, saying that while he could not speak to the necessity of the fourth floor, he had plenty to say about what it could accomplish.
"The Master Plan seeks increased vitality and development in the downtown," he said. It also seeks to encourage development both residential and commercial downtown. The state is looking to encourage development in and around train stations, in order to encourage the use of mass transportation. This additional floor enhances those goals of increasing immediate size of the market area, customer base, and usage."
Vice-Chairperson Kevin Illing supported Furmanec's assessment, saying that the development could lead to a flourishing downtown while still maintaining its spirit.
"We are citizens that are driven to serve this community, but we're not experts when it comes to planning," he said. "The expert adamantly said that he doesn't see any substantial negative impact and could list positive aspects, positive impact."
Illing also addressed Cranford Crossing and the impact its construction has had on the taxpayers. He believed that the town learned from its mistakes, and would be able to utilize those lessons as they move forward.
The Ordinance will be presented to the Township Committee at their next meeting on June 14th, where the Committee will vote whether or not they wish to mover forward with the Riverfront Redevelopment Project.
FATE OF VACANT BUILDING DEBATED
By Leslie Murray/Cranford Chronicle
Published: Saturday, July 2, 2011
CRANFORD — Standing in the middle of one of the shorter blocks of North Avenue, the look is unmistakable: a vacant building in a state of disrepair.
So irksome is the state of the building at 27 North Avenue East —known to many as the MDTV building—that the Township Committee had planned to discuss the procedure for condemnation during the public meeting on June 27. That is until the discussion was moved into an executive session meeting by township professionals.
The MDTV building has been unoccupied for more than five years. In 2010, the township began bringing to bear the power of the building code against that property and a group of other vacant buildings in the area. However, MDTV has drawn the ire of members of the Township Committee and downtown property owners alike because of what some have called dangerous conditions—the lack of roof on the building.
The building was part of a section of North Avenue East that was, in 2006, declared as “an area in need of rehabilitation”. The designation—which encompassed both sides of the street from Centennial Avenue nearly to Alden Street—allowed the township to draft development guidelines that go above and beyond the current zoning rules for the block. However, the power of eminent domain is not attached to a rehabilitation designation and existing buildings could not be compelled to change. At the time both the Planning Board and Downtown Management Committee (DMC) Board endorsed the move.
However, in February 2008, the Township Committee voted in a split decision to revoke the rehabilitation designation for the North Avenue corridor.
Before the talks about the MDTV building began this week, resident Ann Steinbach questioned if the conversation would cover the potential of redevelopment or rehabilitation.
However, Mayor Daniel Aschenbach said the discussion would take place in the governing body’s executive session, saying he had added the item to the open agenda before being told by the Township Clerk and Attorney that it would need to be part of the private meeting.
Adding to the comment, Commissioner Mark Dugan said the legal advice given in the talks and the potential litigation would allow for the conversation to be protected by attorney-client privilege.
“The town needs to get the zoning standards to ensure something happens there,” Aschenbach said. “The whole idea is to get the property owner to do something with this area that looks like (a third-world country).”
Steinbach answered that while residents don’t want a dilapidated building, they also “don’t want it to look like (downtown) Jersey City either.”
Despite the talks at the start of the meeting, the governing body did not discuss the possibility of condemnation in open session.
27 NORTH AVENUE EAST (mdtv building) IN CORE DISTRICT
The following information was taken from the "2009 Master Plan", pages LU-20 and LU-23, on the Cranford Township website.
The recommended zone plan for the Downtown commercial area is to consolidate existing districts into Downtown Core, Downtown Business and Downtown Transition districts. (See Figure LU3A.) This change would simplify the current zoning in the downtown, yet allow for distinct qualities for each of these three areas. Generally this allows the highest level of density and use to fall in the Downtown Core and steps down in the Downtown Business and Transition areas.
1. Downtown Core District ~The Downtown Core encompasses areas appropriate for the highest level of density and intensity as recommended in this Plan. The Downtown Core functions as the Township’s central business district and primary shopping, entertainment and service destination. This Plan recommends that it include the area surrounding North Avenue from Miln Street to the Rahway River and along South Avenue from South Union to the Rahway River. The Downtown Core would extend north along Springfield Avenue to the southern side of Miln Street. The southern border of the Downtown extends to the northern side of Chestnut Street, running from the Riverfront Redevelopment District to the northern side of Cherry Street, and terminating at South Union Avenue.
PLAN FOR MORE UNITS AT CRANFORD'S RIVERFRONT DRAWS $756,0000 FEE, CRITIQUES FROM FORMER MAYORS
Cranford Chronicle
Leslie Murray
May 10, 2011
A plan to allow the developer of the Riverfront Redevelopment Project to construct an additional 18 units at the site in exchange for an impact fee has drawn criticism from two former mayors, both of whom worked on the deal that set the parameters for the project.
The Township Committee announced the plan to allow Garden Homes to build the additional units on April 26, the first time the deal was discussed in public. This week Mayor Daniel Aschenbach and Township Attorney Daniel McCarthy said the township will receive a payment of $756,000 as a “sewer and parking impact fee.”
The expansion of the project came under question as Mark Smith and Bob Puhak, both former Republican mayors, said that concerted effort was made in reaching a deal in 2008 that capped the multi-use project at 108 units.
McCarthy said the discussion about the additional 18 units – including three affordable housing units– at the project on South Avenue began when the developer contacted his office, questioning if the township would allow more density in exchange for an impact fee.
“They’re getting ready to begin construction,” McCarthy said, offering comment on the timing of the talks.
Commissioner David Robinson said the number of units was based on the space made available by adding another floor to a proposed residential building fronting on Chestnut Street. The South Avenue façade of the project would be unchanged by the additional units, Robinson said.
Still Smith said he believed the township had moved too hastily in allowing the developer to build more units.
“My concern would be jumping too quickly (to change) something that was sitting for four years,” Smith said.
“There was a lot of work done by a lot of people to reach this agreement. We worked very hard to get the number of (residential) units right,” Puhak said. “It just sounds like a very low price tag for that big a jump in units.”
Asked to define the equation that he felt would be an equitable fee, Puhak said the projected profit for each of the additional units should be considered.
“We’re not buying the units, we’re getting an impact fee,” Aschenbach asserted.
McCarthy said this marked the first time the township would get any kind of impact fee from the developer of a redevelopment project.
“There wasn’t any developer fee previously for any redevelopment project for Cranford up to this point,” McCarthy said. “That’s an anomaly around the state.”
The proposal to allow 18 additional units at the Riverfront Redevelopment Project will be heard by the Planning Board on May 18.
SEWER PAYMENT DUE SEPTEMBER
In Cranford, sewer bills are coming in August, due in September
July 08, 2011
By Leslie Murray
Cranford Chronicle
CRANFORD — Residents may get the first bill under the new sewer charge system this summer.
Bills from the planned four-tiered rate system proposed earlier this year, and modeled off the system used in neighboring Clark, will be ready to be sent to residents in August, with a due date in September, Township Attorney Daniel McCarthy told the Township Committee this week.
While the township had the necessary data—usage amounts from October to March— from New Jersey American Water to begin calculating the rates in May, McCarthy said the information had to be processed to allow the bills to move forward.
Mayor Daniel Aschenbach said there will likely be a TV35 presentation on the new billing system, and repeated his comments that the billing system is out of necessity.
“We have a very significant problem ahead of us. Our sewer bill this year was $1.7 million. It should have been $1.9 million,” he said of the township’s assessment paid to the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority (RVSA).
Cranford had put a separate sewer bill in place in 2010 but yanked the ordinance when it proved unpopular among residents. However, earlier this year, McCarthy said the governing body in 2010 had actually repealed the wrong ordinance—lifting Ordinance 2010-33 an early sewer charge ordinance that was never adopted—leaving Ordinance 2010-40 which created the separate bill intact.
While the sewer charged dropped by $200,000 because of a use of surplus by the sewerage authority, Aschenbach said Cranford cannot count on that drop of the 2012 sewer assessment. Instead, he said the bill could actually top $1.9 million because the sewer assessment is based on a five-year rolling average, with Cranford’s lowest cost year being moved out of equation at the end of 2011.
While the sewer bills will likely arrive in residents’ mailboxes at the end of the summer, the Conservation Utility created earlier this year by the Township Committee has already gotten to work, Aschenbach said.
In June the group met with the RVSA and learned about two water meters in the town that are regularly out-of-line with normal flow rates. Township Engineer Rick Marsden said those rates imply those areas have significant rates of inflow and infiltration (I&I).
As part of the conservation utility and the new sewer bill, the governing body has considered including a maintenance program to reduce sewerage rates in some areas. Marsden said if the maintenance program were to include about $100,000 for capital improvements on the sewer system it would reduce sewer costs significantly.
“That gets us a good start and shows good faith that we’re dealing with our I&I,” Marsden said.
CRANFORD WILL ALLOW 18 MORE UNITS AT RIVERFRONT, GETS $700K IN IMPACT FEES FROM DEVELOPER
By Leslie Murray/Cranford Chronicle
An agreement to allow an additional 18 units at the Riverfront Redevelopment Project in exchange for a payment of close to $700,000 for sewer and parking impact fees was introduced tonight, marking the first time the change was discussed publicly.
The Township Committee approved the introduction of the fourth amendment during the April 26 meeting by a 4-1 vote, agreeing to allow developer Garden Homes to add another level of residential units to one of the buildings at the proposed mixed use site. Commissioner Mark Dugan was the only commissioner to vote against the move.
Township Attorney Daniel McCarthy said the agreement calls for allowing an additional 18 units – including three affordable housing– at the project on South Avenue. In return the developer will pay “somewhere over $700,000 for sewer and parking impact fees” to accommodate impact of the additional units.
Mayor Daniel Aschenbach said the financial gains were a substantial part of allowing the amendment to the project.
“It does have density that I was not in favor of and I am having trouble getting my arms around that, except for a few months ago the Township couldn’t pay its bills,” he said.
The ordinance will be referred to the Planning Board for comment and will have a public hearing and final reading during the June 14 meeting of the Township Committee.
SOMETHING STINKS--SEWER FEES
At the Cranford Township meeting on July 19th, commissioners talk about the new sewer usage bill, explaining the changes in greater detail.
By Catherine Felegi
July 20, 2011
In an effort to keep the budget for Cranford low, the township committee introduced an ordinance that would charge citizens based on their water usage, rather than a base property tax.
The controversial bill will charge citizens based on their home usage. Citizens way above the median usage rate will receive a letter from the municipality, granting them the opportunity to fix any leaks or issues that might cause an increase in usage rate. The rate will be determined by the water utility’s readings.
Citizens will be charged on according to tiers. Homes that use between zero and 75,000 gallons of water will be in the first tier and pay $175. Roughly two thirds of the houses in Cranford will qualify for the first tier. Homes that use over 75,000 of water will qualify for the second tier, and will owe $175 plus an additional 12 cents for each gallon after 75,000. Places using over 300,000, which are typically businesses, are urged to review the ordinances. Seniors citizens will receive a rebate of $125, and the Cranford school systems is exempt from the ordinance. Neighboring municipalities such as Clark and Scotch Plains currently utilize a usage-based sewer system.
“I don’t want another sewer bill, I don’t want another bill,” Mayor Daniel Aschenbach stated. However, he acknowledged that the usage bill would be a quality method to both allow payment for the water treatment the town needs as well as offer citizens a 1.95% increase in tax levy, one of the lowest on record.
“When you wash the dishes or flush the toilets… it goes several miles to the Rahway Sewage Treatment Plant and the water is treated there," he said. "That is a critical bill that has to be paid.”
Some citizens believe that the town needs to play a more active role in making sure the citizens are not over-charged for this bill.
“Perhaps the owner has a distill in the basement and is making a home brew and perhaps the meter reader has been sampling the product of the homeowner," resident Leo McMahon said. "I’m sure protective measures should not be the responsibility of the users, but should be that of the township and the developers that are working on this project."
Commissioner Kevin Campbell stressed that residents have control over the issue at hand.
“It’s [the homeowner’s] water bill… it’s their responsibility,” he said.
Commissioner Edward O’Malley hopes that this ordinance will “incentivize the conservation” of water.
An ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Walnut Avenue to 25MPH was also briefly discussed, but it has yet to bee approved by Union County. It has been introduced again and will be discussed at the August meeting.
The next Cranford Township meeting will be held on Aug 17th at 8PM
SEWER BILL, SOMETHING STINKS
At the Cranford Township meeting on July 19th, commissioners talk about the new sewer usage bill, explaining the changes in greater detail.
By Catherine Felegi
July 20, 2011
In an effort to keep the budget for Cranford low, the township committee introduced an ordinance that would charge citizens based on their water usage, rather than a base property tax.
The controversial bill will charge citizens based on their home usage. Citizens way above the median usage rate will receive a letter from the municipality, granting them the opportunity to fix any leaks or issues that might cause an increase in usage rate. The rate will be determined by the water utility’s readings.
Citizens will be charged on according to tiers. Homes that use between zero and 75,000 gallons of water will be in the first tier and pay $175. Roughly two thirds of the houses in Cranford will qualify for the first tier. Homes that use over 75,000 of water will qualify for the second tier, and will owe $175 plus an additional 12 cents for each gallon after 75,000. Places using over 300,000, which are typically businesses, are urged to review the ordinances. Seniors citizens will receive a rebate of $125, and the Cranford school systems is exempt from the ordinance. Neighboring municipalities such as Clark and Scotch Plains currently utilize a usage-based sewer system.
“I don’t want another sewer bill, I don’t want another bill,” Mayor Daniel Aschenbach stated. However, he acknowledged that the usage bill would be a quality method to both allow payment for the water treatment the town needs as well as offer citizens a 1.95% increase in tax levy, one of the lowest on record.
“When you wash the dishes or flush the toilets… it goes several miles to the Rahway Sewage Treatment Plant and the water is treated there," he said. "That is a critical bill that has to be paid.”
Some citizens believe that the town needs to play a more active role in making sure the citizens are not over-charged for this bill.
“Perhaps the owner has a distill in the basement and is making a home brew and perhaps the meter reader has been sampling the product of the homeowner," resident Leo McMahon said. "I’m sure protective measures should not be the responsibility of the users, but should be that of the township and the developers that are working on this project."
Commissioner Kevin Campbell stressed that residents have control over the issue at hand.
“It’s [the homeowner’s] water bill… it’s their responsibility,” he said.
Commissioner Edward O’Malley hopes that this ordinance will “incentivize the conservation” of water.
An ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Walnut Avenue to 25MPH was also briefly discussed, but it has yet to bee approved by Union County. It has been introduced again and will be discussed at the August meeting.
The next Cranford Township meeting will be held on Aug 17th at 8PM
February 07, 2011
By Sarah Portlock/The Star-Ledger
A recent study found the Transit Village designation has no direct impact on a town's property values.
The state's Transit Village designation is a helpful, but not necessary, program for towns to see an increase in property values, according to a new study. Instead, the municipalities that saw the most property value increases were those with a commitment for mixed-use developments around the train station, the study found.
The results are based on the researchers' two-pronged approach: case studies and site visits to six of the state's 20 Transit Village towns, including Metuchen and Bound Brook, and statistical analyses of those municipalities' average home values, crime rates, school test scores and population density, the report's authors said Friday.
"There is an association between being designated "Transit Village' and seeing an increase in the property values, (but) that does not mean becoming a Transit Village leads to increased residential proper values, it just means the two are moving simultaneously," said Robert Noland, who led the study and is director of the transportation center at Rutgers University's Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
"The positive results really seem to be from those communities being committed to seeing something happening, to really doing the planning and having the political leadership to see it through," he said.
The study focused on two towns each in northern, central and southern New Jersey, including Bound Brook, Belmar, Burlington City, Journal Square (Jersey City), Metuchen and Pleasantville and was released by the New Jersey Association of Realtors. The state's Department of Transportation runs the Transit Village program, which creates incentives for municipalities to redevelop or revitalize areas around transit stations with pedestrian-friendly amenities, according to the program's website.
In Metuchen, which was named a Transit Village in 2003, researchers attributed its "lively downtown" to enhanced pedestrian access and new developments with businesses on the ground floors and office and residential space above. But the study said the borough's residential property values and growth trends are slightly below the average for central New Jersey.
"This is surprising, as Metuchen has some very attractive features for a transit-oriented development," the report said.
Metuchen Mayor Thomas Vahalla credits the downtown projects to the Transit Village designation, which has helped the town qualify for and receive numerous grants and attract investors and developers, he said in an interview.
"It's a blessing in that respect," he said.
In Bound Brook, trends in residential property values match those of other northern state municipalities, but the borough itself did not see strong improvements after its Transit Village designation in 2003, the study found. The borough has been "languishing," researchers wrote, because of uncertainty over flood-management projects when researchers visited the borough in the fall of 2009.
"In this case, we see no impact of the Transit Village designation, either proceeding or after designation," the report said.
The town's council president, Anthony Pranzatelli, said engineers hope to complete a system of levees and berms by the end of 2012 that will block water from the Raritan River when big storms cause it to flood the area.
The town also is in the midst of planning a mixed-use project that will encompass nearly a half-mile arc around the train station to improve parking, create pedestrian and bicycle paths, and connect the river with downtown amenities, he said.
"Obviously, if public transportation becomes a number one issue (of investment in Trenton) and the price of gas goes up, all downtowns that have the luxury of having a railroad station are going to be golden," he said.
Ideally, the projects will also help increase property values, he added.
"Obviously we hope they go up, and we hope they're enhanced by public transportation doing better, but also by good planning to make the town a better-functioning town," Pranzatelli said.
The DOT did not return calls for comment.
Sarah Portlock: (973) 392-5994 or sportlock@starledger.com
DID YOU KNOW? CRANFORD DOWNTOWN VISION PLAN
CRANFORD APPROVES 163 UNITS AT 555 SOUTH AVENUE
Leslie Murray/Cranford Chronicle
September 14, 2010
In a meeting that saw nearly two hours of public comments related to a builder’s remedy lawsuit brought by a developer regarding 555 South Avenue East, the Township Committee approved a settlement with the Lehigh Acquisition Corp.
With comments that were at times heated leading off the meeting, the Township Committee approved in a 4-1 vote a settlement with Lehigh Acquisition allowing for 163 units at the site on Tuesday, Sept. 14. After discussing the potential of a settlement in August, the Township Committee held off on a deal.
Lehigh Acquisitions filed suit on January 16, 2008, after talks over the project broke down, claiming that Cranford failed to provide affordable housing as prescribed under the 1975 Mount Laurel case which requires all municipalities to provide low and moderate income housing and created COAH. At a public meeting the day before the lawsuit was filed two years ago, Lehigh presented a plan that called for the construction of 126 condominium flats, while the Township Committee would only agree to 90 units for the vacant five-acre site on the Cranford-Roselle border.
While the Township Committee had refrained from making public comments on the legal action during the course of suit, in a summary judgment dated March 20, 2009 Judge Lisa F. Chrystal found for Lehigh, ruling that Cranford’s ordinance regarding affordable housing was unconstitutional.
While residents were mixed on their comments—with some saying the settlement should be reject while others called ending the litigation only responsible action – the division on the Township Committee split with only Commissioner Daniel Aschenbach voting in opposition of the settlement.
Calling the settlement too dense, Aschenbach said the township should fight in the name of community standards.
“It’s just not a reasonable development in my mind,” he said. “We should fight this as far as we can.”
However, Commissioner David Robinson and Mayor Mark Smith repeatedly stated that Cranford had lost the legal battle in 2009.
“This is the making the best of a very bad situation,” Robinson said. “In this particular case, given the facts, this was the prudent thing to do,” he said of the settlement.
Making the statement Smith said the township was left with limited options in ending the litigation.
“If we don’t settle there will be more litigation, more legal costs, more units and more pretending the township does not have to follow the (state’s affordable housing) law,” Smith said. “The only responsible thing to do is settle.”
PRESS RELEASE
February 10, 2011
FROM: Cranford Downtown Management Office
Kathleen Miller Prunty
908-709-7208
k-prunty@cranfordnj.org
Downtown Cranford Receives $500,000 Transit Village Grant
Cranford was awarded a $500,000 grant from the NJ Dept. of
Transportation (DOT) to continue pedestrian improvements around the NJ
Transit rail station, in the heart of the business district. The funding will allow the Township to continue upgrades that make the downtown and station area safer
and more attractive for commuters, shoppers and residents.
Only designated Transit Villages in New Jersey could apply for the DOT
funding. The Downtown Management Corporation (DMC) 2003 grant application
resulted designation and a $200,000 grant, which was used for a comprehensive
traffic, parking and pedestrian study.
Mayor Daniel Aschenbach said the study has been a valuable planning
tool. “We leveraged the first grant and improvements to demonstrate our ongoing
commitment to make this busy area of the downtown both safe and attractive,”
he added.
The Mayor added, “a few years ago, the DMC, Engineering and Police
Department worked together to obtain a grant for lighting, decorative fencing and
pedestrian crossings on Walnut Avenue. We look at this next project as Part Two
of creating well-defined pedestrian routes to the train station and through the
downtown.”
Downtown Director Kathleen Miller Prunty concurred. “These improvements will help to create a much needed pedestrian-friendly link between the south and north areas of the downtown, especially with the growth of new businesses and the Riverfront mixed-use project along South Avenue. We need to see the train station as a connector rather than barrier in our downtown.”
The $500,000 grant will be used for pedestrian walkways across North
Avenue to the station and landscaping the area.
The Transit Village initiative in 2003, subsequent grant applications and
improvements grew from the Downtown Vision Planning process done by the
DMC in 2000. Over the course of a year, Cranford residents were surveyed
about development, pedestrian and public space improvements, parking and
zoning for the downtown business district. That effort was funded by one of the
first Smart Growth grants.
The Mayor added, “Cranford has been successful in obtaining grants
because we continually look at making better use of underutilized or
contaminated sites in the downtown area.”
The Cranford Transit Village area extends ½ mile radius from the station.
Transit Villages must demonstrate a commitment to smart growth that
encourages revitalization and growth around transportation; planning to reduce
traffic congestion; emphasize pedestrian safety; and, support improved air
quality, sustainability and creating downtown neighborhoods where people shop,
live, gather and work.
“Public space improvements are an important component in Transit
Villages. Cranford received high marks for Eastman Plaza, the recently
renovated Post Office Plaza and the improvements at Walnut Avenue. Soon, we
will have an attractive and pedestrian-friendly Train Station Plaza in the hear of the downtown,” added Ms. Prunty.
Published: Wednesday, September 07, 2011, 10:38 PM Updated: Wednesday, September 07, 2011, 11:06 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger
Residents in Cranford's flood zone have been ordered to evacuate from their homes, while others race to fill sandbags at the Public Works facility on North Avenue as Hurricane Irene closes in on New Jersey.
At least the fridge survived.
I’m talking about the small refrigerator Paul Swider keeps on the front porch of his Cranford home for Sunday afternoon beer sessions. Pretty much anyone can show up — even the guy who keeps bringing those raspberry wheat beers that no one wants to drink.
As for Swider, he’s an India pale ale guy. So am I, and I shared a couple with him once when I visited his porch to take part in the ritual.
Hurricane Irene was not kind to Cranford. The Kilkenny House, down by the railroad tracks, was flooded up to the beer taps, a tragedy that could set the town’s beer drinkers back for months. As for Swider’s old Victorian home on Casino Avenue, the water didn’t make it to the porch, but Swider lost his water heater and his furnace when his cellar flooded.
“A lot of my neighbors had water on the first floor,” he said. Irene was an extreme case, but Casino Avenue floods regularly as rain works its way down to the Rahway River, Swider said. The flooding will only get worse if the state bureaucrats get their way. Thanks to the agency formerly known as COAH, the town could get stuck with a 360-unit, high-density housing development to be built next to a flood plain just up the street.
Gov. Chris Christie is dissolving the bureaucracy known as the Council on Affordable Housing. And not a moment too soon for the people of Cranford. In 2008, the COAH planners showed just how out of touch with reality they are by compiling a map of buildable lots in town, which included the shoulders and median of the Garden State Parkway.
That’s the sort of thing that caused Christie to make good on his promise to dissolve COAH. But towns like Cranford are still stuck with the legacy of the two state Supreme Court Mount Laurel decisions. Those decisions created an amorphous “right” for every citizen to purchase affordable housing.
That works out a lot better in theory than in practice, as the 2008 burst of the housing bubble showed. Housing is now too affordable. A lot of people owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.
Usually, it’s said these people are “underwater” on their mortgages. But for a lot of Cranford homeowners, Irene gave a whole new meaning to the term “underwater,” Mayor Dan Aschenbach said. Some homes may have to be condemned, but the Federal Emergency Management Agency will reimburse owners only for the value of the house. The owners could end up with a mortgage to pay off, but no house to live in.
That’s a tragedy. But it’s a comedy when you think of how the branches of government are working at cross purposes. The feds want to get people out of a flood-prone Cranford. The state’s trying to cram more people in.
“I’m pushing the governor and the Department of Environmental Protection commissioner to understand what’s going on,” Aschenbach said. “We’ve got to get them out there to see how ridiculous it is.”
What Christie and DEP Commissioner Bob Martin would see is that Cranford has been developed for decades. There are only a couple of open areas around to absorb that rainwater, and the site off Birchwood Avenue — where that five-story high-rise would go — is one of them.
Aschenbach would like to have the town acquire the site and create a baseball field and a retention basin. The court has other ideas. So far, the developer’s been successful in a so-called “builder’s remedy” lawsuit that would require Cranford to permit the project, as long as 63 of the units are sold below market value.
That litigation promises to go on for years and the town has already spent $1 million defending against it, Aschenbach said. And that drives up property taxes — as would the addition of hundreds of new students to the town’s crowded schools if the project is ever built. “A project like this would change the entire nature of the town,” he said.
As for Swider, he’s of the opinion that the government’s already got enough trouble dealing with what has become a chronic flooding problem in Cranford.
“I don’t know how they could even being to think of adding more buildings and more homes,” he said. “The rain has to flow somewhere.”
Fortunately, so does the beer.
BIRCHWOOD/WOODMONT PROPERTIES 2007 REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE
Click on the links below--
The Fight for Zoning Change in 2007 on Birchwood Avenue
Overdevelopment in Cranford and Flood Aid from Union County
Put Planning Back Into the Planning Board
More Testimony But No Vote on Birchwood/Woodmont Properties
Birchwood Avenue Zoning Application, Delays and Politics
Woodmont Properties has Withdrawn Its Application for the Rezoning of Birchwood Avenue
Building Boom for the Over 55 Crowd
Tax Revenue?
Schools Affected By a Larger Senior Citizen Population
Cranford's Aging Sewer System
BIRCHWOOD LEGAL DOCUMENTS
Click on the Links below for more information about the proposed development on Birchwood Avenue
Transcript of Judge's Decision
What is a Builder's Remedy Lawsuit
Who is Judge Chrystal?
Cranford Commissioners Voted "No" to Affordable Housing Certification
Cranford Did Not Submit Affordable Housing Plan
Special Master's Report
Township Takes Issue with Special Master's Report
Cranford's Answer to Complaint
Hekemian Files Lawsuit Against Cranford
Hekemian vs. Cranford Complaint November 12, 2008
Hekemian Freshwater Wetlands Application December 19, 2008
Hekemian Presentation to Township Committee October 7, 2008
Hekemian letter to Cranford September 24, 2008
Cranford's Birchwood Property Sold; Residential Units Proposed
Cranford Overdevelopment and Union County Flood Aid
RIVERFRONT PRESENTATIONS & NEWS
The following links refer to the addition of 21 more apartments to the Riverfront project in 2011 and the fight against it.
Residents Object to New Apartments at Riverfront
Why 2 Meetings on Same Night
Thorough Discussion Leads to Planning Board Approval
Plan for More Units at Cranford's Riverfront
Cranford Will Allow 18 More Units at Riverfront
The links below are for the Riverfront presentations, proposals and news articles. The developer of the Riverfront project is Garden Homes.
Riverfront/Garden Homes Presentation November 13, 2008
Riverfront/Garden Homes Proposal News Article November 13, 2008
Riverfront/Garden Homes Presentation July 8, 2008
Riverfront/Garden Homes Proposal News Article July 8, 2008
Resident Excluded from Proposal
Density & Parking Plan Disputed
CITIZENS FIGHT BIRCHWOOD DEVELOPMENT
CONTACT THE OFFICIALS BELOW ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF 360 APARTMENTS & PARKING GARAGE ON BIRCHWOOD AVENUE (story below)
GOVERNOR CHRISTIE
QUESTION FOR GOVERNOR CHRISTIE ON NJ 101.5
U.S. CONGRESSMAN LEONARD LANCE
NJ STATE SENATOR THOMAS KEAN
NJ ASSEMBLYMAN JON BRAMNICK
NJ ASSEMBLYWOMAN NANCY MUNOZ
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, GOVERNOR CHRISTIE AT HIS TOWN HALL MEETING IN UNION MENTIONED CRANFORD AND THE BIRCHWOOD AVENUE DEVELOPMENT.
VIDEO 1
VIDEO 2
GOVERNOR CHRISTIE ALSO HEARD OUR PLEA FOR HELP THROUGH A RESIDENT BY THE NAME OF "PHIL" WHO CALLED IN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, TO THE GOVERNOR DURING HIS RADIO SHOW ON 101.5. GOVERNOR CHRISTIE TOLD HIM THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM TO GET THE PARTICULARS AND THAT THE STATE WILL WORK WITH THE MAYOR AND TOWN. YOU CAN LISTEN TO IT BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK LISTEN AT 101.5
the conversation begins at the 16:20 mark on the video
THANK YOU "PHIL"
WHAT IS A BUILDER'S REMEDY LAWSUIT?
A “Builder’s Remedy Lawsuit” is simply legal action taken by a property developer in an attempt to force a municipality to permit construction of a large, multi-family housing structure or complex.
Typically, the developer’s court brief will make specific mention of the Mt. Laurel decision, a landmark case that holds municipalities responsible for providing affordable housing to low and moderate income households.
Many local officials believe that “Builder’s Remedy Lawsuits” are used by developers to force the construction of unneeded housing under the guise of providing affordable housing for those that need it most, when in reality they are only interested in building large quantities of market rate homes for profit.
By filing an affordable housing plan with the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), the State of NJ office responsible for determining affordable housing requirements, municipalities can protect themselves against “Builder's Remedy Lawsuits.”
Cranford did not file an affordable housing plan (see stories below on no coah certification)with the Council on Affordable Housing and, therefore, left the town wide open to builder's remedy lawsuits. One such lawsuit was settled on 555 South Avenue for 163 Apartments and the other was just approved by a Judge for 360 apartments and a parking garage on Birchwood Avenue. The town plans on appealing the Birchwood Avenue decision.
Commissioners Voted "No" to Affordable Housing (COAH) Certification
Cranford Has No Affordable Housing Plan
SEPTEMBER 30 LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Click on the letter for a larger view
CRANFORD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE TAKES ISSUE WITH REPORT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWSUITS
By Leslie Murray
January 14, 2010
CRANFORD—While the township’s fight against two affordable housing lawsuits filed by developers in 2008 continues in the courts, the Township Committee made their objections to the process known this week when they reluctantly agreed to pay for a report by the court-appointed Court Master on both suits.
During the workshop meeting Monday, Commissioner David Robinson questioned if the Township Committee could refuse to pay the bills submitted by Elizabeth McKenzie, the court-appointed expert on the two affordable housing suits against the township, for a report that the township found unacceptable.
Responding to the question, Township Attorney Carl Woodward said that while the commissioners could object in court to the report and could scrutinize the submitted bills, Cranford was responsible for paying its portion of the services rendered by McKenzie.
McKenzie’s report is related to the lawsuits filed by Lehigh Acquisitions in January 2008 and The S.Hekemian Group in November 2008, both of which claim that the township failed to meet requirements under the state’s Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) regulations as related to the 1975 Mount Laurel case that requires all New Jersey municipalities to provide a specific amount of affordable housing.
Lehigh Acquisitions filed suit after negotiations with the township broke down over the number of units at the site, known as 555 South Avenue East. The S.Hekemian Group filed their suit after their request to the Township Committee for a zone change on Birchwood Avenue was directed to the Planning Board.
After the initial consideration, Mayor Mark Smith said on Tuesday, Jan. 12 before the official meeting that while the committee may disagree with the report, there was a legal responsibility to pay for the work. He added that, because of the legal proceedings, the committee had no choice but to meet the obligations related to the court costs.
As they considered the resolution to pay the bill, each of the commissioners made statements listing their objections, though only Commissioner Dan Aschenbach voted against the passage.
Calling the report “inaccurate in many cases,” Aschenbach said the Township Committee might have an obligation to pay the bill but “we don’t have an obligation to take this density.”
“None of us want actually to pay this expense, but that would inappropriate because we are under a court order,” Commissioner Mark Dugan said before reluctantly supporting the resolution.
HEKEMIAN FILES LAWSUIT (link to complaint below)
by By LESLIE MURRAY
THE CHRONICLE
December 10, 2008
The S.Hekemian Group--a developer seeking to rezone a section of Birchwood Avenue to build 400 residential units where two office buildings currently stand--has filed a builder's remedy lawsuit against Cranford.
The lawsuit, which was served to the township on Dec. 1, was filed in New Jersey Superior Court on Nov. 12 and names the township, the Township Committee, and the Planning Board as defendants.
In the suit, Hekemian as Cranford Development Associates (CDA) states that "Cranford has failed to create sufficient realistic opportunities for the construction of safe, decent housing affordable to low and moderate income households."
The suit makes specific mention of the Mt. Laurel decision, a landmark case that found municipalities in New Jersey responsible for providing affordable housing for low and moderate income individuals. By filing an affordable housing plan with the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), the state office responsible for determining affordable housing requirements, towns can protect themselves against builder's remedy lawsuits.
Cranford is not certified by COAH. The township is currently in the process of obtaining such certification, a process that has been ongoing since work to rewrite the Master Plan began in 2006.
Another builder's remedy lawsuit was filed against the township earlier this year, by developer Lehigh Acquisitions. The case remains in litigation.
Within the current suit, The S.Hekemian Group also contents that the Planning Board has failed to create zoning laws that allows for affordable housing and that under municipal land use law, the board is not allowed to decide if rezoning would be appropriate at the site.
"CDA has made a good faith effort to secure voluntary rezoning of this property for inclusionary development," the suit contends.
In September, The S.Hekemian Group, a developer that twice entered negotiations with the township on the Riverfront Redevelopment Project only to have the township call of talks both times, purchased 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue for $6 million from Elberon Development Company. Those properties were the subject of an ultimately unsuccessful age-restricted project by Woodmont Properties in 2007.
Representatives from The S.Hekemian Group first appeared at the Oct. 7 meeting of the Township Committee when they spoke about building a residential complex at the Birchwood Avenue site.
At that time, Peter Hekemian along with Stephen Eisdorfer, of Hill Wallack LLP, an attorney who specializes in land use litigation representing The S.Hekemian Group, informed the committee that the developer planned three buildings on the 16-acre site, comprised of a four-story over-parking residential building with 118 units, a four-story building with 301 residential units, and a 512-stall precast parking deck. Of the 419 proposed residential units, 63 would be affordable housing units. At the conclusion of their initial presentation, the developer said they would seek a response from the township on Oct. 21.
While the Township Committee did not comment at that time, they did refer the developer to the Planning Board to make an application, with Mayor Bob Puhak sending a letter asking the board to consider the application immediately.
This week, Zoning Officer Robert Hudak said that to his recollection no one from The S.Hekemian Group contacted the zoning office to make an application or to schedule an appearance before the Planning Board.
The Township Committee first discussed the suit during a closed door executive session at the Monday, Dec. 8, meeting.
Speaking on behalf of The S.Hekemian Group, Eisdorfer told the Chronicle his client had decided to file suit after meeting with the township on multiple occasions and finding that the township seemed determined to continue the planning process without allowing the developer to have input.
"We filed suit basically to protect our rights," Eisdorfer said. "It is still our hope that the town will work with us," he said.
Puhak said that that Township Committee and legal counsel are still considering options and will file a response to the suit "in due time." He said that the suit "did not make logical sense."
"The township is following due process here as it had promised to do. We have sought out professional review and input. We referred (the developer's proposal) to the Planning Board," Puhak said.
"It was disappointing to see Hekemian file suit against us after they indicated that they were willing to work with us," he said. "This should be viewed as a clear indicator of what their intentions are here."
Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.
RIVERFRONT AGREEMENT SIGNED AT LAST MEETING of 2008 AGAINST WISHES OF 2 COMMISSIONERS AND 2 COMMISSIONERS-ELECT
CRANFORD CHRONICLE
BY LESLIE MURRAY
DECEMBER 29
In the final meeting of the Township Committee of 2008, a redevelopment agreement for the Riverfront Redevelopment Area with Garden Homes was approved by a split vote.
At the Dec. 22 meeting, after passing a resolution to officially change the name of the developer in the redeveloper designation documents from Garden Homes to Riverfront Developers LLC, the commissioners considered the 70 page agreement.
Commissioner Michael Plick and Deputy Mayor David Robinson voted against signing the Redevelopment Agreement, saying that a request by Commissioners-elect Mark Dugan and Daniel Aschenbach for more time to consider the document would not cause a major delay.
However, Mayor Bob Puhak and Commissioners Martha Garcia and Mark Smith approved the agreement.
The signing of the Redevelopment Agreement, the contract that outlines the specifications of the project, is historic progress for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project.
At the end of June, after hearing four presentations from Tony DiGiovanni, a Cranford resident and the director of development for Garden Commercial Properties (a branch of Garden Homes) the Township Committee agreed to enter an interim cost agreement with the company, later appointing them as the developer for the redevelopment of the site at South Avenue and High and Chestnut streets.
The interim cost agreement, which is the initial step toward a Redevelopment Agreement, guaranteed that the township would negotiate exclusively with Garden Homes and that the developer will cover the costs of all research and testing related to the site until a full redevelopment agreement was reached or talks are broken off.
The signing of the interim cost agreement marked the fourth time a developer has progressed that far in the redevelopment process, though a redevelopment plan for the site has never been signed.
The 3.5-acre section of the downtown was initially designated as an area in need of redevelopment in December of 1998.
Through a series of meetings with the Township Committee as well as a public presentation, Garden Homes has offered a plan with two mixed-use buildings fronting on South Avenue and two entirely residential buildings on High and Chestnut streets. The proposal calls for 106 residential units, including 16 affordable units, along with 17,575 net square feet of retail and 14,250 net square feet of office space.
Last week, Plick and Robinson said they felt that waiting to vote would not be a significant delay for the project.
Explaining his vote, Plick said it was "not because I don't believe in the Riverfront project as a whole."
"The reason for my no vote was because our commissioners-elect asked for more time to review it and I did not see the harm in waiting," Plick explained.
Agreeing, Robinson said it was "a great plan we have in place" for Riverfront, however he would have liked to have afforded the commissioners-elect time for review.
"A Christmas-week vote to the first vote in January, it didn't make much difference to me when it's been 10 years in the making," Robinson said.
However, Puhak said that waiting to pass the agreement would not have served the interests of township.
"This is a $40 million investment by a private entity in our downtown," he said, lauding the proposal for the project.
"I believe this is the best thing we can get for Cranford," Puhak said. "I believe it is in the best interest of this community to move forward at this time."
Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.
The Chronicle
by Leslie Murray
Friday October 03, 2008
CRANFORD -- A group of properties on Birchwood Avenue was sold on Sept. 19 to The S.Hekemian Group, a developer who ended talks with the township over the Riverfront project earlier this year. The properties were previously part of a contentious application for an age-restricted project last year.
A deed transfer, recorded by the Union County Clerk on Sept. 22, shows that Elberon Development Company sold 235 and 215 Birchwood Avenue to The S.Hekemian Group for $6 million. The site currently consists of a pair of office buildings, one of which is completely unoccupied and another that still houses some offices.
This week Mayor Bob Puhak said that he received a letter from The S.Hekemian Group notifying the Township Committee that the developer had purchased the site with the intention of building residential units and an interest in speaking with the committee about plans for the Birchwood Avenue site at the Oct. 7 meeting.
"I can confirm that (the township) did receive a letter from Peter Hekemian indicating their interest in developing residential projects in that area," Puhak said. uoting the letter sent to the township, Puhak said Hekemian wrote of a plan to build 356 market rate units and 63 affordable units at the site. Commenting on the correspondence, Puhak said he was "very surprised by this, especially the proposed density."
A call to The S.Hekemian Group requesting a comment was not returned before press deadline this week.
According to Township Zoning Officer Robert Hudak, the properties are currently in the low density office building district. In order for residential development to be allowed a zone change would have to be made at the site. While there is no recommendation of change in the rewrite of the Master Plan for that area, one had been considered in the early stages of the document to allow for a townhome overlay zone at the site.
The Township Committee would be the body to approve a zoning change.
Both the developer and the site have been part of high-profile proposed projects. Hekemian twice entered exclusive negotiations with the township for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project only to have the talks fall apart both times over issues including density.
On March 11, 2008 the Township Committee terminated an interim cost agreement with Hekemian, which marked the third time since 2006 that talks began only to be later canceled on the project. The S.Hekemian Group was the first developer the township tapped to build at the site, but that round of negotiations ended in 2006.
At the time, Peter Hekemian told The Chronicle that the township's proposal for the project was "unacceptable". The township has since entered talks with Garden Homes and township officials have said that a redevelopment agreement for the project could be in place before year end. The two properties on Birchwood Avenue were part of a highly contentious application by Woodmont Properties to build a 124 unit age-restricted development in 2007. Residents in the area vehemently opposed the project saying that the proposed project was too dense and would negatively impact the quiet residential area.
The Planning Board had been conducting hearings on the project and was preparing to make a recommendation to the Township Committee about whether the zoning in the area should be changed to accommodate the project when Woodmont withdrew the application last September.
Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.
HEKEMIAN FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST CRANFORD (link to complaint below)
By LESLIE MURRAY
THE CHRONICLE
December 10, 2008
The S.Hekemian Group--a developer seeking to rezone a section of Birchwood Avenue to build 400 residential units where two office buildings currently stand--has filed a builder's remedy lawsuit against Cranford.
The lawsuit, which was served to the township on Dec. 1, was filed in New Jersey Superior Court on Nov. 12 and names the township, the Township Committee, and the Planning Board as defendants.
In the suit, Hekemian as Cranford Development Associates (CDA) states that "Cranford has failed to create sufficient realistic opportunities for the construction of safe, decent housing affordable to low and moderate income households."
The suit makes specific mention of the Mt. Laurel decision, a landmark case that found municipalities in New Jersey responsible for providing affordable housing for low and moderate income individuals. By filing an affordable housing plan with the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), the state office responsible for determining affordable housing requirements, towns can protect themselves against builder's remedy lawsuits.
Cranford is not certified by COAH. The township is currently in the process of obtaining such certification, a process that has been ongoing since work to rewrite the Master Plan began in 2006.
Another builder's remedy lawsuit was filed against the township earlier this year, by developer Lehigh Acquisitions. The case remains in litigation.
Within the current suit, The S.Hekemian Group also contents that the Planning Board has failed to create zoning laws that allows for affordable housing and that under municipal land use law, the board is not allowed to decide if rezoning would be appropriate at the site.
"CDA has made a good faith effort to secure voluntary rezoning of this property for inclusionary development," the suit contends.
In September, The S.Hekemian Group, a developer that twice entered negotiations with the township on the Riverfront Redevelopment Project only to have the township call of talks both times, purchased 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue for $6 million from Elberon Development Company. Those properties were the subject of an ultimately unsuccessful age-restricted project by Woodmont Properties in 2007.
Representatives from The S.Hekemian Group first appeared at the Oct. 7 meeting of the Township Committee when they spoke about building a residential complex at the Birchwood Avenue site.
At that time, Peter Hekemian along with Stephen Eisdorfer, of Hill Wallack LLP, an attorney who specializes in land use litigation representing The S.Hekemian Group, informed the committee that the developer planned three buildings on the 16-acre site, comprised of a four-story over-parking residential building with 118 units, a four-story building with 301 residential units, and a 512-stall precast parking deck. Of the 419 proposed residential units, 63 would be affordable housing units. At the conclusion of their initial presentation, the developer said they would seek a response from the township on Oct. 21.
While the Township Committee did not comment at that time, they did refer the developer to the Planning Board to make an application, with Mayor Bob Puhak sending a letter asking the board to consider the application immediately.
This week, Zoning Officer Robert Hudak said that to his recollection no one from The S.Hekemian Group contacted the zoning office to make an application or to schedule an appearance before the Planning Board.
The Township Committee first discussed the suit during a closed door executive session at the Monday, Dec. 8, meeting.
Speaking on behalf of The S.Hekemian Group, Eisdorfer told the Chronicle his client had decided to file suit after meeting with the township on multiple occasions and finding that the township seemed determined to continue the planning process without allowing the developer to have input.
"We filed suit basically to protect our rights," Eisdorfer said. "It is still our hope that the town will work with us," he said.
Puhak said that that Township Committee and legal counsel are still considering options and will file a response to the suit "in due time." He said that the suit "did not make logical sense."
"The township is following due process here as it had promised to do. We have sought out professional review and input. We referred (the developer's proposal) to the Planning Board," Puhak said.
"It was disappointing to see Hekemian file suit against us after they indicated that they were willing to work with us," he said. "This should be viewed as a clear indicator of what their intentions are here."
Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8488502/Hekemian-v-Cranford-Complaint?secret_password=18nfou7v5ttj9zmyv13u