JUDGE RULES CRANFORD COMPLIANT WITH COAH

By DELL SIMEONE

Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

CRANFORD – State Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Chrystal has deemed Cranford Township’s Master Plan compliant with the New Jersey State Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) requirements. The township’s planning board amended the Master Plan on April 3.

In a decision handed down on Monday in Superior Court in Elizabeth, the judge ruled that the township complied with a December 11, 2011 order which Judge Chrystal imposed after the township lost a builder’s remedy lawsuit brought by Cranford Development Associates (CDA).

“The decision will result in an order of repose which will protect Cranford from any challenges relating to Fair Share Housing until December of 2018,” said former Township Attorney Philip Morin, who represented the township at the compliance hearing. Mr. Morin also said that Judge Chrystal asked attorney Stephen Eisdorfer of Hill Wallack LLP of Princeton, which represents the CDA, to prepare an order of final judgment in the case.

Mr. Morin also said the township can now go forward to appeal Judge Chrystal’s previous decision, which ruled in favor of the CDA building350 apartments at 215/235Birchwood Avenue, 54 of which would be affordable housing units.  The township is opposed to the project because of flooding and contamination concerns.

Cranford has now met its first and second round of affordable housing obligations to the state. If Cranford has any third round obligations, Mr. Morin said they cannot be met by new development since the township has no space to develop, but could be met by rehabilitation of existing properties. As a result of this compliance, 24 affordable units will be allocated at the Lehigh Associates project, comprised of 167 units to be built at 555 South Avenue.

Centennial Apartments Approved By Zoning Board

By NICOLAS FERNANDES

Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

May 12, 2016

CRANFORD — The site plan proposal for a controversial mixed use building that would replace the abandoned Lehigh’s Auto Repair on Centennial Avenue was approved by the Cranford Board of Adjustment Monday night.

The site plan, by applicant 310 Centennial Avenue, LLC, showed a 1,952 square foot building with one or two retail spaces on the first level and 20 residential units occupying the second and third floors.

After a night of complaints from owners of single-family homes surrounding the site, the board came to the conclusion that the mixed-use building is better than the other likely options—a Dunkin Donuts, a convenience store, or a vacant site.

“If we denied this, it might sit like this for another 10 years,” Board of Adjustment Chairman Ronald Marotta said at the public meeting.

Variances sought included density, height, exceeding the stories permitted, parking, and setbacks, amongst others.

Although the residents were against the regulation, Mr. Triarsi explained that more density in a downtown area is good because the new residents will utilize the town’s businesses.

 “More density in a downtown neighborhood is better than less density,” Mr. Triarsi said.

 Marie Mayer, the owner of the neighboring 304-306 Centennial Avenue, brought up that part of the development would use up land that she owns.

Mr. Triarsi denied this claim, but said he would speak to her about it if he sees a document stating that the land belongs to Ms. Mayer.

The Centennial Village Group asked if a crosswalk accompanied by a flashing pedestrian signal could be placed between North Lehigh Avenue and Winans Avenue similar to the one between Elm Street and Severin Court, one block away, ensuring the safety of children crossing the street while walking to and from Hillside Avenue School. The board will recommend that idea to the county, Mr. Marotta said, because Centennial Avenue is a county road.

All of the residents opposed to the plan were concerned that it would turn the area into the exact opposite of what it was that made them want to move to town, a quiet place to raise a family and send their children to a safe school.

Brandon De Oliveira, who moved to Cranford with his family as a child from Hillside, explained that Cranford is supposed to be a safe town for families with children, not a place filled with development of rental space.

“Please remember why you or your family decided to move to Cranford,” Mr. De Oliveira told the board.

Mr. Triarsi’s argument was that nothing can be worse than what has been in that spot since the 1980s.

“There cannot be a less efficient use of land than what’s existed on this site for the past few decades,” Mr. Triarsi said.

Board Secretary Jeffrey Pistol said there should be less residential space and more retail space. “It’s a very nice building, but it needs to be smaller,” Mr. Pistol said.

According to Mr. Triarsi, it is not economically possible to reduce the number of units in the development.

John Quick, who lives on North Lehigh Avenue, said that he and all of his neighbors have families with children, and that the traffic caused from the mixed-use building will affect their safety. “It’s a beautiful building, but it doesn’t belong in our neighborhood,” Mr. Quick said. “It belongs on South Avenue or North Avenue.”

Mr. Triarsi said Centennial Avenue needs a shopping district similar to South Avenue and North Avenue, comparing the development to Cranford Crossing, a residential and retail building that replaced a vacant lot near the train station.

“That was an area that was underused and now that area is the shinning star in this community,” Mr. Triarsi said. The applicant will next seek approval from the Union County Planning Board.

BIRCHWOOD AVENUE APRIL '07 FLOOD

HOW WILL RESIDENTS OF THE 360 APARTMENTS AS WELL AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES GET IN AND OUT OF THE PROJECT ON BIRCHWOOD AVENUE?

Planned Development On Birchwood Avenue In Cranford Moves Forward After Judge's Ruling

By Christy Potter, Cranford ChronicleCranford Chronicle
February 07, 2013

The battle over Birchwood took another step forward Tuesday as Judge Lisa Chrystal adopted the recommendations of the hearing officer and set a date for the final hearing on compliance.

Chrystal accepted Special Hearing Officer Douglas Wolfson’s recommendations to approve the site plan and elevation of Birchwood Avenue.

The judge also set April 22 as the date for the final hearing to determine whether Cranford is now in compliance with its affordable housing obligations and has taken all the procedural steps to insure future compliance, according to Philip Morin, who was the township’s attorney until the end of 2012 and is still acting as council on the issue. Morin said the final hearing will also provide a time frame for which the town will be protected from future Mt. Laurel/builder’s remedy litigation.

The site plans, which residents and officials have been fighting for more than a year, call for construction of 360 apartments on the property, including 60 affordable housing units. The plan also calls for a five-story parking garage.

The property is located on a 16-acre tract of land at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue, an area prone to flooding. After Hurricane Irene, the area was submerged in several feet of water, and township committee members have pointed out the safety issues in the area after other bouts of bad weather.

The township has been trying to appeal the judge’s July 2011 decision in a builder’s remedy lawsuit to allow the developer, Cranford Development Associates, to build on the site.

There have been a number of twists and turns along the way, including a township complaint, filed in November 2012, that court-appointed special master Elizabeth McKenzie had shown herself to be biased by declaring herself an “affordable housing advocate.” The judge threw out Cranford’s complaint.

The special master wrote two opinions for the court, first finding that the builder’s remedy was appropriate and then, in December 2010, she issued another report saying although there are some environmental issues at the site, she didn’t find them to be unmanageable.

 

Site Plan Hearings End on Birchwood Development

 By DELL SIMEONE Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

Thursday, August 30, 2012

CRANFORD – Five days of site plan hearings for the proposed 360- unit housing development at 215/ 235 Birchwood Avenue ended last Thursday at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth. Lawyer summations and the findings of Judge Douglas K. Wolfson and Special Master Elizabeth McKenzie will be forwarded to Superior Court Judge Lisa F. Chrystal, who has the power to approve or disapprove the site plan, only with complete compliance on the part of Cranford Development Associates (CDA), the developer, with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 

The NJDEP still has to see that CDA is in compliance with DEP regulations regarding development within a designated Flood Hazardous Area. 

CDA’s civil engineer, Michael Dipple, of L2A Land Design of Englewood, working for CDA, identified and outlined the flow of rain and storm water to the complex during his testimony last week. The CDA is seeking a permit from the NJDEP to raise a 300-foot portion of Birchwood Avenue a foot above the flood plain. Mr. Dipple said he has planned to accommodate an increase in velocity of water from upstream to downstream in the flood plain by installing an underground detention basin at the site to contain water and release it at intervals. 

Mr. Dipple said the detention basin would be 32 by 460 feet, and that pipes and drains on the site would directly flow to the basin. He was questioned extensively about ground water by Maria Anderson, an attorney and Kenilworth resident, who lives close to the site. She said she was concerned about the amount of storm water, which would go out to the road, and the amount that would go to the stream at the border of the property. 

Mr. Dipple said that the flow would be directed from the other side of Birchwood Avenue. “It would slope from Orange Avenue toward the buildings,” he said. 

Township Attorney Philip Morin questioned Mr. Dipple on his trial testimony during the builder’s remedy lawsuit brought against Cranford by CDA. Judge Wolfson curtailed that line of questioning and also any questioning about permits needed from the NJDEP. 

Cranford Township Fire Chief Leonard Dolan testified that a study done by the Cranford Police Department shows peak traffic hours are 7:45 to 8:45 a.m. and 5 to 6 p.m. in the evening, based on a study of Orange and Birchwood Avenues. Joseph Staigar, Cranford’s traffic expert, testified that a higher trip generation still did not call for a traffic signal at Orange and Birchwood Avenues. He did question the width of the driveway on a portion of the site and whether a fire truck could turn around in case of an emergency. 

Cranford Engineer Richard Marsden identified 40 problems he had with Mr. Dipple’s testimony, including drainage in the parking lot, gate valves on site to regulate the flow of water, the size of pipes, the flood way line, and split flow analysis. He was questioned by Judge Wolfson about pipe enlargement or repair, and how to calculate the cost, which would be divided between the CDA and Cranford Township. “The cost of pipe replacement would be $100 per linear foot,” Mr. Marsden said. 

Judge Wolfson said Cranford would have to adopt an ordinance for “off-track” repairs or improvements needed for development. The judge told Mr. Marsden he would ask him to determine to what degree CDA would be responsible to repair or replace pipes. Other topics that Mr. Marsden questioned are pickup, and dropoff at the site, lighting, wetlands and the flow from upstream. 

CDA’s attorney, Stephen Eisendorfer, questioned Mr. Marsden on his formula for calculations. He then called on Clay Emerson, of Princeton Hydro, who strongly disagreed with Mr. Marsden and called his calculations antiquated. 

Members of Concerned Citizens of Cranford, Liz Sweeney and Rita La Brutto, showed Judge Wolfson and Ms. McKenzie pictures of the Birchwood site flooding during past storms. Ms. La Brutto told the judge she objected to the hearings being held in Elizabeth and not in Cranford. Judge Wolfson replied, “You were here every day.” Ms. La Brutto replied that it was difficult to do so. Ms. Anderson told Judge Wolfson that she did not feel confident that the development would not affect upstream. Cranford residents Ann Steinbach and Laura Tarullo also attended the hearings. Members of the Cranford Township Committee attended the hearings intermittently, including Mayor David Robinson, who had been on vacation during the first week of the proceedings. The hearings, held in Elizabeth, usurped the authority of the Cranford Planning Board, which was not permitted to be involved in the proceedings. They now await the findings of Judge Chrystal, along with sanctions or approvals by the NJDEP.

CRANFORD TOWNSHIP AND CITIZENS REQUEST CHANGE IN PLACE, DATE AND TIME OF SITE PLAN HEARING

CLICK HERE FOR CITIZEN LETTER REQUESTING SITE PLAN HEARING TO BE HELD IN CRANFORD
CLICK HERE FOR CRANFORD TOWNSHIP LETTER TO MR. WOLFSON, SITE HEARING OFFICER, REQUESTING SITE HEARING PLACE & DATE CHANGE, AUGUST 3
CRANFORD TOWNSHIP LETTER TO JUDGE CHRYSTAL REQUESTING SITE HEARING PLACE/DATE CHANGE, AUGUST 3
********JUDGE CHRYSTAL DENIES CHANGE IN DATE/CRANFORD FILES APPEAL, AUGUST 6********
+++++ALL REQUESTS & APPEALS DENIED, HEARING IS TO BE HELD AT THE UNION COUNTY COURTHOUSE ON AUGUST 8, 9, 21, 22 AND 23 AT 10 AM+++++

CRANFORD SHOULD HAVE SAY ON HOUSING, NOT BE BULLIED BY COURTS

Westfield Leader Editorial
Thursday, August 23, 2012

Cranford residents have faced a lot of adversity since Hurricane Irene caused million of dollars of damage last August. These days, residents are concerned as builders try to ram through high-density housing developments with the assistance of the courts. Residents have been attending site plan hearings the past two weeks at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth concerning the proposed 360-unit Birchwood development after a Superior Court judge ruled against the township in its effort to stop the development. Another slap in the face is that the Cranford Planning Board has not been allowed to participate in these hearings. The township is also said to have reached an agreement on the proposed development by Lehigh Acquisitions Corporation at 555 South Avenue East, where the developer wants to build a three-story structure with 163 rental housing units of which 24 would be for affordable housing. We have been told that Woodmont Properties is purchasing 555 South Avenue. Then there is the 127-unit Riverfront development currently under construction on South Avenue across from the Cranford Train Station. The Birchwood and 555 South Avenue developments are both part of builder remedy lawsuits brought by the developers against Cranford. The efforts of the Rahway River Watershed to develop a long-term solution for towns along the Rahway River, such as Cranford, Millburn and Rahway, may be for naught if these housing plans keep getting rammed through by the bullying courts. In our opinion, local elected officials, not the courts, should be making decisions on the future of Cranford.

Legal Bills Mounting As Cranford Endures Birchwood Saga

The Local Source
Cheryl Hehl, Staff Writer
August 22, 2012
CRANFORD — Although the township has been fighting the Birchwood Development for years, in the end taxpayers end up footing the legal bill that grows day by day. However, the township stands strongly behind this effort and does not intend to back down. Regardless of the cost.

According to legal bills dating back to 2008, obtained by LocalSource using the Open Public Records Act, the township has spent $578,989.76 to fight the Birchwood development. And the tab is still running.

The bills include charges from four separate legal firms that either represented the township regarding Birchwood, or continue to handle legal issues involving this proposed development.

Included was charges the township paid to former township attorney Carl Woodward’s firm for costs dating from January 2009 until the present; legal services by Stuart R. Koenig, the attorney hired by the township in connection with the Mt. Laurel litigation from July 2009 to January 2011; charges from January 2012 to present from township attorney Philip Morin’s law firm of Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt and Fader; and invoices for services rendered by court appointed Special Master Elizabeth C. McKenzie.

The township is currently deeply involved in an ongoing court appointed site plan review with Cranford Development Associates, a subsidiary of the S. Hekemian Group, which began efforts more than five years ago to develop a 16-acre parcel of land on Birchwood Avenue. The township, already fighting another developer who wanted to construct affordable senior housing on a narrow parcel of land on South Avenue adjacent to the railroad, took an immediate stance against the project.

Since then the township has had two builder’s remedy lawsuits brought against them by these developers, including multiple appeals and counter lawsuits requiring the expertise of seasoned environmental and land use attorneys. Expertise of this type, though, is costly. Especially in light of the fact the township was on the losing end of these lawsuits and appeals.

The majority of these legal costs, though, occurred prior to trial when attorneys are doing discovery work on the case. This includes taking depositions from witnesses, researching information about site suitability and how environmental and land use law can be applied to a particular legal case.

For example, when Woodward’s firm, Carella Byrne, Carl Woodward and Brian Fenlon, took on CDA’s builder’s remedy lawsuit, by the time the trial was over the legal bills escalated to $430,193. But, according to Morin, that is what it costs to defend a builder’s remedy case.

“There was intensive discovery involved with that trial and a significant amount of time had to be spent preparing for trial,” the township attorney explained, adding that this particular trial lasted 14 days, which is considered quite long.

Morin should know. He recently spent months preparing for the site plan review hearing now being held in the Elizabeth courthouse.

Although Morin, an experienced land use and environmental attorney who is a partner with the firm of Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt and Fader, just came aboard as township attorney, his expertise was exactly what was needed. Not to mention that he only charged the township $140 an hour, a significant break for his experience.

Still, since Feb. 7 when Morin’s firm began billing the township for his services, through Aug. 7, the tab already was up to $53,344.52. The majority of that amount, however, was in preparation for the site plan hearing when Morin’s legal bills to the township tallied $14,901.50 for 123.20 hours of work in June and $11,032 for 78.80 hours in July.

Regardless, Morin as well as other former township governing body members, including former mayor Dan Aschenbach who spent 18 years serving on the governing body, stands solidly behind the effort to stop the development project that abuts a flood plain area.

Morin said when the township made the decision to fight the project and CDA subsequently filed the builders remedy lawsuit as a result, “the township made a commitment to fight it and they have stood behind that commitment.”

“When you think about the flooding impact from a safety standpoint along with the level of flooding that occurs along the Casino Brook, the township had no choice but to protect residents living in this area,” Morin said, pointing out that “the governing body is 100 percent committed to fighting this development.”

That commitment, however, resulted in some hefty legal bills, including $15, 783.48 from attorney Stuart R. Koenig who took on “Mt. Laurel litigation” from 2009 through January 2011.

Koenig was brought on to research Cranford’s affordable housing obligation, which specifically had to do with a legal decision involving the town of Mt. Laurel in the 1980s. This decision, among others, established that municipalities, had to provide low and moderate income housing, whether they liked it or not.

Later, the Mt. Laurel doctrine, a controversial judicial interpretation of the New Jersey State constitution, laid out exactly what towns could and could not do when it came to fulfilling their affordable housing obligation. This doctrine required that municipalities, like Cranford, use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide realistic opportunities for the production, or development, of housing for low and moderate income people.

Unfortunately, although the township discussed and even planned multiple times to satisfy their affordable housing obligation, they failed to solidify those plans and follow through. This led to the builders remedy lawsuits and more than a half million in legal costs as a result.

Complicating the issue, because of the complexity of the Mt. Laurel rulings, in 2009 the township realized they needed more than the expertise of a township attorney, who not only had other township issues to handle but private practice obligations to juggle. Shortly after, the township hired Koenig.

Already racking up bills was McKenzie, assigned by the court as a “special master” at $250 an hour to oversee and provide impartiality so the township and CDA could come to a meeting of the minds. Despite this, in 2010 the township became embroiled in a trial which McKenzie, of course, was required to attend and provide input throughout.

From conference calls with the judge hearing the case that came to $375 for an hour and a half conversation, to charging $7,624 to attend a two-day trial and to “review trial notes,” McKenzie’s tab began to mount.

As of the end of May, McKenzie had sent the township $78,940.94 in bills since 2009. It should be noted that this amount reflects Cranford’s portion of the special master’s charges, in addition to other legal charges levied against the township.

CDA and the township were required to divide many of the bills with the township, as ordered by the court. Which means McKenzie, according to the legal bills reviewed, also charged CDA in excess of $70,000 for her services involving this case.

Many of McKenzie’s bills involve conference calls to other attorneys who handled the township’s legal issues involving CDA and the builder’s remedy lawsuits and appeals, while others involved the time to write reports, review correspondence, pick up copies from the printer, as well as attend case management conferences relating to the litigation. Plus, the township still has to contend with bills for the court-appointed site plan review now taking place.

But McKenzie and Morin’s bills are not the only legal bills the township is juggling. Invoices for services involving CDA rendered by the Cranford firm Rogut McCarthy from Oct. 19, 2011 to Jan. 23 of this year tallied $17,227.82.

However, it is impossible to tell what this litigation is about because the majority of information on three bills was redacted because it involved attorney-client privilege. This particular information is exempt from disclosure as a government record under OPRA law. Nevertheless, this firm charged the township $145 an hour for legal services they provided.

2012 BIRCHWOOD SITE PLAN LAYOUT
CLICK TO ENLARGE

Site Plan Hearings Begin On Birchwood Development

By DELL SIMEONE Specially Written for The Westfield Leader 

Thursday, August 16, 2012

CRANFORD – Hearings on the site plan of a Cranford apartment development of 360 apartments, including 60 affordable units, to be built on 215/235 Birchwood Avenue, were held in Union County Superior Court in Elizabeth last Wednesday and Thursday. Cranford Township, which opposes the project, was represented by Township Attorney Philip Morin. The developer, Cranford Development Associates (CDA), was represented by Stephen M. Eisendorfer. 

Retired Superior Court Judge Douglas K. Wolfson presided. Also present was Special Master Elizabeth McKenzie. Both have extensive knowledge of land-use laws and Mount Laurel issues. They were both appointed by Superior Court Judge Lisa F. Chrystal, who presided over a builder’s remedy lawsuit brought against the township by CDA. Last year, the judge ruled in favor of the developer. The township opposes the development because of flooding concerns. The 16-acre tract borders wetlands. Cranford suffered massive flooding last year during Hurricane Irene. 

About 30 Cranford residents attended the hearing. Deputy Mayor Andis Kalnins, Committeeman Edward O’Malley and Township Engineer Richard Marsden also were present. Mayor David Robinson and Committeewoman Lisa Adubato were both away on vacation and Committeeman Kevin Campbell boycotted the hearings. In a letter to the editor of this paper, he said, “The court’s decision in this matter essentially limited the environmental review to the NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) regulations as they applied to the site rather than the overall impact to the municipality with existing and massive flooding problems.” 

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Morin stated that the township objects to the hearing officer assuming the jurisdiction of the Cranford Planning Board, and that the issue of CDA regrading, or raising, a portion of Birchwood Avenue one foot above the flood plain in order to obtain a permit from the NJDEP to build in a  flood hazardous area be at the discretion of the hearing officer, and that the venue is inconvenient for Cranford residents. 

Judge Wolfson and Ms. McKenzie acknowledged receiving letters from the township stating its objection. The judge said, however, that since the hearings are a result of a court order, it is proper that they be conducted in court in Elizabeth. 

The bulk of testimony, on Wednesday, was given by Christopher Lessard, the architect for CDA. Mr. Lessard outlined the placement and dimensions of the apartment complex on the property. He said there would be three structures: Building A, with three residential floors with parking and a lobby underneath; Building B, also residential but smaller, and Building C, an open-air, three-level parking garage with a ramp and parking surrounded by a four-foot wall on the top level. He said the property also would have a patio and a pool. The residences would consist of one-, two- and three- bedroom apartments, with lofts on the top levels. Over 600 parking spaces would be provided for residents and visitors, including a portion designated as handicapped spaces. 

Maria Anderson, an attorney, who lives in Kenilworth not far from the site, asked Mr. Lessard, “Where will the affordable units be in the buildings?” He responded, “That has yet to be determined.” Special Master McKenzie reminded Mr. Lessard that final site-plan approval requires that placement of the affordable units must be identified. 

Potential traffic problems were addressed by CDA traffic engineer, Elizabeth Dolan, who stated that additional traffic to the area would have minimal impact. Mr. Morin, Deputy Mayor Kalnins and Thomas Hannen, a township committee candidate this November, questioned her on her analysis.

 On the second day of the hearing, CDA Civil Engineer Michael Dipple testified as to setback, landscaping and flood plain issues. He also said there would be a loading area for persons who were moving in or out of the buildings and an area for trash. He described grading, drainage and a utility plan. 

Mr. Dipple also described how the complex would hook up to existing storm and water pipes based on a flow capacity study in the area. He stated that CDA was willing to comply with all NJDEP standards. He also said CDA would assume the cost of regrading Birchwood Avenue. Flood storage, flow, runoff and drainage were addressed, as well as landscaping issues. 

Peter Hekemian, a principal in CDA, testified that whether or not CDA was granted a hardship waiver by the NJDEP, CDA was prepared to go forward with the project. 

When the hearings resume on Tuesday, August 21, at the Union County Courthouse, at 10 a.m. in courtroom 101, Thomas Creelman, an engineer with Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor, LLC (PS&S), of Warren, who testified for Cranford in the builder’s remedy lawsuit, is expected to crossexamine Mr. Dipple along with Mr. Morin and Mr. Marsden. 

Site Plan Hearing Underway On Birchwood Development

Thursday, August 9, 2012

By DELL SIMEONE Specially Written for The Westfield Leader 

CRANFORD – A special two-day hearing on the site plan for the proposed Birchwood Development, a 360- unit apartment building with a fivestory parking garage, to be built by Cranford Development Associates (CDA), a subsidiary of the S. Hekemian Group of Paramus, was being held yesterday and today at the Union Country Courthouse in Elizabeth. 

The proposed apartment building is to contain 60 affordable housing units to satisfy State Council on Affordable Housing regulations. It has been a controversial topic for the past few years, since residents of the area are opposed to the development, due to concerns about flooding and infrastructure in the environmentally sensitive area, which is surrounded by wetlands. 

Cranford suffered massive flooding last year during Hurricane Irene, which damaged many homes and businesses. The CDA won a Builder’s Remedy lawsuit against the township, which opposes the development at 215/235 Birchwood Avenue. However, Superior Court Judge Lisa F. Chrystal decided in favor of the developer. Cranford Township is in the process of appealing that decision.

 Cranford has been persistent in asking for a change of venue for the special hearing. Retired Superior Court Judge Douglas K. Wolfson has been appointed by Judge Chrystal to act as a special hearing officer and to conduct the Birchwood site plan hearing.

 CDA had asked the court, on short notice, to hear a request on August 3, five days prior to the site plan hearing, to re-grade Birchwood Avenue by elevating it one foot above the flood zone so as to facilitate obtaining a permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Judge Chrystal denied this request; however, she suggested the matter could be decided at the site plan hearing. Cranford Township Attorney Philip Morin made an August 3 motion to the court, requesting a change of venue for the hearing, and was denied by Judge Chrystal on August 6. 

Cranford residents are upset that the hearing is taking place in Elizabeth and not in Cranford, which would be more convenient and better facilitate resident participation. A group calling itself Cranford Taxpayers, on its blog spot, asked residents to download a prepared letter to Judge Wolfson and to Special Master Elizabeth McKenzie, requesting a change of venue and a September date for the hearing. 

The property in question is 16 acres at 215/235 Birchwood Avenue. The proposed height of the buildings is 55 feet; building A will have 60 units and building B will have 300 units. Building A will have 59 parking spaces and Building B will have 520 parking spaces.  There also will be a surface lot with 89 parking spaces, for a total of 668 parking spaces. 

Cranford Township has persisted in its effort to obtain a stay order on the site plan hearing by appealing to Appellate Court Judge Jerome M. St. John to grant a stay on the hearing based on the August 6 order authorizing the special hearing officer in a Mount Laurel case to determine and make recommendation concerning whether the township is required to permit CDA to re-grade a portion of Birchwood Avenue so it (CDA) can obtain NJDEP Flood and Hazard Area approval. The appeal contends that this determination is outside of the authority of the special hearing officer and was never presented at trial. The appeal states that the jurisdiction of the special hearing officer was strictly limited to public hearings under the Municipal Land Use Laws. 

The basis of the appeal is questioning whether the trial court’s last minute referral of such a substantive issue to a hearing examiner is proper in regard to Mount Laurel. 

CRANFORD SCHOOLS AT CAPACITY

The following is an excerpt from pages 173-174 of the
HOUSING PLAN ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN, TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD prepared 2012

Student Population

There are eight schools in the Cranford Public School System.  Bloomingdale Avenue School that houses 249 students in grades K-2, Brookside Place School that houses 426 students in grades K-5, Walnut Avenue School that houses 305 students in grades PreK-2, Livingston Avenue School that houses 261 students in grades 3-5 are all neighborhood elementary schools.  Orange Avenue School and Hillside Avenue School also house elementary students in grades 3-5 and K-5, respectively, and also house the districts two middle schools with students in grades 6-8 with their total student population being 737 and 707, respectively.  Cranford High School houses 1140 students in grades 9-12.  In addition, Lincoln Avenue School is home to an alternative elementary, middle and high school program housing 79 students.

The most recent demographic study done in 2009 only noted numbers for two of the three large development projects that are under development, approved or in the process of seeking approvals in our community.  Those developments were the Riverfront and Birchwood.  Furthermore, although the projected numbers were noted for both, only the figures for the Riverfront were included in the actual counts that were provided for the long term projections because the Birchwood project was in litigation at the time the report was written.  The report projected that 19 students would enter the district's schools as a result of the Riverfront project and that the overall student population would decline by approximately 60 students by the 2014-2015 school year.  This report would like to note that the demographic study's numbers indicated that the student population for the school year 2011-2012 would be 3855 and as of January 2012 the student population is 3900.

An extreme concern for the school district and the community is the Birchwood Development proposal.  If as many as 419 units are built, it is expected that approximately 300 additional children of school age would potentially be enrolled in our schools.  This number of students exceeds, or closely matches, the total population of three of our neighborhood schools.  The number of classrooms that could be needed to educate these students property is estimated to be least 12, and the number of teachers and aides, support staff and administrative personnel, including those in specialty areas would be at least 25.  In essence, the implications of this development would require the equivalent of one additional neighborhood school to be built.

As was mentioned previously, the third large development project, 555 South Avenue East, was not included in a demographic study and therefore the impact cannot be objectively included.

CRANFORD--A TOWN CITIFIED THROUGH 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Brian Campbell, NJ Voices
December 21, 2011
Star Ledger

There is something about an old town that warms the soul; a walking village with 19^th century Victorians, wooden steeples and giant willow trees rising high above a river; where footbridges lead to elementary schools and an elevated train station overlooks a village. In the winter a young person can skate all over town. In the summer he/she can kayak the same route, peering at the backyard barbecues that line the river before watching the fireworks burst over the park.

Cranford, only fifteen miles from Manhattan, is an age-old community of down to earth souls and relatively modest homes. It's a good place to grow up and a good place to raise a family. When my colleagues, many of which are globetrotters, asked me where I lived, I said the same town I grew up in. They looked at me as if I had just stepped off of a horse and buggy. Today I watch my boys skip the same stones into the same river and walk the same footpaths that I did.

 

But Cranford will have to change now, says New Jersey government and its court system. The state, through a 1970s activist court decision, has reached over the will of the local people, the will of the local government, and the concerns over funding, environment and quality of life, and has granted carte-blanche permission to a Paramus-developer to put a 360-rental unit apartment complex and accompanying 800-car garage on Birchwood Avenue, smack dab in the middle of a single-family enclave. Just last year the town lost a battle to prevent another large mandated development in town. The law firm for the plaintiff in that case belonged to none other than State Senator, political boss and affordable housing advocate, Ray Lesniak.

How can they do this, you ask? The townspeople don't want it. The schools, the roadways, the environment, and the public safety infrastructure can't handle it. No matter, says Trenton and its activist judges. There is no vote, no deliberation, no sensitivity analysis and no care whatsoever for the inhabitants, all of which have worked hard to live in a town of their choosing. How can they do this, you ask?

Easy. They just do it. And all of it occurs by way of 15% affordable housing. That's right, through the vagaries of the COAH law, only 15% of a proposed builder's remedy development, or 54 of them in this case, are required to be affordable housing. The rest, or 300 units, can be at prevailing market rates to continuously line the pockets of the builder. And that 15% is what gives absolute power to the developer. That 15% takes the power from We the people and our elected local representatives and gives it to outside lawyers. That 15% takes the power from our township engineers, public safety officials, board of education members and budget offices and gives it to the S. Hekemian Group, a Paramus-based builder of apartment complexes. And there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is a court order based on what they refer to as builder remedy litigation.

In late August, Cranford was dragged to its knees by its worst weather event in its history. Hurricane Irene picked up the old river and sloshed it all over town, causing first floor flooding in over 200 homes and indefinitely closing township buildings and schools. Birchwood Avenue, the proposed area for development, fared no better.

It turns out that the proposed apartment complex will sit directly on top of sensitive freshwater wetlands, including a tributary of the river that rose up during the hurricane. Therefore, whenever there are catastrophic rains, cars are swallowed whole on Birchwood Avenue and the tributary becomes a monster. It roars into basements, through windows, through garages and as scores of families can attest, into front doors. One doesn't need much of an imagination to envision what this little state-mandated complex will do to the precarious water tables and future flooding throughout the old town. Do the courts care? Of course not.

It has therefore come down to one last recourse, a very powerful one in a rational environment, if only this were a rational environment. The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will hear public comments over the next two weeks before granting or rejecting environmental permits for the developer. Even before applying for the permits, the developer has begun to dig all over the property, confident that no one can stand in its way, not even a state agency designed to protect such lands from development. So far they have been right.

Perhaps there will come a day when our public servants in Trenton will take the power out of the hands of the developers (and the activist courts) and put it back into the hands of the people. Perhaps they will stop mandating what should go where and when, stop superseding local ordinances, reasonable zoning and quality of life. Perhaps they will yet again respect private property, representative government and local solutions to local problems. Perhaps, if the state and the courts wants affordable housing in the future, they will build it themselves. Of course they don't have the money nor the political will; hence, this nearly corrupt strategy of giving developers absolute power in exchange for a smattering of affordable units.

Perhaps my dear old town doesn't become a dense urban environment, but there are unexpected and unanswerable cracks in the foundation. Even if this massive development goes through, the 54 units will only satisfy a very small portion of the mandated housing units we must build. If it doesn't go through there will be more lawsuits and more mandates. Farmland, parkland, and even township land could be at risk (who knows, maybe my small parcel of land too). Many more residential buildings may have to go up around town, shadowing the old village and topping the wooden spires throughout. Subsequently, Cranford's fight to retain its small town character will end.

And give way to the powers that be. Apparently, progress is only found in concrete.

OCTOBER 2011 PICTURES OF EXCAVATION AT BIRCHWOOD SITE WITHOUT PERMITS

Birchwood Site Plan Hearing to be Held in Elizabeth, Potentially Limiting Community Attendance

 Published: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:40 PM Updated: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

By Glenn Eisenberg / The Cranford Chronicle

Cranford ChronicleCRANFORD – The public hearing for the site plan of the proposed residential development on Birchwood Avenue is scheduled to be held at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth at 10 a.m. on Aug. 8 and 9, angering many residents and local officials.

The special hearing officer for the case, Douglas Wolfson, determined that the public hearing should be held at the county courthouse despite calls from commissioners and residents to hold it in Cranford to allow for greater accessibility for members of the community.

“This special hearing officer cannot be inconvenienced to come to our town and hold the hearing where he can actually hear the residents of our town,” Mayor Dave Robinson told residents at the Township Committee’s meeting last week.

The proposed 360-unit development by Cranford Development Associates LLC of S. Hekemian Group has been tied up in litigation and controversy since its conception and has received harsh criticism from residents and local officials, who fear the effect it could have on the school system, traffic and local flooding.

The Cranford Environmental Commission also recently took a strong stance against the development and the site plan in question, citing the planned removal of nearly 300 trees to make way for the development and accompanying parking garage. In addition to the effect the removal would have on the aesthetic value of the neighborhood, members worry that it could also worsen flooding in the region.

“The Cranford Environmental Commission is extremely concerned about the course of the proposed development at Birchwood Avenue, including the recent disclosure that hundreds of mature trees are to be removed from the property to accommodate the incredibly dense over-development of the site,” Commission Chair Nelson Dittmar said in a letter to the Township Committee.

While the development has seen fierce opposition from residents, committee members worry that the hearing’s location and timing on a weekday morning in early August could limit the number of residents who can attend.

Additionally, Robinson questioned the decision to hold the hearing before permits by the state Department of Environmental Protection go through, noting that the site plan could end up changing after the hearing takes place.

“So in the dog days of summer, we have a special hearing officer that is forcing a hearing on plans that do seem to be premature," Robinson said. "We’ve pointed out that it doesn’t seem to make sense. It’s not in the correct order of things.”

The Township Committee has indicated that the body is making attempts to get the dates and location of the hearing changed. Residents are also petitioning the Wolfson to make the switch. However, Robinson told residents to plan on the hearing being held on Aug. 8 and 9, and said that they would be made aware of any changes.

A public hearing will also be held at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth on Aug. 15 and 16 at 10 a.m. for the proposed development by Lehigh Acquisitions at 555 South Ave.

Birchwood Developer Denied Motion

Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 1:11 PM

 By Glenn Eisenberg / The Cranford Chronicle
Cranford Chronicle

CRANFORD — Cranford Development Associates, developer of the proposed 360-unit housing complex on Birchwood Avenue, was denied a motion last week that would have expedited a hearing on several aspects of the project’s site plan, including changes to the surrounding road.

The developer requested that the Superior Court force the township to elevate a stretch of Birchwood Avenue a foot above the flood plain, a step that is required to secure necessary permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection. The motion was to be heard before the court on Aug. 3, five days before a public hearing opens on the site plan.

Cranford Development Associates referred to the road elevation step as “integral” and “urgent,” explaining that it was important that it be heard before the public hearing next week.

“A failure by Cranford to consent to the road improvement would have the effect of fully stymieing construction of the development authorized by the Court in its Order of December 9, 2011,” the motion read.

The developer also told the court that plans and supporting data for the road elevation project were submitted to the township eight weeks ago, but that the township has not acted.

Township officials opposed the motion, indicating that the matter should not be handled by the court.
“We believe this a DEP matter and should not be before the court,” Township Attorney Phil Morin told reporters. “The CDA is trying to make an end run around the DEP authority.”

Superior Court Judge Lisa Chrystal denied the motion, referring it to the case’s special hearing officer, Douglas Wolfson, to be heard at the Aug. 8 and 9 public hearing. Wolfson is expected to make a recommendation on whether or not the elevation should be required of the township.

Despite concerns about its location (the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth) and timing (10 a.m. on a Wednesday and Thursday), next week’s hearing is expected to draw large crowds of residents, who have voiced strong opposition to the development since it was proposed.

Additionally, the project’s site plan recently drew criticism from various local departments, including the engineering, zoning and fire departments, all citing issues they foresee if the development were to proceed as planned. The Cranford Environmental Commission has also come out strongly against it, citing the effect it could have on flooding in the region and the site plan’s call to remove close to 300 mature trees from the property.

CASINO BROOK (from Birchwood Avenue) FLOODING CASINO AVENUE DURING IRENE 2011; CRANFORD DURING & AFTER IRENE FLOODING

Birchwood Developer Files Challenge to DEP Requirement

By DELL SIMEONE Specially Written for The Westfield Leader and The Times

Thursday, July 26, 2012 

 CRANFORD — The Cranford Township Committee held a special meeting on Monday night, at which it was supposed to award a contract for restoration of the lower level of the municipal building on Springfield Avenue, which was damaged by excessive flooding last year during Hurricane Irene. 

 The committee was also supposed to award a contract for clerk of the works for the reconstruction. However, that did not happen. The committee went into executive session immediately after the meeting convened. The session lasted two hours and 15 minutes.

 When the meeting opened up again, Mayor David Robinson announced that matters pertaining to the repair of the lower portion of the municipal building would be addressed at a another special meeting to be held Monday, August 1, at 7:30 p.m., at the municipal building. 

Township Attorney Philip Morin announced that at 5 p.m. on Monday, the township was notified of a motion before the court by the Cranford Development Associates, (CDA) of the S. Hekemian Group of Paramus, the company that wishes to develop the Birchwood project, a 360-apartment unit complex with 60 affordable to be built at 215 Birchwood Avenue along with a five-story parking garage, challenging a requirement by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that they are deficient in not having a second road with access to the Birchwood property. The DEP also requires that CDA elevate the road a foot above the flood plain. 

CDA has filed a motion with state Superior Judge Lisa F. Crystal to be heard on Friday, August 3, before the site plan review, which is to take place on Wednesday and Thursday, August 8 and 9, at 10 a.m., before retired Superior Court Judge Douglas Wolfson at the Union County Courthouse, 2 Broad Street, Elizabeth. Both the CDA and the Cranford Township Committee have requested the hearing to be held in Cranford. “

They’re looking for a motion on short notice in advance of when the court would hear a motion,” Mr. Morin said. “A motion should not be heard prior to the next hearing date. We believe this a DEP matter and should not be before the court.” 

The CDA is trying to make an end run around the DEP authority. We’re going to object, and ask that this motion be rescheduled to allow us time to respond,” Mr. Morin said. 

The CDA sued the township using a builder’s remedy lawsuit, by which it claims that Cranford has not met it’s quota for affordable housing units, and is trying to prevent the CDA from building apartments which would include affordable units. Judge Crystal ruled in favor of the developer. 

The township, on the other hand, is objecting to the development because of the fear of more flooding caused by more people and inadequate infrastructure to accommodate a 360-unit apartment building on environmentally sensitive land. The township is appealing Judge Chrystal’s decision. 

Architect, Traffic Expert Testify During Day One of Birchwood Hearing

by Toniann Antonelli
The Cranford Patch
August 9, 2012

A group of at least 25 Cranford residents crowded into a room at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth Wednesday for day one of a site plan hearing for the proposed Birchwood development plan, which calls for 360 apartment units to be constructed in a flood-prone area of Birchwood Avenue.

A handful of residents - some of whom were part of community group known as the Concerned Citizens of Cranford, met in the Parking lot of the Orange Avenue Pool about an hour before the planned 10 a.m. start time. The small group, along with Deputy Mayor Andis Kalnins, boarded a yellow school bus provided by the township to transport residents to and from the courthouse.

Local officials and residents objected to the hearing being held in Elizabeth as opposed to taking place in the Cranford Municipal Building. Residents worried that many people would either be working, on summer vacation or unable to travel to Elizabeth to be present for the hearing. Despite the objections, however, Special Hearing Officer Douglas K. Wolfson - a retired Superior Court Judge appointed to preside over the site plan hearing - maintained that the hearing was part of ongoing legal proceedings, not a typical Planning Board matter. As such, it was more appropriate to conduct the hearing in Superior Court.

"This is a judicial proceeding. This is not a planning board meeting in town hall," Wolfson said.

In the days preceding the hearings, Wolfson said he and Special Master Elizabeth McKenzie received several letters from residents objecting to the courthouse as a venue.

Township Attorney Phil Morin also raised objections that the notification for the hearing only made mention of day one of the case, when in fact, the hearing is scheduled to continue for two days. Stephen Eisdorfer, the attorney for Cranford Development Associates, an LLC for the S. Hekemian group which owns the property, stated that the law only requires notification for the first day of the hearing. The hearing itself, scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., began late as witnesses, residents and legal officials waited for Stephen Eisdorfer to arrive.

The site plans being reviewed during the two-day hearing involve the construction of 360 apartment units at 215-235 Birchwood Ave. - a section of town prone to significant flooding. The entire area was submerged in several feet of water following Hurricane Irene last year. The proposal, which also calls for a five-story parking garage, will include 60 affordable housing units.

For more than a year, residents and officials have been voicing strong opposition to the Birchwood Avenue housing plan. The township has been fighting to appeal Judge Lisa Chrystal's July, 2011 decision in a builder's remedy lawsuit to allow CDA to build on the 16-acre tract of land.

During the hearing, the architect who designed the building testified, giving specific information about the proposed project. The plans call for two building that will be 55-feet tall and have a combined total of 668 available parking spaces. The first building, Building A, will house 300 apartment units while Building B will consist of 60 units. The developer has yet to determine which of the apartments will be designated for affordable housing. McKenzie, during her questioning, indicated that the designation must be made as part of the official site plan approval. Plans also call for an "open" parking garage and a surface lot.

When questioning the architect, Morin asked questions about the plan's compliance with fire code as well as lines on the proposal marked as "flood line" and a "flood fringe line." The buildings, according to the plan, will be constructed next to these lines, which, the architect said, is permissible.

During public questioning, resident Thomas Hannen Jr. asked about the architect's design for an "open garage" which is designed to be built one foot above the flood fringe. Hannen asked whether or not the design took into consideration how the structure would handle rising flood waters in the event of another significant rainstorm. The architect indicated that the plans adhere to all building codes, but no special provisions were made to allow water to flow out of the garage if it floods.

The second witness to testify on Wednesday was traffic expert Elizabeth Dolan of the firm of Dolan and Dean. Dolan explained that her firm conducted two surveys of the intersection of Birchwood at Orange Avenue. One was conducted last July when school was not in session, and other this past June, before the school year ended. According to the traffic impact study, the level of traffic on Birchwood Avenue if the proposed 360 apartment units are constructed will be "acceptable" despite anticipated delays. She added that the traffic impact study also shows that the delays that would arise are not severe enough to warrant the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Orange and Birchwood avenues. Drivers in that area could face delays of nearly one additional minute if the apartments are built.

The two intersections Dolan's firm included in the traffic study were Birchwood Avenue and Orange Avenue and at Cranford Avenue. As Cranford Avenue is not a through street, Morin - and a few residents - asked why the next intersection - Bloomingdale Avenue - was not included in the study. Dolan said the study was limited to the two "adjacent intersections."

"I guess we could have (included Bloomingdale Avenue)," she testified.

Morin stated that since Cranford Avenue is not a through street and Bloomingdale Avenue is a main thoroughfare and home to a school, failure to include it in the study does not present a "true representation" of what the traffic impavt in the area will be like if the Birchwood property is developed.

In response to concerns by Morin and residents regarding the Bloomingdale Avenue intersection, Special Master Wolfson said that since no one has raised the issue of that intersection before Wednesday's hearing, the argument ill "have little weight" when it comes to making a decision on the site plan.

The second day of the hearing was scheduled for today.

LETTER TO MCKENZIE & WOLFSON REQUESTING SITE HEARING DATE CHANGE

Below is a letter to Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Wolfson, the Hearing Officer, for the Birchwood site plan hearing scheduled for August 8 (and 9?) at 10 AM. The hearing will be continued on August 21, 22 & 23.  Many residents will be on vacation or at work. The time of the hearing would better serve the Cranford citizens if it could be held in early September and in the evening rather than at 10 AM. Please send a letter or the letter below to both Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Wolfson (addresses on letter, download or copy/paste) requesting a change in place, date and time for the site plan hearing. This hearing DOES NOT mean that the Birchwood development has been approved to be built. Further permits are necessary. Please also contact our NJ State officials at http://cranfordtaxpayers.blogspot.com/p/contact-state-officials.html

Letter to Mckenzie & Wolfson