RIVERFRONT AGREEMENT SIGNED AT LAST MEETING of 2008 AGAINST WISHES OF 2 COMMISSIONERS AND 2 COMMISSIONERS-ELECT

REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RIVERFRONT SIGNED WITH GARDEN HOMES

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.

BIRCHWOOD AVENUE AGAIN!
CRANFORD'S BIRCHWOOD PROPERTY SOLD; RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED
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

CRANFORD SCHOOLS NEAR FULL

BOE CONSIDERS HOW TO DEAL WITH GROWING POPULATION

Leslie Murray
The Chronicle
October 31, 2008

Although the Cranford school district can handle an increase in enrollment next year of up to two percent, officials are continuing to investigate ways to handle the growing student body, including expansion of some of the district’s facilities.

During the October 27 meeting of the Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools Gayle Carrick reported that she and Business Administrator Robert Carfagno had recently visited the Orange Avenue building, which had formerly housed Solomon Schechter Day School. Solomon Schechter had announced earlier this year that they would close the Cranford campus as enrollment dropped in favor of consolidating to the Essex County campus.

Carrick went on to explain that she and Carfagno had met with the realtor for the school on the last day that offers of interest were being accepted on the building. While Carrick and Carfagno submitted a proposal of interest, they stressed that no bid for the building was submitted.

“The school itself was in fairly good condition,” Carrick said, reporting on the structure.

She added that other groups had expressed interest in the site according to the realtor.

According to Carrick, an ongoing demographic study, which is tracking the current number and future enrollment trends, needs to be completed before concrete plans about future student body growth, can be announced.

“Right now we don’t even have enough information to make a determination as to if we need to expand our facilities,” Carrick said.

“We can make due next year . . . if enrollment increased by one or two percent,” Carrick added.

Speaking about the demographic study, Carfagno said that district officials expect to have an initial report in November. The study would be released to the public after the results are presented to the Board of Education.

Commenting on the former Schechter school, he added that the district would have to make renovations in order for the building to meet public school standards.

In looking into the process, board member Camille Widdows asked which option would be less expensive, renovating an existing facility or building a new addition.

Carrick responded that while she could not speak to this specific project, it is often “more cost effective t build an addition than to renovate.”

Addressing the board, resident Krista Swanson said as the mother of students at Brookside Place School she was especially concerned about class sizes in the coming years.

Carrick said that in dealing with a growing enrollment district wide, and state mandates in program offerings, Cranford would have to be creative in planning for the future.

Adding to the comment, board member Michael Caulfield said that parents need to vote on the annual school budget so that district plans can move forward.

Issues such as development proposals throughout the township need to be a concern for parents and board members alike, he added.

Speaking specifically on a proposal from The S. Hekemian Group to build over 400 units on Birchwood Avenue, which he termed “a ludicrous proposal,” Caulfield said the development would overtax the school system if it was to become a reality.

“We have to be aware of (development proposals) and say ‘this is not going to happen,’” Caulfield said.

RESIDENT EXCLUDED FROM PROPOSAL

TEN YEARS OF WAITING, FOLLOWED BY AN UNPLEASANT SURPRISE
July 31, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

For 10 years Fran and Raymond Mack have been waiting for a decision on the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, and for a developer to buy their Chestnut Street home.

Now, after a decade on hold while the township focused on other priorities and then worked unsuccessfully with a series of developers, the Macks are still waiting. They have been told their property is not included in the project proposed by Garden Homes, the builder with whom local officials are currently negotiating.

Bordered by a Union County park and a municipal parking lot, the gray clapboard house at the cul-de-sac of Chestnut Street has been in Fran Mack's family almost since it was built a century ago. She was born in the house, and her husband moved in when they were married in 1943.

The Macks lived there together for decades. Then, in 1998, the township declared just over three acres of land along High Street, South Avenue and Chestnut Street, including the Mack home, as an area in need of redevelopment. That designation was designed to make it easier to bring in one developer to reconstruct the entire area, which consists mostly of run-down commercial properties. But it also made it impossible for any of the individual owners to sell -- and impractical to invest in their properties -- because of the expectation that everything standing in the area would be demolished.

"We've been held captive in this house," Fran Mack, 81, said in an interview at her home Monday morning. "It's a terrible way to live. You don't know if the bulldozers are coming today or not."

Over the past 10 years, she said, she has watched as structural problems at the 13-room house have worsened. Holes in the roof have been patched, and the wooden fencing that surrounds the second-story balcony was replaced last year when it became so rotten it was in danger of falling down. But with the prospect of redevelopment looming, major work has been put off for years. By Mack's account, the house needs a new roof, a new bathroom, new gutters, replacement of shingles, and new floors in the kitchen and entryway.

"I've wanted a white picket fence for over 10 years," she said.

All that time, her expectation was that once a deal was struck, the home would be purchased by a builder as part of the redevelopment project. But when Mack met two months ago with Tony DiGiovanni, director of development for Garden Commercial Properties, she learned that the developer's plan did not require her land. Garden's proposal calls for a mixed-use complex north of Chestnut Street and nothing but parking to the south. An aerial drawing of the project shows an L-shaped parking area jutting around the Mack residence.

"I was sort of surprised that after 10 years they don't need it," Mack said.

DiGiovanni said he initially met with Mack while Garden Homes was beginning negotiations with other property owners in the redevelopment area. When they did not reach an agreement on the property, DiGiovanni said his company "decided it was not economical to include (the property) in the project."

A developer is under no legal obligation to use all of a redevelopment area in a project, and some areas are designed with the expectation that more than one company will play a role. But given that the Mack residence is the only property in the area that is not included in Garden's plan, and considering its out-of-the-way location, it appears unlikely that another developer will be eager to purchase it.

Mack has retained the services of local attorney Frank Capece, who has also represented the Holt family, the majority property owner in the redevelopment area. (The Holts had previously complained about the slow pace of progress on the project, noting that they were unable to sell their properties until the township reached a deal with a developer. Their properties are currently under contract for sale to Garden.)

In a July 25 letter to the township, Capece claims that the Macks "were placed in government-enforced limbo." He says they are seeking to have their property removed from the redevelopment area, and to be compensated for the 10 years spent waiting.

"By all accounts, an unreasonable delay caused solely by the vacillations of numerous township governments is the cause of the damage," Capece writes. "The desire of [the] Macks to sell the property was precluded by the ever-present hammer of a taking by the township. The positive market conditions to sell their home over the past decade no longer exist."

Mayor Bob Puhak said he had read the letter and it will factor into the Township Committee's future discussion about the Riverfront project. However, he added, "it seems that this is an issue between the redeveloper and the property owner." Township attorney Carl Woodward declined comment, saying he had not seen the letter and would need to speak to committee members before discussing the issue publicly.

In an interview, Capece said his letter is not meant as a criticism of the township or Garden Homes, but is instead an attempt to make sure the Macks are treated fairly.

Fairness, Fran Mack said, is all she wants after 10 years of waiting for a decision.

"I had trust in the town, I lived here all my life. I thought they would be fair. Of course, they waited until now to tell me they don't need my property."

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

GARDEN HOMES PRESENTS UPDATE ON RIVERFRONT

By LESLIE MURRAY
THE CHRONICLE
November 18, 2008

Before a crowd of less than a dozen residents, Garden Homes made an updated presentation on the Riverfront Redevelopment Project on Thursday, Nov. 13 that included an expanded onsite parking plan and an endorsement of the developer's financial stability from a township planning consultant.

Making the presentation last week Tony DiGiovanni, director of development for Garden Commercial Properties, a branch of Garden Homes, said at the special meeting of the Township Committee that through a careful and in-depth process which involved township officials, a plan had been tailored to the environmental challenges and location advantages of the Riverfront site.

"These aren't just pretty pictures," DiGiovanni said. "It's very specific (for Cranford)."

During the updated presentation given by Garden Homes on the Riverfront Redevelopment Project last Thursday, they discussed the plan for a three-story residential building fronting on High Street with a 45-foot maximum height, and one four-story residential building at the rear of the property with a 48-foot maximum height, pictured above.

Calling for four buildings on the nearly three-acre site, the proposal from Garden Homes includes: 215 onsite parking spaces, two three-story mix-use buildings with a maximum 45-foot height that front on South Avenue, a three-story residential building fronting on High Street with a 45-foot maximum height, and one four-story residential building at the rear of the property with a 48-foot maximum height.

The project would include 106 residential units, over 20,000 square feet of retail space and nearly 14,000 square feet of office space. The plan also includes two 3,000 square foot plazas, one between the mixed-use buildings and the other along the Rahway River.

In June, the Township Committee agreed to enter an interim cost agreement with the Garden Homes, appointing them as the developer for the site at South Avenue and High and Chestnut streets, later in the summer.

The interim cost agreement, the initial step toward a redevelopment agreement, guarantees that the township will negotiate exclusively with Garden Homes and states that the developer will cover all research and testing related costs until a full redevelopment agreement is reached, or talks are broken off.

The swatch of the downtown was initially designated as an area in need of redevelopment in December 1998. While Garden Homes has progressed further than any other developer in the redevelopment process at Riverfront, this marks the fourth time a developer has signed an interim cost agreement with the township, though a redevelopment plan for the site has yet to be signed.

In September of this year the Township Committee also contracted with Beacon Planning as a consultant to review Garden Homes' financial condition and to work on amendments to the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan.

Speaking about the redevelopment plan for the Riverfront site, which was endorsed by the Planning Board on Wednesday, Nov.12, Andrew Janiw of Beacon Planning said that the plan was one of the most detailed he had seen.

"This is probably one of the tightest redevelopment plans in terms of units and allocations," Janiw said.

What's more, Janiw said that during the course of a financial review of the developer, Garden Homes was highly regarded and could finance such a project.

"Quite frankly, what we discovered is that they don't need (bank financing). They could finance this type of project out of pocket if they wanted to," Janiw said.

Contrasting the Garden Homes proposal to the township's other redevelopment project, Cranford Crossing, DiGiovanni said parking was a major factor.

"The difference (between) our project (and) Cranford Crossing is that we're going to have ground floor parking," DiGiovanni said.

Currently, Garden Homes has signed a contract with all of the commercial property owners in the redevelopment area. However, DiGiovanni said last Thursday that no deal had been struck with Fran and Raymond Mack, whose Chestnut Street home is the only residential property affected by the Riverfront project.

Frank Capece, attorney for the Macks, confirmed that his clients have not reached an agreement with Garden Homes.

"On behalf of the Macks we have formally requested that they be removed from the plan," Capece said Monday.

Capece added that he remains hopeful the Township Committee will agree to remove the Mack's home for the redevelopment zone.

While the proposal received some support from the Township Committee last week, with Commissioner Mark Smith calling the project "really a great proposal", there was mixed commentary from the public.

Nelson Dittmar, chairman of the Cranford Environmental Commission, questioned what he described as "a lack of commitment to green building standards".

Stating that the township passed a green building ordinance that encourages new development to use eco-friendly materials and seek certification from the Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEEDs) program, Dittmar questioned why the developer would not seek LEED certification.

After Garden Homes consultant Laurance Appel stated that the project would meet EnergyStar requirements, Dittmar called the efforts "nominal".

"To not have that (LEED certified) would be very disappointing," Dittmar said.
In a question about the architecture at the site, Philip Morin asked why the largest residential building at the site was designed with a Tudor facade.

"It's a very different look than the buildings you have along South Avenue. I'm just curious why you decided to go with this style," Morin said.

Responding, DiGiovanni said that by having two residential buildings in two different styles--one a Tudor style and the other mirroring the Victorian downtown--Garden Homes took on additional expense, but made the project look more natural and offered a clearly residential look.
"We went with a Tudor because it's more a residential feel," DiGiovanni added.

There was also praise offered of the project.

Jeffery Pistol, who said he appreciated the noticeable changes in the plan since the last public presentation was made this summer, called the proposal "a well designed, first-class project."

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908)464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

GARDEN HOMES PROPOSAL FOR RIVERFRONT

CRANFORD RESIDENTS GET FIRST
UP-CLOSE LOOK AT RIVERFRONT PLAN
July 11, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- A representative from Garden Homes laid out the company's proposal for the Riverfront Redevelopment Area at a televised special meeting Tuesday night, and though the presentation drew a smaller crowd than turned out for previous redevelopment discussions, the night included both words of praise and some sharply pointed criticism.

At the end of June, after hearing four presentations from Tony DiGiovanni, a Cranford resident and the director of development for Garden Commercial Properties, the Township Committee agreed to enter an interim cost agreement with the company for redevelopment of the site at South Avenue and High and Chestnut streets. The 3.5-acre section of the downtown was initially designated as an area in need of redevelopment in December 1998. For several years after that point local officials were preoccupied with the nearby Cranford Crossing site, and more recently three rounds of Riverfront talks with other builders have proved fruitless.

The interim cost agreement guarantees that the township will negotiate exclusively with Garden Homes, and that the developer will cover the costs of all the research and testing related to the site until a full redevelopment agreement is reached or talks are broken off.

As his presentation got underway Tuesday night, DiGiovanni flashed through photos of the current site -- a service station and other run-down buildings that he said are "not reflective of our community." In addition to an aesthetic improvement, the proposal would boost the site's tax yield to "almost 10 times [more] than what it is currently," he told the crowd of about 35 people.

Garden's proposal has been praised by Mayor Bob Puhak but criticized by former Mayor Dan Aschenbach, who is also a Democratic nominee for local office in the fall election. "The truth is this is not a dense project. This is not a high-rise project. This is not going to create a parking problem," DiGiovanni said. DiGiovanni said the plan is designed with the existing community in mind, with massing appropriate for the location and more green space than any developer has previously proposed. Garden Homes also now has each of the eight properties at the site under contract, he said.

With two mixed-use buildings fronting on South Avenue and two purely 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. (The project would include about 38,000 total square feet of commercial space, but some existing commercial space would be demolished.) Of the 90 market rate units, which DiGiovanni called "condominiums or luxury apartments," about 75 would be two-bedroom while the remaining 15 would be one-bedroom.

On the topic of parking, DiGiovanni said there would be 197 spaces on site, while redesigned on-street parking would offer another 11 spots. Though that is substantially fewer spaces than is called for under the site's redevelopment plan, the overall approach has won the endorsement of township planning consultant Stanley Slachetka, and it complies with guidelines for designated "Transit Villages."

"This project has more than its fair share of adequate parking," DiGiovanni said. During public comment period, Michael Ricciardelli, a property owner within the redevelopment area, compared the township's fractured handling of the site over the last 10 years to a couple "bickering in Home Depot about what tile to put in their kitchen."

But the Garden Homes plan, he said, would be a benefit to the township. "Mr. DiGiovanni sat down with me, me the property owner, and negotiated," Ricciardelli said.

The discussion became more heated when Edwin Rodriguez asked if Garden Homes was the same company that had been investigated for violations of the Fair Housing Act. Interjecting, DiGiovanni said Rodriguez was his neighbor, and his comments were motivated by a personal dispute. He added that he is not a part of every project that Garden Homes builds in the state. But Rodriguez continued, saying he did not believe Cranford would want to "sully our reputation as a town where everyone can live by going into business with people who don't rent fairly."

The project drew an endorsement by Planning Board member Rita LaBrutto, though she said she remained concerned about the parking plan, and Zoning Board of Adjustment member Jeffery Pistol, who supported larger, high quality retail spaces for the downtown.

Offering his take, George McDonough, a former commissioner, said the project seemed like a good one. But questioning the residential units on the acreage, McDonough said it seemed to be a different standard than that applied to 555 South Avenue East, where another developer has filed a builder's remedy lawsuit against the township. Based on the figures presented for Riverfront, 555 South should have been allowed 176 residential units, he said.

"I'm a little curious about the logic, or do you guys come up with the numbers based on the mood of the night?" McDonough asked.

DiGiovanni responded, saying the projects were vastly different and should not be compared. Acting Township Attorney Ray Fisher said that because of the pending litigation, the members of the Township Committee could not address the question.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

DENSITY & PARKING PLAN IN DISPUTE

PLANNER SUPPORTS SITE'S PARKING PLAN;
CANDIDATE DOESN'T
July 03, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- Though the first public presentation of Garden Homes' proposal for the Riverfront Redevelopment Area won't occur until next Tuesday, the plan has already drawn supporters and detractors.

Mayor Bob Puhak said this week that the developer presented a plan that meets the Township Committee's vision for the area and is consistent with recommendations from Cranford's planning consultant. But Dan Aschenbach, a former mayor and current Democratic candidate for Township Committee, called the project's residential component too dense and said it would create a "parking nightmare."

Last week, after hearing four presentations from Tony DiGiovanni, a Cranford resident and the director of development for Garden Commercial Properties, the Township Committee agreed to enter an interim cost agreement with the company for redevelopment of the site at South Avenue and High and Chestnut streets. The 3.5-acre section of the downtown was initially designated as an area in need of redevelopment in December 1998.

The interim cost agreement guarantees that the township will negotiate exclusively with Garden Homes, and the developer will cover the costs of all the research and testing related to the site until a full redevelopment agreement is reached or talks are broken off. This marks the fourth time the township has entered exclusive talks with a developer; the three prior rounds of talks all proved unsuccessful.

Explaining the committee's decision, Puhak said Garden had provided an "informal concept plan that addressed and met many of the issues the Township Committee was talking about," including brownfield remediation, fewer residential units than envisioned in earlier proposals, and a mix of office and retail space. Of equal importance, he said the presentations by DiGiovanni have called for the project's affordable housing obligation to be met on site.

"We wanted to see more green space, [and] this developer is looking to add additional green space," he added, referring to a proposed park on the west bank of the Rahway River.

Additionally, Puhak said, the township and developer have reached a conceptual agreement about what is appropriate at the site that is unparalleled in prior talks with other builders. "In the past, we never got to the point where we were in agreement on residential units."

During negotiations over previous development proposals, "We were told there was no way these things could be done," Puhak said.

"We're excited and we believe we've earned their trust," said DiGiovanni.
In his latest presentation to the committee, DiGiovanni presented a plan that calls for 106 residential units, nearly 20,000 square feet of retail space and about 18,000 square feet of office space. The final proposal from The S.Hekemian Group, with whom the township broke off talks in March, called for 133 residential units, 11,000 square feet of retail space, and a cluster of 17 town homes on what is now Municipal Lot 6.

Some township officials had balked at the height of the buildings in Hekemian's plan, and DiGiovanni said that three of the four buildings in Garden's proposal "unequivocally will be three stories." The fourth, a residential building that would front on county parkland, is proposed at four stories, and DiGiovanni said his company is working to bring it within the 45-foot height limit set by the site's official redevelopment plan. He said he believes the total project is of "appropriate density and appropriate massing" for the site.

One of the main differences between the two proposals relates to parking. While Hekemian had proposed a parking deck, Garden has not, instead calling for surface parking beneath two of the buildings and a reconfiguration of nearby street parking. Though the proposed number of units falls short of what the redevelopment plan calls for, "We believe we have 100 percent adequate parking for our site," DiGiovanni said.

That opinion was supported by the township's planning consultant, Stanley Slachetka of T& M Associates, who said this week that based on a number of factors -- the Transit Village designation, a shared parking approach and a more efficient on-street design -- the parking plan presented by Garden Homes would cover the site's needs.

"Our initial analysis is that the parking proposed by the developer is appropriate," Slachetka said.

Not everyone agrees, however. Aschenbach said this week he believes the proposal would create a "parking nightmare on High Street" and is inconsistent with the redevelopment plan, which was first drafted by the Township Committee in 2000 and amended in 2003. And though Garden's project envisions less density than Hekemian's, he described the proposal as a "poorly-designed high rise housing complex." The township should instead work toward a project with as few as 40 housing units, he said.

Residents will have an opportunity to evaluate the project for themselves next week, when Garden Homes makes a public presentation at 8 p.m. Tuesday, July 8 in council chambers at the municipal building, 8 Springfield Ave. DiGiovanni said residents can expect a detailed conceptual plan at that time.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (732)396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

LACK OF PUBLIC INPUT ON MASTER PLAN

MASTER PLAN REVIEW IS CRITICIZED FOR LACK OF PUBLIC INPUT
CRANFORD CHRONICLE
Friday, February 08, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY
CRANFORD -- In the most comprehensive exchange on the subject to date, the Planning Board this week offered a timeline for completion of a revised Master Plan, though one board member criticized the process for what she called a failure to incorporate public input.

The Master Plan is a document that spells out the guidelines for and principles behind development in a community. Though it does not contain the precision of a zoning ordinance, the plan is intended to provide a blueprint for developers and local officials as they plot out future construction.

Periodic reviews of a Master Plan are required by state law. The reviews are often cursory, but Cranford is now in the midst of a more extensive re-evaluation, which was first authorized in 2006 but only began in earnest last year.

The subject recently became a hot-button issue, when developer Lehigh Acquisitions filed a "builder's remedy" lawsuit against the township claiming that Cranford had failed to meet its affordable housing obligation. Township officials had previously decided that the housing plan should be created as part of the Master Plan review, and the failure to complete the process before a suit was filed has caused some finger-pointing.

The review is being directed by a steering committee that includes Planning Board Chairman Bob Hoeffler and board members Kevin Illing and Ann Darby. At a public meeting Wednesday, they outlined the process to date, including a series of meetings with a professional planner, interviews with 20 stakeholders and countless revisions to existing documents.

"It really was a painstaking process," Darby said. Illing added that it took time to mold the generic components of a Master Plan into elements specific to Cranford.
Going forward, Hoeffler said he believes the township can be prepared to present the Master Plan to the public in March or April. But Darby and Illing disagreed, saying June was more feasible.

After it is compiled, the revised Master Plan will be presented to the full Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Environmental Commission before going to the Township Committee for approval. After that point, a series of public meetings will be scheduled, followed by a potential redraft and then final approval by the governing body.

While there is a sense of urgency to have a revised plan in place, one board member said there should be more opportunity for public input before it is completed.
Rita LaBrutto, who was appointed to the Planning Board in January, asked why information about the substance of the plan had not been given to the public in smaller segments as the process moved forward. Commenting after the meeting LaBrutto said she found the "amount of public outreach," or lack thereof, to be disconcerting.

The issue, she said, is about what vision of Cranford the plan embraces -- whether it focuses on "small town" characteristics or continued development. A critic of much of the recent development on the North and South avenue corridors, LaBrutto said the character of the town which attracted many residents is changing. "What if you're off track?" she said.

In response, board attorney Nicholas Giuditta said segmenting the work and inserting a public comment section for each of the dozen components would increase the workload and expand the budget for the task.

"The laws are being complied with here, that's what matters. What also matters is that the public will have multiple opportunities to come and comment on the proposed Master Plan," Giuditta said.

Agreeing, Township Administrator Marlena Schmid said that with nearly two-thirds of the budget spent, changing the process now would not be feasible.

"This, to me, is like a research project where all of the pieces have to come together," Schmid said. "And to take each element (separately) seems kind of dangerous."

Darby agreed as well, saying none of the work had been conducted in a vacuum. "I'm just wondering if the process would be better served by tying it up with one big bow," Darby said. "All we're trying to do is serve up a document that will be improved upon and edited by the town's people."

However, board member Karen Capone agreed with LaBrutto, saying that more communication through the township Web site or TV35 would make residents better prepared to participate during the public comment period.

The discussion on the Master Plan is slated to continue during the Planning Board's next workshop session on Feb. 20.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (732)396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

NEGOTIATIONS END FOR RIVERFRONT PROPOSAL BY HEKEMIAN

CRANFORD ENDS NEGOTIATIONS WITH HEKEMIAN FOR RIVERFRONT SITE
CRANFORD CHRONICLE
Friday, March 14, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- In a split vote, the Township Committee terminated its interim cost agreement with The S.Hekemian Group this week, breaking off negotiations with the developer about the Riverfront Redevelopment Area.

The action, taken at the committee's official meeting Tuesday night, was not unexpected. The two sides were well past a self-imposed deadline to reach a permanent agreement, and last week both Peter Hekemian, a principal for the developer, and Cranford Mayor Bob Puhak said the talks had reached an impasse.

But not every member of the Township Committee agreed with the move. Puhak, Martha Garcia and Mark Smith voted to dissolve the interim agreement, but Michael Plick and Deputy Mayor David Robinson dissented.

"I do want to make it clear we did not have a meeting of the minds of all five commissioners," Plick said. He also said he was "in disagreement with some of (his) colleagues for potential next steps."

The move marks the third time the township has broken off talks with a developer about the site, and the second time with The S.Hekemian Group. After designating the area for redevelopment -- a step that gives the municipality the authority to take the lead role in guiding construction -- the township first tapped Hekemian to build at the site, but that round of negotiations ended in 2006. The township subsequently opened talks with a different consortium known as Cranford VTS, but those negotiations also failed. Cranford and Hekemian returned to the table in September 2007, but now have again come away empty-handed.

While Puhak declined to elaborate during the meeting, he said in a subsequent interview that the talks had been derailed by the residential density proposed by the developer. Other stumbling blocks, according to Puhak, included a retail component that was smaller than the township had expected; a plan to offer the residences as rentals, not for-sale units; and the fact that the developer's plan did not address the full affordable housing obligation on site. Overall, Puhak said, the plan was "inconsistent with township goals."

"I take them at their word regarding the parameters they can work within. However, that being said, our responsibility is to make sure we stay within parameters that are in the best interest of the Cranford community," Puhak said.

Peter Hekemian was not present at Tuesday's meeting and could not be reached prior to press time Thursday.

Because the negotiations took place in closed session, it is not known each side offered. But during a public meeting in November 2007, the developer presented a plan for a multi-building, mixed-use project with 11,500 square feet of retail space, 149 apartment flats and 17 town homes. The biggest buildings were four stories and measured 45 or 49 feet tall (By comparison, the Cranford Crossing buildings are both taller than 50 feet, and one is taller than 60 feet; the pre-existing zoning at the Riverfront site permitted office buildings up to 50 feet tall).

The committee is now considering its options for the 3.5-acre site, which lies at the corner of South Avenue and High Street along the Rahway River. Puhak said a closed-door discussion is likely at the March 24 meeting.

The site's future may be affected by the fact that the Holt family, the majority property owner within the zone, has recently moved to sell its portion of the land to Garden Commercial Properties, a subsidiary of the Wilf real estate empire.

Tony DiGiovanni, a development partner with Garden Properties and a Cranford resident, said this week that the land sale is under contact but no closing date has been set. DiGiovanni added that there was "no conspiracy" surrounding his company's role in the project, saying he began working on the project in January.

Prior history does not indicate that the township will automatically open talks with Garden Properties. In 2005, the Holt family had an arrangement with K. Hovnanian, another major player in New Jersey real estate. But at the time, the township chose to issue a Request for Proposals from all interested developers. Hovnanian submitted a proposal, but local officials liked Hekemian's plan better -- though, it now seems, they didn't like it enough.

No members of the current Township Committee were in office in 2005, and it is not clear whether the current officials will feel bound by the prior precedent. Another option available to the committee is to remove the redevelopment designation altogether and allow development to proceed under the previous zoning regulations. The township recently took a similar action by rescinding a rehabilitation designation on North Avenue.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

Riverfront Proposal

RESIDENTS GET FIRST LOOK AT PLAN FOR RIVERFRONT
Cranford Chronicle
Friday, November 30, 2007
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- More than 60 residents turned out Wednesday night, exhibiting plenty of curiosity and a touch of criticism, as the Downtown Management Corporation hosted a public forum on planned construction at the Riverfront Redevelopment Area.

The proposal from the S. Hekemian Group calls for a multi-building mixed-use project with 11,500 square feet of retail space, 149 apartment flats, 17 town homes -- and, in a recent development, a section of retail space set aside for the Cranford Arts Center.

Under the plan, the retail would be located in one building at the corner of South Avenue and High Street; the flats would be located in the upper floors of that building, which would measure 49 feet tall, and in an adjacent 45-foot building. Also included would be a smaller apartment building at the intersection of Chestnut and High streets, the town home cluster at the southern end of the project, and a screened parking garage.

No representatives from Hekemian attended Wednesday's forum, but on hand were Andrew Janiw of Beacon Financial Planning, who performed the financial analysis, and David Milder of Danth Inc., who performed a retail marketing analysis. Janiw and Milder were selected by the township but have been paid by Hekemian under the terms of an interim cost agreement.

Welcoming the crowd, DMC Chairman Paul LaCorte offered an abbreviated history of the Riverfront project, emphasizing both the challenges and opportunities it presents.

"The site, which is roughly three to four times the size of Cranford Crossing, is a site which has been under township review for over four decades," he said. "The site has environmental issues. The site has building issues. The site has flooding issues. The site neighbors three houses of worship. The site has business and owners some of us have known for years. The site is in need of investment dollars, and the site needs to embrace a vision repeatedly confirmed by elected officials of both parties," LaCorte said.

Explaining his market research study, Milder said there were some challenges in identifying target retailers. A number of high-end chain stores, which he referred to a "trophy retailers," already exist in nearby Westfield, effectively eliminating them from consideration. There is also the requirement that new retailers complement, rather than compete with, existing businesses.

"Retail (at Riverfront) has to be in such a way that it would help stimulate other retail downtown," Milder said.

Milder said he could see the planned Cranford Arts Center as a successful entertainment destination, and it could be paired with a medium-sized quality supermarket, a gourmet market, a high-quality sit-down restaurant, a non-alcoholic beverage bar such as Starbucks, or an independent apparel shop.

Milder added his reports suggested the retail area could easily be expanded from around 11,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet. What the development must attract, he said, is "quality of life-type elements." "What's really important for Cranford to get is quality, not just quantity," Milder said.

Janiw said he was charged to study if the Riverfront project would be viable, after accounting for the cost of acquisition, cleanup and construction. "The bottom line is that we're satisfied that (Hekemian) is on the right track," Janiw said. The density being sought by the developer, which has been questioned in some quarters, is justifiable, he said.

In a question-and-answer period, some residents said they view the latest plan as an improvement, while others said the project was simply wrong for Cranford.
Resident Jeff Pistol asked if the retail space would be better oriented along the length of South Avenue. Moving the arts center into the building closer to the Rahway River could make that building a destination, he said.

But Milder said that hiding the arts center further from the highest traffic point at South and High was counterproductive. What's more, he said, the proposed retail area was substantial. "Something like 15,000 square feet is not a negligible amount of space," Milder said.

Carolyn Youngs said the proposal "provided a better layout" than previous versions, though she added the plan seemed to disregard the potential for views of the Rahway River. In response, DMC Director Kathleen Miller Prunty said that keeping the building envelope within environmental regulations would effectively eliminate river views.

The harshest criticism came from residents Rita LaBrutto and Tony DiGiovanni, both of whom were also vocal opponents of a discarded development plan on Birchwood Avenue.

Hekemian is slated to pay $600,000 for a new sewer line down High Street, and LaBrutto said the cost should be higher, considering the amount of units proposed. But Township Engineer Rick Marsden said the payment would cover the new sewer line, which should help alleviate flooding problems at the intersection.

LaBrutto also said the plan was a departure from earlier versions because it did not include an office component, which she said would bring shoppers downtown. She also criticized the amount of residential space, especially the two and three-bedroom units. "I just don't think this fits the spirit of the redevelopment plan," LaBrutto said. "I don't think this is the project for us."

But Milder said that view is outdated. Market research has shown that residential use in a downtown area is more effective at increasing patronage to retailers, he said.

DiGiovanni said the project would do too little to bolster the downtown, adding he could not see Cranford benefiting from another coffee shop. "I think we're coffee'd out in this town," he said, gaining a laugh from the audience.

Like LaBrutto, DiGiovanni said the proposed residential development was too great. "One hundred forty-nine units is an insult to our intelligence," he said.
But strong support came from the principal property owners in the redevelopment area, who have threatened legal action against the township if something does not happen at the site.

Michael Holt of E.O. Hat, Inc., the majority property owner at the Riverfront, said, "I like your plan. You should build it."

While much negotiating remains before the township strikes a deal with Hekemian, Mayor Michael Plick said the meeting was a good start. "There were some valid points made," Plick said. "I think it's a project of interest for the residents of the area, but I think people are more interested in learning the facts and dispelling the rumors that are out there on this."

COMMITTEE SHOULD TAKE HARD LOOK AT PROJECT

Editorial
The Eagle
November 29, 2007

During the most recent campaign, there was plenty of talk about the future development and redevelopment of Cranford.

While Marcia Garcia and Mark Smith do not take office until January, the first test of the post-election development will come from the Riverfront development.

The proposal features five buildings, three to four stories tall, including a 300-space parking garage, 149 rental units, 15 townhouses and 12,000 square feet of retail space.

Before it goes to the planning or zoning board, the S. Hekemian Group, the developers, will need to get the blessing from the Township Committee.

Before the first public viewing of the proposal that occurred last night after press deadline, committee members were already skeptical about the proposal, be it the Republican majority or the Democrats who are in their final days on the committee.

Republican Committeeman David Robinson is worried about the ratio of the housing element compared to the retail element of the development.

George Jorn, a Democratic committeeman, said that he is also concerned about the housing units of the project.

Deputy Mayor Robert Puhak does point to the pluses of the development including a public park that will be included in the project and development for an area that is run down.

Puhak though is skeptical about the developer’s claim that they can not decrease the number of rental units in the project and is asking for a third-party to verify those claims.

An important aspect will be the marketing study, funded by the developer with the township picking the study’s firm.

Even if the study gives a thumbs up to the project, the Township Committee should take a sterner eye to the proposal than the marketing company. The impact of this project on the township is on their shoulders.

RIVERFRONT--TAX REVENUE?

“Reliance on the property tax not only results in big property tax bills for individual homeowners, it also creates broader incentives that have powerful, distorting effects on land-use decisions. From a fiscal perspective, residential development generally does not “pay for itself”—that is, the cost of the services demanded by residents generally exceeds the tax revenue generated by residential property—whereas nonresidential property generally costs less to service than it generates in revenue. Thus every municipality has an incentive to court nonresidential development—shopping centers, office parks, hotels—while discouraging residential development, thereby keeping costs low relative to revenues. This is the infamous “ratables chase.” Further because public school funding is by far the largest component of local government expenditures, municipalities endeavor to control costs by excluding children, favoring senior housing complexes, and ..." Property Tax Reform & Land Use, Smart Growth Recommendations from New Jersey Future, Issue 14, July 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PROPERTY TAX REFORM
“Particular attention should be paid to solutions that minimize municipal competition for tax revenues, since that competition is the direct cause of many unwanted land-use effects. Such solutions include: shared services, tax-base sharing, increased state aid to municipalities, particularly for education.” Property Tax Reform & Land Use, Smart Growth Recommendations from New Jersey Future, Issue 14, July 2006.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

Letters to the editors of the local newspapers are very effective. Letters may be edited for content, brevity, good taste and libel. Letters should be typewritten and include the writer's daytime telephone number and address for verification, if necessary. Address and phone numbers are kept confidential. Letters must be received before 9 AM Monday for consideration in that week's paper.

Cranford Eagle--editorial@thelocalsource.com or mail to: Worrall Community Newspapers, 1291 Stuyvesant Avenue, Union, NJ 07083, fax to: 908-686-4169

Cranford Chronicle--union@njpublishing.com or mail to: The Chronicle, 301 Central Avenue, Clark, NJ 07066, fax to: 732-574-2613

The Westfield Leader--editor@goleader.com or mail to: The Westfield Leader, PO Box 250, 251 North Ave. West, Westfield, NJ 07091, fax to: 908-232-0473

Star Ledger--eletters@starledger.com or mail to: Editorial Department, 1 Star Ledger Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-1200

WOODMONT PROPERTIES HAS WITHDRAWN ITS APPLICATION #PO4-07 FOR THE REZONING OF BIRCHWOOD AVENUE

REZONING OF BIRCHWOOD AVENUE CRANFORD, NJ APPLICATION #PO4-07 Woodmont Properties, Applicant
215-235 Birchwood Avenue, Blocks 291 and 292, Lots 2 and 15.01, Zone O-1. To permit rezoning for the addition of an overlay zone to permit the construction of an active adult multi-family residential community subject to future site plan approval (136-59).

Very important information, the controversy surrounding this project and the delay on the vote can be read about in the Cranford Eagle and the Cranford Chronicle articles below.

DELAY IN HOUSING PLAN IS ALL POLITICS?
Cranford Eagle
September 19, 2007
By Paul Greulich, Staff Writer

CRANFORD, NJ - Township officials have requested a more timely date for the long-awaited Planning Board meeting that will decide the fate of a proposed housing complex on Birchwood Avenue.

This comes after the board announced that the applicant, Woodmont Properties, and the attorney representing them, County Republican Chair Philip Morin, would be unable to reconvene for the final meeting until December 5.

The proposal calls for 124 units of age-restricted housing, a club house, health club and swimming pool to be developed largely over the footprint of the existing office buildings at 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue.

The announcement was met by much concern from both citizens and commissioners who felt that the delay of this controversial application until after the November election is suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

Democrat Commissioners in particular agreed. Public Safety Commissioner George McDonough repeatedly pointed out Morin’s role as chairman of the county’s Republican party.

“Why would you postpone a $50 million project for three months unless you had a political reason to do it?” McDonough questioned. “That’s exactly what they’re doing.”

McDonough said many voters have pledged to vote against anyone who supports the Woodmont project, which endangers Republican candidate Mark Smith, who also sits on the planning board.

McDonough only hinted at his own stance toward the application.

“I support majority public opinion becoming public policy,” McDonough said.

“It certainly raises some suspicion,” Public Affairs Commissioner George Jorn said of the re-scheduling.

Smith, as well as the members of the Township Committee, are not permitted to comment on any pending application, but Smith’s running mate, Martha Garcia, has since announced her opposition to the project.

Garcia pointed out that the township’s master plan calls for higher density zoning to be located at the center of town rather than its outskirts where the Birchwood project is proposed.

“This project goes totally against the towns’ master plan,” Garcia said.

Garcia said she opposed the rescheduling because it was unfair to residents who had already waited months to see the issue resolved.

“I don’t think that’s a fair thing to do to the residents,” Garcia said.

Garcia said that during the course of her campaign, she has met many residents who are concerned about the project.

“I haven’t talked to one resident who is for it,” she said.

Potential increases in sewerage use, flooding risks and traffic on this residential street have been among those concerns brought forth by many residents.

Mayor Michael Plick said he desired a sooner date for the final meeting because of the potential for further scheduling conflicts in December.

Plick said he did not want to risk the possibility of being unable to redress the issue until January, at which point the board will consist of new members that are not familiar with the issue.

No new date has since been announced, but Planning Board Chair Bob Hoeffler said an additional conflict with the Dec. 5 date is that it is the first day of Hanukkah.

Resident and dedicated meeting attendee Leo McMahon said the issue of the Woodmont proposal was beyond the control of the residents.

“They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do,” McMahon said. “The Planning Board is not answerable to anyone once they’re appointed.”

The final hearing and closing statements were originally moved to September 19 after being delayed throughout August by board members’ scheduling conflicts.

Paul Greulich can be reached at 908-686-7700 ext. 121.

WOODMONT HEARING DELAYED UNTIL DECEMBER
Cranford Chronicle
Friday, September 14, 2007
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- Local residents waiting for word on the proposed construction of an age-restricted community on Birchwood Avenue will have to wait a few months longer.

The Planning Board has been hearing the application from Woodmont Properties since March, and a public comment period had been scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 19. But on Monday, board Vice Chairman Robert Hoeffler announced that the meeting had been postponed to Dec. 5.

Once the hearing is concluded, the board will make a recommendation about whether to establish an overlay zone that would allow for construction of the residential complex in an area currently zoned for office use. The final decision about whether to establish that overlay zone will be made by the Township Committee.

The applicant's attorney, Phil Morin, requested the postponement in a Sept. 7 letter in which he said that he and Stephan Santola, executive vice president and general counsel for Woodmont, would be unavailable for the hearing next week. Due to other scheduling conflicts with the board's meeting dates in October and early November, Morin requested that the hearing be adjourned until Nov. 28 or Dec. 5. The board opted for the December date.

The application, which calls for construction of about 120 residential units, has angered some local residents, and news of the postponement drew a similar reaction. At Tuesday's Township Committee meeting, resident Rita LaBrutto urged the committee to find a way to speed up the time frame so that a decision can be made prior to the Nov. 6 general election, in which two seats on the committee are at stake.

LaBrutto argued that it is important for residents going to the polls to know where the candidates stand on the issue. An outspoken opponent of the project, she is also a key supporter of local Republican candidates Martha Garcia and Mark Smith.

Incumbents George McDonough and George Jorn, both Democrats, are barred from commenting publicly on the project until the Planning Board's recommendation is presented to the Township Committee. Smith is also unable to comment because he serves as the Environmental Commission's representative on the Planning Board.

The other candidate in the race, Garcia, announced her opposition to the project this week. She said the development could put a strain on local infrastructure, adversely affect nearby wetlands and "is not the project for us."

This week, while the committee members were guarded when discussing their opinions of the application, they made clear their frustration with the delay. Commissioner Bob Puhak said he was "shocked and disappointed" to hear of the postponement, and McDonough spoke in similar terms.

Mayor Michael Plick, who along with Commissioner David Robinson also sits on the Planning Board, said he asked the board chairman and attorney to look into scheduling a special meeting before the December date.

"I felt Dec. 5 came dangerously close to other schedule conflicts," Plick said. Still, he added that even if a special meeting were held for the Planning Board, there was still "no guarantee this will come to the Township Committee before the election."

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

PUT PLANNING BACK INTO THE PLANNING BOARD

On September 19, the Cranford Eagle published this editorial about the Cranford Planning Board.

Whatever the specific reasons for their ire, residents and officials have good cause to be suspicious and disappointed with the three-month postponement of Woodmont Properties’ application of age-restricted town homes by the Cranford Township Planning Board.

The board has been hearing this proposal since the spring and was expected to continue the process on Sept. 19. But Woodmont Properties asked and was given a postponement for the hearing until December 5. That date also might be a problem because it is the first day of Hannukah.

The proposal seeks to build 124 age-restricted town houses, a club house, health club and swimming pool over 52,000 square feet of property, currently zoned for existing office space on the residential Birchwood Avenue.

Sewer capacity, traffic and flooding have been among the concerns of residents who flocked to several planning board meetings through the spring and summer months.

Township officials have the responsibility of seeing this application resolved while it’s very pertinent details are still fresh in the minds of residents and board members, and before the unresolved application can become another issue to distract and confuse voters in November.

Mayor Michael Plick, a Republican, stated at the September 11th Township Committee meeting that he has requested the meeting be rescheduled for an earlier date.

With significant numbers of residents deeply concerned about the proposed age-restricted housing project and Union County Republican Chair Philip Morin representing Woodmont Properties, Cranford’s Republicans that make up much of the planning board, should not miss this clear opportunity to side with local taxpayers rather than political allies and change the date to before the election.

CRANFORD OVER DEVELOPMENT & UNION COUNTY FLOOD AID?

Bette Jane Kowalski, the Union County Freeholder Chairwoman and a Cranford resident, wrote a letter to the Cranford Chronicle on July 20, 2007, stating in part, "Cranford's Planning Board is currently considering a development near the wetlands of the Conservation Center on Birchwood Avenue. Now would be a good time for Cranford leadership to think about the connection between over-development and flooding."

July 20 Letters to the Editor
Friday, July 20, 2007

COUNTY HAS PROVIDED HELP WITH FLOOD CONTROL

To The Chronicle:

Cranford has serious problems with flooding -- no one can dispute this. But who has addressed the problem, and how?

Union County has contributed more than $800,000 to Cranford's most recent flood control project. Some funding came from the state. What has the federal government done? Congressman Ferguson has toured the flood zone a few times. But he has not come through with any federal money. Yet for some reason, there are people in Cranford who say that Union County's government is not doing its fair share.

This is particularly disturbing to me when I recall the Union County response to last spring's floods. Union County first-responders were on the scene -- working with Cranford police, fire and emergency personnel to rescue people whose homes were flooded. And it was Union County public works employees who picked up the debris for weeks after the flood.

After the waters receded, the Cranford River Maintenance Committee worked on cleaning up the river area. I've worked with the River Committee for more than 10 years. This time, there was more to clean up than usual. But we put on our waders and went into the river and collected the trash.

Cranford and Union County have been working together in the face of flood disasters for a long time. We can continue to work together on what to do about flooding. Back in 1999, after Hurricane Floyd did its damage, Union County provided the same assistance as this year. On top of that, the county distributed $74,000 in interest-free loans to residents whose homes had been flooded.

Let's also look at some of the long-term issues. Through Union County's Open Space, Recreation, and Historic Preservation initiative, we have preserved more than 300 acres of green space in the last seven years. That's 300 acres saved from development and kept green for all of Union County's residents to enjoy. Cranford's Planning Board is currently considering a development near the wetlands of the Conservation Center on Birchwood Avenue. Now would be a good time for Cranford leadership to think about the connection between over-development and flooding.

BETTE JANE KOWALSKI
Freeholder Chairwoman

MORE TESTIMONY, BUT NO VOTE ON WOODMONT
Cranford Chronicle
Friday, July 13, 2007
By LESLIE MURRAY

CRANFORD -- The fourth Planning Board hearing on an application to construct a luxury age-restricted community on Birchwood Avenue stretched into the wee hours Wednesday night, but it will be at least another two months before the board decides whether to endorse the plan.

In a meeting that went until midnight, the only vote the board members took centered on whether they would continue the meeting until a later date, with five of the nine members voting to hold full public comment at another meeting. The final public comment and deliberation by the Planning Board will take place on Sept. 19.
Woodmont Properties is seeking to build 124 market rate and eight affordable townhouse units on a 15-acre parcel of property on Birchwood Avenue, where two office buildings now stand. The residences could be owned only by people age 55 and up. The application seeks a zone change from the current O-1 zone, which allows low density office space. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Planning Board will make a recommendation, but the Township Committee must ultimately approve the change.

Woodmont's attorney, Phil Morin, has said the project would provide a sorely needed type of housing in the community and would be a financial boost to the township by adding ratables on property that is zoned to inutility.

However, objecting residents have said the project is too dense for the quiet neighborhood, adding that the applicant had not provided adequate information to prove that the project would not exacerbate traffic and flooding on Birchwood Avenue and the surrounding streets.

Wednesday's meeting featured additional testimony from the project planner, Daniel McSweeney of Schoor DePalma. Also on hand to answer questions from the board were municipal tax assessor Peter Barnet and Stan Slachetka of T& M Associates, the township's planning consultant.

McSweeney said that based on the 2005 tax figures, the maximum development permitted by the current zoning -- 77,650 square feet of office space -- would have a $133,709 annual net return for Cranford, with the school district gaining $106,877 and the township $26,832 once tax payments are weighed against the cost of municipal services.

He then went on to say that the proposed active adult community, including only the market rate entities, would have an $813,470 net annual return -- the schools would get $676,052, and the township $137,417. McSweeney said the proposed active adult community would have "clearly a positive fiscal impact."

Board member Ann Darby responded that the purported financial benefits hinged almost exclusively on the planned selling prices of the residences, listed in the analysis as $604,500 for the larger units and $465,000 for the smaller units. She asked if market studies had been done to find the selling price, and if the estimated price per unit was a conservative or aggressive number.

Stephen Santola, executive vice president and general counsel for Woodmont, said that with the housing market in flux, the price was based in part on the experience of other Woodmont projects and also on a nearby active adult community, The Pointe in Garwood. Saying that Woodmont would offer more upscale housing stock, Santola said that prices listed were "not a super-aggressive number."

Planning Board member and Township Commissioner David Robinson said that another assumption of the project calls for all of the units to sell at the initial offering rate. He asked if the financial analysis took into account the fact that the price per unit may have to be reduced.

McSweeney said there is always room for error in a financial analysis; however, he felt the proposed selling prices were appropriate for the units planned.
Darby went on to say that the analysis also assumed that the full 124 units would be approved for the property and asked why the developer felt the number was defensible.

McSweeney said that the proposed density of 8.3 units per acre was "consistent with other multifamily districts in the community."
However, Darby responded that the actual buildable acreage on the parcel is only nine acres; using that figure in the calculation, the density would be 14.6 units per acre.

Asked by the board to evaluate McSweeney's fiscal analysis, Slachetka and Barnet said that he had used the appropriate methodology. However, Slachetka said that the financial analysis was "a piece of the puzzle" and not the only information to be considered.

Speaking to Barnet, board member Karen Capone asked about the per unit annual tax rate for the project. He said the estimate would be in the "low $8,000s" per unit.
Capone then asked about the maintenance fees for the project, which Santola said could be around $200 to $300 per month, or $2,400 to $3,600 annually. She asked if that combined cost would be out of line with the existing taxes in the township.
Santola said that the estimates would be within range and point to a lifestyle choice made by residents of active adult communities.
For the most part, members of the public who questioned McSweeney took exception with his testimony.

Rita LaBrutto, a vocal opponent of the project, said the Garwood project that Woodmont had used as a point of comparison had yet to sell out, presenting current real estate listings from the site. While the applicant said it was not a fair comparison, Planning Board Attorney Nick Giuditta said the information carried some weight.

Michael Caulfield, a current Board of Education member, also objected, saying that if the developer was so confident the project would provide a positive tax impact to the township, the company should be required to post a performance bond or hold a large amount in escrow.

When public comment started at nearly 11 p.m., it took on much the same tone, though there were some supporters of the project.

Cara Cappello said that she came out to the meeting after getting a flyer at her home. She said the flyer, which outlined the "objectionable" aspects of the project, contained no names or phone numbers, a fact she called "suspect." She called the Birchwood Avenue site a "natural place for this housing."

But most of the residents who spoke did not share her opinion. Resident Frank Krause said the project would negatively impact the flooding in the area.
"It would be absolutely hypocritical to seek federal funding (for the Northeast Quadrant Flood Control Project) and then allow building at the headwaters of Casino Brook to create a bigger problem," Krause said.

Gordon Smith, who said he enjoys the neighborhood because of the low traffic levels and quiet atmosphere, said the project would be "detrimental" to the township as a whole.

"This is the face of the town. The people who pay to live here, not the people paid to come here and say this will be good for Cranford," Smith said.

With only a small portion of the public comments completed, the September meeting will see the conclusion of comments and most likely a decision by the Planning Board.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

CRANFORD'S AGING SEWER SYSTEM

The Union County 2005 Cross-Acceptance Report is quoted below and was prepared with the assistance of Schoor-DePalma, Inc. Schoor-DePalma was also the engineer for Woodmont Properties who had a proposal before the Cranford Planning Board for a 132 multi-family residential development.

"However, our aging sanitary sewer infrastructure is becoming a problem. Some of the sewer mains are more than 100 years old and will require major repair or reconstruction in order to provide for continual growth and redevelopment. In older communities like Cranford, inflow and infiltration into our sanitary sewer systems are getting worse. This increases the risk for more frequent pipe failures, stresses treatment plants, and adds to the cost of water treatment every time it rains." (Pages 3-4, Union County 2005 Cross-Acceptance Report)

"...major repair or reconstruction projects will be needed for this infrastructure in order to provide for intensive growth. For these reasons, the township believes that the State and/or County need to provide financial assistance for these sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements." (Page 43, Union County 2005 Cross-Acceptance Report)

TAX REVENUE?

“Other mayors, including Scott Rumana of Wayne, reject the idea that exclusionary zoning saves money, because having more senior citizens pushes up emergency response costs. Most seniors who move stay in the same towns, according to data from AARP. They usually sell the homes in which they raised their families to homebuyers with children, negating any tax benefit. And seniors have expenses of their own, Rumana said.” Vasectomy Housing Surges as New Jersey Tax Remedy, Jan. 17, 2007, by Bob Ivry, Bloomberg.com.

“Reliance on the property tax not only results in big property tax bills for individual homeowners, it also creates broader incentives that have powerful, distorting effects on land-use decisions. From a fiscal perspective, residential development generally does not “pay for itself”—that is, the cost of the services demanded by residents generally exceeds the tax revenue generated by residential property—whereas nonresidential property generally costs less to service than it generates in revenue. Thus every municipality has an incentive to court nonresidential development—shopping centers, office parks, hotels—while discouraging residential development, thereby keeping costs low relative to revenues. This is the infamous “ratables chase.” Further because public school funding is by far the largest component of local government expenditures, municipalities endeavor to control costs by excluding children, favoring senior housing complexes, and ..." Property Tax Reform & Land Use, Smart Growth Recommendations from New Jersey Future, Issue 14, July 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PROPERTY TAX REFORM
“Particular attention should be paid to solutions that minimize municipal competition for tax revenues, since that competition is the direct cause of many unwanted land-use effects. Such solutions include: shared services, tax-base sharing, increased state aid to municipalities, particularly for education.” Property Tax Reform & Land Use, Smart Growth Recommendations from New Jersey Future, Issue 14, July 2006.

SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY A LARGER SENIOR CITIZEN POPULATION?

“They are also not likely to accept tax increases without a fight. In Manchester, where most of the voters are older than 60, school budgets fail year after year. The protest votes do not faze Mrs. Cameron, the Mayor.” Ocean County’s Grayer Pastures, Abby Goodnough, July 7, 1996, New York Times.

The voting history of Cranford’s school budget:

2002 passed by 824 votes
2003 by 403 votes
2004 by 468 votes
2005 by 601 votes
2006 by 97 votes
2007 by 513 votes

There are presently 131 senior housing units at Gill Apartments, 99 units at the Lincoln Avenue Apartments and 80 recently approved units (55 plus) to be built on South Avenue--about 160 new residents. The Birchwood Avenue proposal (55 plus) would add another 132 units—approximately 250 new residents. We will have over 400 new residents over 55 if this proposal is approved.

A BUILDING BOOM FOR THE OVER-55 CROWD

November 13, 2005, New York Times
Connecticut

By JANE GORDON

REGIONAL planning meetings can be a snore. That is until they sound an alarm, and wake up the neighborhood.

That is what happened on Nov. 2, when the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley held a luncheon meeting to talk about the explosion of age-restricted housing in its member communities. To towns dependent on property taxes to pay bills, age-restricted housing had pretty much looked as if it was created by a property-tax Einstein. No children are allowed, meaning there would be no demand for new schools. Combine that with higher revenues from taxes, and the money would be coming in, but not going out.

Do not be so sure, the planners from the council of governments told those attending. They handed out a brief questionnaire to the town planners. "Does your town have sufficient senior services? Would your town build this if it weren't age-restricted? What could these units be used for after the baby boomers are gone?" Mary Barton, the town planner in Watertown, where a proposal for a 350-unit age-restricted development was being considered along with zoning changes to accommodate it, did not have to think long to get her answers. No, no and not sure, she said. "It seems this is the wave of the future of development," she said. "The thing that concerns me is: What happens when there's no longer a call for this type of housing?" Town planners and regional planners have recently been raising issues like this about age-restricted developments being built or proposed in towns throughout the state. The issues range from concerns that a glut of the units will create empty neighborhoods 30 to 40 years down the road when baby boomers have moved on or died, to worries about a greater demand for services as residents age, to how to deal with a lack of zoning regulations regarding the proposals, to concerns that turning towns into havens for the elderly will irrevocably change their character.

Such developments might not be a worry but for their sheer numbers in the state. Although there have been a crush of proposals in the past few years, the first so-called active-adult communities, which differ from nursing homes and retirement housing in that they do not generally provide health services and that they focus on activities and social events, were being built in the 1960's.

One of the state's oldest and largest age-restricted developments, Heritage Village, was built in Southbury in the late 1960's. But Heritage Village has what most newer developments are not offering now: its own ambulance service and its own security officers. With 2,580 units and almost 4,000 residents on 1,000 acres, Heritage Village is bigger than some Connecticut towns.

More than 7,000 units of housing ranging from apartment-style condominiums to single-family homes are for sale in about 150 new neighborhoods, targeted at buyers 55 and older, according to 55-Plus LLC, a Massachusetts-based marketing firm that has surveyed dozens of towns in Connecticut. That does not take into account the dozens of proposals that are before zoning boards, or the age-restricted housing that already has been built. "The way these things are popping up all over the place, it's eventually going to glut the market," said Daniel Tuba, Monroe town planner and the immediate past president of the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning Association, which is a professional organization for town planners.

"Right now, there's a lot of anti-residential development sentiment in Connecticut, and developers have latched onto this active-adult community idea as a way to try to convince a community that something is worth approving," Mr. Tuba continued. "I have to laugh, because they use the term active adults, and it kind of draws attention to the whole issue. The active-adult community becomes the passive-adult community 20 years from now. That community will demand a lot of services in terms of public safety, ambulance service, fire service.

"And when the baby-boomer wave goes through, you're going to see a dramatic drop-off in that age group," Mr. Tuba added. "All of a sudden these communities are going to say, 'We can't fill our units, and we have no alternative but to open them up and sell them to whomever.' And what has been billed as a positive tax flow and a positive for the community will start to reverse. This has not been a well-thought-out concept. It's one of these hot ideas that everybody is hooking their stars to and trying to follow."

Before the beginning of this year, the town of Berlin, population 18,215 from the 2000 census, had no age-restricted housing, said Hellyn Riggins, Berlin's director of development services. Between Jan. 1 and May 19, it approved 860 units. Then it declared a moratorium on construction of such housing until its planning department could update its zoning regulations.

"The town needed time to sit back and say, Oh! We've just been hit with all age-restricted units," Ms. Riggins said. "Is it just good for us right now? What's going to happen 20 years from now, when we have all these units and maybe the demand isn't there? It's also a worry, that they could become regular condos, that the owners might come back to us and request regular zoning. What are the demographics of the 55 and older community? Will it drop sharply after 20 years? When do you saturate the market?"

Because age-restricted housing is relatively new to Connecticut, many of these questions are unanswered. Many developments require zoning changes to be built, and in several towns, developers of age-restricted are the ones writing them.
In New Milford and East Lyme, for example, Karl Frey, a Stamford developer whose firm, Vespera, proposed Dunham Farm, a 508-unit active-adult housing project, created the town's zoning amendments. Instead of 508 units on 600 acres, the units will be built on about 60 acres, with 100 acres for open space. But the proposal ran into significant community opposition in 2004, with opponents saying it did not take sufficient account of conservation and environmental issues. Construction has not yet begun.

"It's a true smart-growth community," Mr. Frey said. "We have a mix of small-lot single-family homes, townhouses and condominiums. But we were negligent in preparing the community for this, and we made a mistake assuming that folks understood what we were trying to do. Conservation comes first in everything we do."
Mr. Frey scoffed at the idea that the market for age-restricted communities would dissolve in the future.

"If you were 40 in 1850, you were an old guy," he said. "If you made it to retirement in 1950, and got another couple of good years before you dropped dead of a heart attack, you were doing well. Now life expectancy has risen dramatically. There's no way we will end up with an overabundance of 55 and older housing." Covenants within the bylaws of the developments also can stipulate permanent restrictions, for example, making the community perpetually responsible for trash pickup, or clearing its own roads.

"The town can't impose that upon the developer, but if the developers are smart, they can put it to the zoning board that they will put those restrictions in their bylaws as a condition of approval," Mr. Frey said. "As long as you spell up front that the community is responsible for its own trash pickup, etc., those costs should never rise with inflation. So it's not the kind of revolt the town should ever worry about, if they think up front about ways to accommodate the extraordinary demand for 55 and older housing in a new way."

Town planners are not so sure. No matter what covenants say, they worry that as maintenance fees rise and fixed incomes stay fixed, homeowners will approach the towns to pick up some costs like snow and trash removal. For example, services for seniors are already strained in East Windsor and South Windsor, where hundreds of age-restricted housing units were built in the past decade. Both towns have established caps on the number of age-restricted units allowed, although South Windsor has raised its cap twice.

"These active-adult residents are demanding more senior services as the years go by," said Laurie Whitten, vice president of the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials and director of planning and development in East Windsor, which went from 33 age-restricted proposals in 2005 to 700 in 2005, before the town enacted a building moratorium on Sept. 16. "Our senior services have increased drastically because of all the active adults in town."

Marcia Banach, South Windsor's director of planning, said the town's senior center has become overburdened from the number of 55-and-older residents who have moved into the new developments.

"We've also had more frequent medical calls to the complexes," she said. "Everyone thinks they're really great because there will be no impact on services, but we're seeing more impact."

Despite naysayers, Heritage Village integrated well into Southbury, said DeLoris Curtis, the town's planning administrator. A spokeswoman for the community, Leola Lee, said that when the village first went up, some critics said it would become a slum soon enough.

"It is far from that," Ms. Lee said. "It is one of the most beautiful places to live, and our maintenance fees are far from high. That's why people are moving here in such large numbers now. It's nothing like what you have to pay in Westchester."
But concerns have arisen over the years. Housing prices there have not kept up with comparable homes in Southbury, said Virginia Mason of the Council of Governments in Naugatuck. Heritage Village also made up 31 percent of all the housing units in Southbury in 2004, creating a huge voting bloc of 55-and-older residents. Some years ago, before residential development increased in Southbury, the voting bloc at Heritage Village was greater than any other in Southbury, Mrs. Curtis said. The construction of age-restricted communities has been prohibited in Southbury since the 1980's. "We don't want the balance of the population to tip," Mrs. Curtis said.
Such large developments have a slim chance of being approved nowadays. But hundreds of small ones in a small state will make the same kind of dent, said Samuel Gold, a planner with the Council of Governments in Naugatuck.

"This isn't planning," he said. "This is land use as fiscal remedy. Connecticut towns are chasing after active-adult housing as a cash cow. Developers are selling this to people in their late 50's who aren't old yet, and they don't have elderly needs yet. When they're in their 70's and 80's, the towns will be ill-equipped to provide services. And typically older people vote a lot more consistently than younger people, and you may have a population that has no direct connection to the schools and will vote that way. These towns are willfully become more geriatric. They're subscribing to a geriatric future."

CONTACT THE CRANFORD TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS

Contact the Township Commissioners and let them know how you feel about the Riverfront proposal.

Mayor Puhak
272-3008
R-Puhak@cranfordnj.org

Deputy Mayor Robinson
497-9395
D-Robinson@cranfordnj.org

Commissioner Plick
709-9640
M-Plick@cranfordnj.org

Commissioner Smith
272-6833
M-Smith@cranfordnj.org

Commissioner Garcia
272-7895
M-Garcia@cranfordnj.org

Letters may also be mailed to:
Cranford Township Committee, 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, NJ 07016

CONTACT AUTHORITIES

If you feel that there is possible corruption or wrongdoing in Cranford government, then contact the authorities below and let them know. All tips are welcome.

CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIE, US ATTORNEY

NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL

CRANFORD'S COAH OBLIGATION

COAH OBLIGATION LOWERED; FUTURE 'FAIR HOUSING' CONSIDERED
The Chronicle
by Leslie Murray
October 10, 2008

CRANFORD -- The Township of Cranford has a significantly lower affordable housing obligation than had been previously estimated by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), but must still consider options for meeting future affordable housing requirements according to a report from planning consultant Stan Slachetka of T&M Associates this week.

During the Monday, Oct. 6 meeting of the Township Committee, Slachetka presented the Fair Share Housing Plan, a section of the township Master Plan which deals with a plan to handle affordable housing that was worked on separately outside the ongoing effort to redraft the Master Plan.

Through a landmark New Jersey Supreme Court case -- known as the Mt. Laurel decision -- municipalities in the state must provide low and moderate income housing options. COAH sets the formula through which a municipality's required amount of housing is calculated and is also the body that can certify a town as having a plan to address the need for affordable housing.

Cranford has already committed to a legal challenge with the New Jersey League of Municipalities of the latest round of COAH rules.

In September, Slachetka, Mayor Bob Puhak and other township officials met with COAH representatives in Trenton. While Puhak said that he was disconcerted by the confusion he found in the meeting, Slachetka said that the meeting "assured (him) that we're headed in the right direction."

Offering the Fair Share plan that he had come to by performing a vacant land analysis and calculating the realistic development potential based on COAH standards, Slachetka said that for the first and second rounds of COAH the township still has an 11-unit obligation, as well as a 55-unit obligation to rehabilitate existing affordable units.

The first and second round obligations are in line with what Slachetka had predicted for the township after he reported in May that COAH had erroneously included acres of property bordering the Garden State Parkway along with school lawns and athletic fields as vacant land available for development.

The current third round "growth share" obligation from COAH, which includes growth until 2018, was also based in part on the original incorrect land analysis.

"COAH had established a substantial obligation, and really an unrealistic obligation for the township," Slachetka said of the initial third round obligation. "We're confident that the township has a 58-unit growth share obligation," he said.

The third round was a marked departure from early projections by COAH indicating that Cranford would have been required to provide 392 affordable units; 148 units from prior rounds of COAH rules, 189 units under the latest set of rules and 55 rehabilitated units.

In moments of levity, members of the Township Committee and Slachetka poked fun at the widely vacillating rules of COAH, however Slachetka said the lower obligation would be a relief because "COAH has a much higher growth share (estimate)."

"That's because they were counting the Parkway," quipped Deputy Mayor David Robinson.
Adding to the issues of affordable housing facing the township is the Builder's Remedy Lawsuit filed by Lehigh Acquisitions earlier this year. In the suit, the result of a disagreement between township officials and the developer over the number of units at a proposed project, the developer claims the township has not met the affordable housing obligation.

Lehigh filed suit in January stemming from a disagreement about the appropriate density for a five-acre site at 555 South Ave. East. The developer wanted to construct 126 condominium flats, while the Township Committee would agree to only 90. The case is still before the state Superior Court and township officials have made almost no public comments on the project since the lawsuit was filed.

While the previous round of COAH obligations are smaller and can seemingly be handled through credits for existing projects, such as the Lincoln Apartments for senior citizens, Slachetka recommended that the township allow for a study into "municipally sponsored construction," a provision under COAH law that allows a municipality to grant land to a not-for-profit agency to build "supportive and special needs" group homes.

Adding that the township-owned land along Myrtle Avenue is among some of the only municipally-held empty land in Cranford, Slachetka told the committee that "municipally sponsored construction" would be worth investigating for the township as a way to meet future growth share requirements.

He was given the go ahead by the committee to investigate the proposal after explaining that the township would not be responsible for owning, maintaining, or financing such a project were it built.

The Fair Share Housing Plan has to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board before being endorsed by the Township Committee and sent to COAH for consideration, a process the committee had intended to finish before year's end.

Slachetka said that the committee would have to stay focused on planning for future growth and the affordable housing obligation that would come with it.

"You've got to have a plan in place -- a full plan -- to address the overall need," he said. "The important thing to understand is that there will be a fourth COAH round," Slachetka said.

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for The Chronicle. She can be reached at (908) 464-5214 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com.

CRANFORD DID NOT SUBMIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN

DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF RISK, TOWN DID NOT SUBMIT HOUSING PLAN
Friday, February 01, 2008
By LESLIE MURRAY and GREG MARX

CRANFORD -- Local officials discussed the township's potential vulnerability to a "builder's remedy" lawsuit years before such a suit was filed, but failed to develop a plan for affordable housing that would provide protection against a court claim, according to a review of public records.

On Jan. 16, Lehigh Acquisition Corp. filed a builder's remedy suit against Cranford in Superior Court seeking permission to proceed with an age-restricted multi-family complex on about five acres of vacant land the firm owns at 555 South Ave. East. In such a suit, a developer argues that a town has failed to meet its affordable housing obligation and typically asks the court for permission to construct a large housing development, with a minority of the units set aside as affordable units and the bulk priced at market rate.

The suits are one way in which New Jersey courts have forced municipalities to comply with the state Supreme Court's landmark 1975 Mount Laurel case, which requires all municipalities to provide housing for low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

Towns try to avoid the suits because, in addition to being costly to defend, they can force a municipality to allow a housing development it would otherwise have rejected. Towns can secure protection from builder's remedy suits by preparing their own plans to provide affordable housing and obtaining "substantive certification" for those plans from the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

But, despite a number of false starts going back to the turn of this century, Cranford never obtained substantive certification -- and with it, protection from a builder's remedy suit. And a review of public records and interviews with past and current local officials appears to show a pattern of missed opportunities -- numerous situations, under several different Township Committees, in which Cranford had an opportunity to secure certification, but did not do so.

In the current case, both the township and the developer agree that the site is an appropriate location for a housing project; the dispute is about density. Lehigh wants to construct 126 age-restricted condominium flats, while the Township Committee will agree to only 90. (The township's redevelopment plan for the site, approved in 2006, actually calls for 80 units. That plan was drafted after extended consultation with the developer, but the two sides never reached a contractual agreement.)

In the suit, Lehigh contends that Cranford does not meet its affordable housing obligation and does not have a plan in place to provide low- and moderate-income residences in the future. The builder argues that under the second and third rounds of regulations promulgated by COAH, the township is required to provide 337 affordable units, and that its project would help satisfy that obligation. Lehigh's attorney, Tracy Siebold, did not return calls for comment this week.
In the first official response from Cranford, the Township Committee approved a resolution Tuesday authorizing Township Attorney Carl Woodward to defend the township and the Planning Board against the legal claim.

Ironically, the land in question was once identified by the township as an appropriate site for affordable housing. In a Fair Share Housing Plan from 1988, the township identified two tracts of privately-owned land large enough to sustain a housing development. The first, Dreyer Farm, is listed as being a horticultural use in the 100-year flood plain and thus "unsuitable for development." The second is 555 South Ave., which at the time was slated for commercial development. "Should this property become available in the future, it would be suitable for multi-family housing," reads the report, which is one of the documents municipalities must prepare to comply with COAH guidelines.

By 2000, though, when an updated Fair Share Housing Plan was prepared, Cranford officials came to a different conclusion. The second round of COAH guidelines created a requirement for 252 affordable units -- 104 rehabilitated and 148 new -- but because of Cranford's efforts to rehabilitate existing homes and the scarcity of vacant land, the township argued, its actual obligation to provide new units was zero. "Cranford Township does not have an affordable housing need based upon credits and municipal adjustments," the 2000 plan reads.

That plan was part of the township's June 2000 application to COAH for substantive certification. But Cranford's application was never granted, apparently because the township failed to provide information sought by COAH. In June 2003, a COAH official wrote the township's planner, Susan Gruel, requesting an updated inventory of vacant land. Gruel responded two weeks later, stating that the revised inventory was on hold pending changes in the state Green Acres program, which could affect the township's Recreation and Open Space Inventory.

Gruel promised another response once those changes were finalized, but there is apparently no further correspondence on the issue, and Township Clerk Tara Rowley said there are no minutes recording discussions of the issue by the Township Committee. With no further response, the township's petition for certification lapsed on Dec. 20, 2005, according to a COAH spokesman.

Affordable housing regulations are famously complex, and the township plans to mount a defense of Lehigh's lawsuit, but the fact that certification was never granted may be key in determining the outcome of the suit. In 2003, COAH issued a third round of affordable housing regulations, covering the period from 1999 to 2018. In a 2007 ruling that ordered amendments to the third round regulations, a state Appellate Court issued a stay to any builder's remedy suits affecting municipalities that had outstanding applications for substantive certification; the court also found that towns that acted in good faith to devise plans to comply with the third round rules should not be subjected to lawsuits. But because Cranford never obtained certification for the second round or sought it for the third round, it appears that protection would not apply to the township. (Revised third round rules have since been published and are the subject of ongoing public hearings; they are slated to go into effect in June 2008).

Though Cranford's application was allowed to expire, the issue eventually returned to the attention of the Township Committee. Minutes of official meetings detail four discussions of the issue in open session in 2005, though it is not clear whether local officials knew Cranford's petition was still active for most of that year.
At a Jan. 25, 2005, meeting, then-Commissioner Ann Darby argued that Cranford should pursue substantive certification to secure protection from a builder's remedy lawsuit. Mayor George Jorn, Deputy Mayor Dan Aschenbach and Commissioner George McDonough were all opposed, and Commissioner Scott Mease was undecided.

Cranford's position as a town without certification is not unique -- many communities have not gone through the process to demonstrate COAH compliance. Explaining his position this week, Aschenbach said, "I personally felt I did not want the state dictating where we should put affordable housing." His own opinion, he said, is that affordable housing is "nothing to be fearful of," but "township standards should matter."

Aschenbach added that seeking certification "is a costly, time-consuming, detailed administrative process that we had no justification for proceeding with until we understood the facts and options.Cranford did not have the administrative staff to spend on that effort."

He also defended the township's record of providing affordable housing through its senior centers and rehabilitation programs. "I would rather the township use its financial resources to expand affordable housing opportunities where they made sense rather than on the paperwork," Aschenbach said.

By June 2005, though, Mease had come around to Darby's position. And in September of that year, the township's new planner, Stan Slachetka, came before the committee to discuss the issue and estimated that Cranford had an obligation for 40 to 50 affordable units. At a subsequent conversation in October, the committee still was not prepared to apply for certification, but elected officials directed Township Administrator Marlena Schmid to secure a proposal from Slachetka's firm for a revised Master Plan that addressed the housing issue.

Working from that point, the committee decided in 2006 to handle COAH concerns through the Planning Board's Master Plan review, according to Aschenbach.
The year began with the Planning Board creating a subcommittee to address the Master Plan, including the affordable housing obligation. The general feeling was that "we better redo the Master Plan, and we better address COAH," said Lynda Feder, who chaired the Planning Board in 2006. She added, "It seemed to me that every member of the Township Committee, from both parties, acknowledged that we had to do this."
Still, Feder said, no progress was made in 2006 -- a failing she attributed to the fact that the Township Committee did not authorize funds for the project until late in the year. A Master Plan review requires the expertise of a professional planner, but the effort was not funded until an emergency appropriation of $84,000 was made in August. Soon thereafter, an election changed partisan control of the Township Committee, and it became clear that the leadership of the Planning Board would change as well. Given the circumstances, Feder said, it made sense to begin the work the following year.

The review did finally get underway in 2007, under the auspices of a Planning Board subcommittee that includes Robert Hoeffler, Kevin Illing and Darby, who had left the Township Committee after 2005. But at a meeting this week, the current members of the committee expressed frustration with the lack of progress on the latest effort.
"We've asked about updates we never heard anything," said David Robinson, the current deputy mayor. "We've got $36,000 left, and even critical elements are in embryonic stages."

Mayor Bob Puhak, too, said the committee "would like to see a stepped-up effort." While he did not identify the current effort as part of the legal defense, Puhak said that in light of Lehigh's claim, progress on the housing plan has become even more important.

And, he added, "This Township Committee clearly identified (the Master Plan review) as a priority before the lawsuit."

But one of the members of the Master Plan subcommittee -- and a long-time advocate for pursuing COAH certification -- said the current approach may not be suited to the circumstances.

Bundling the affordable housing issue with the Master Plan review was "in theory, a very appropriate way to address the housing question," said Darby. "However, in practice it was not a good strategy to address an element of urgency associated with the township's risk. A comprehensive Master Plan redo, if done correctly, is a lengthy and painstaking process. The timeline required is at odds with the notion of urgency and a quick turnaround."

Darby also explained why, during her time on the Township Committee, she had argued that action was required.

"The risks associated with not addressing the township's COAH obligations were always pretty clear," she said. "The township was allowing itself to be vulnerable to a builder's remedy lawsuit."

Leslie Murray is a staff writer for the Chronicle. She can be reached at (732) 396-4205 or lmurray@njnpublishing.com. Greg Marx is the editor of the Chronicle. He can be reached at (732) 396-4219 or gmarx@njnpublishing.com.

NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS

On July 17, 2008, Gov. Corzine Signed New Legislation to Help develop Affordable Housing in New Jersey

Highights of the new law:

• Abolish "regional contribution agreements" that had allowed towns to meet their affordable housing obligations by paying poorer cities to build housing there.

• Create an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund."

• Charge developers a 2.5 percent fee on the value of commercial development to finance construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

• Require towns to commit developer fee funds to affordable housing within their borders.

• Set aside 20 percent of all state-assisted housing projects for affordable housing.

• Set aside 13 percent of all affordable housing for families earning less than 30 percent of the state's median income.

• Require all state agencies to include a housing affordability impact statement when creating new regulations.

• Establish a state Housing Commission to develop a strategic housing plan and report annually to the Legislature.

Source: N.J. Legislature

NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS

On July 17, 2008, Gov. Jon Corzine signed legislation to help develop affordable housing in New Jersey

Highights of the new law
Friday, July 18, 2008

The legislation signed yesterday by Gov. Jon Corzine will:

• Abolish "regional contribution agreements" that had allowed towns to meet their affordable housing obligations by paying poorer cities to build housing there.

• Create an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund."

• Charge developers a 2.5 percent fee on the value of commercial development to finance construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

• Require towns to commit developer fee funds to affordable housing within their borders.

• Set aside 20 percent of all state-assisted housing projects for affordable housing.

• Set aside 13 percent of all affordable housing for families earning less than 30 percent of the state's median income.

• Require all state agencies to include a housing affordability impact statement when creating new regulations.

• Establish a state Housing Commission to develop a strategic housing plan and report annually to the Legislature.

Source: N.J. Legislature

©2008 Star Ledger
© 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The following article appeared in the Star Ledger newspaper on December 11, 2007.


Doria: Eco-rules should not block affordable housing
DEP seeking limits on developable land

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff

The state's housing chief and a key legislator said yesterday tougher environmental protection standards should be altered to help bolster New Jersey's affordable housing effort.

Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph Doria told the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee that while 1.3 million acres of land in the state remains undeveloped, standards proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection would limit any future housing development to 300,000.

"That's a serious issue," Doria said. "Will we have the land to provide housing? We have to look at environmental regulations that impact on housing. This is an inter-departmental responsibility."

The housing-related DEP regulations include preventing construction within 300 feet of streams that feed reservoirs, upgrading quality standards for the waterway, and prohibiting the construction of sewer lines near pristine waterways or endangered species habitats.

Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union), the Housing and Local Government Committee chairman, said state environmental officials and activists need to be brought into the affordable housing effort.

"There are people in the environmental community who want New Jersey to become one big green acre," he said, referring to the state's open space preservation program. "We all have to work together and they have to become major players in the development of housing."

Elaine Makatura, a DEP spokeswoman, said Doria and other state officials should bring their concerns to the department before making it a public issue.
"For the DEP to be part of the equation and be part of the decision-making, they must work through the (DEP) commissioner's office and come in and sit down and discuss it and work with staff to determine what role the DEP will play," she said. "Developers are not happy with those kind of restrictions. Those restrictions were put in place (proposed) to protect environmental resources like water and habitat."

Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden), a prime co-sponsor of a proposed 12-bill affordable housing reform package, said he intends to introduce the measures when the new Legislature convenes Jan. 8. Doria said he expects to offer housing plans on behalf of Gov. Jon Corzine's administration in March.

Doria said he expects his proposals will include providing housing aid for working-class families. He said, for example, a family of four with an annual income of $80,000 would qualify for a form of affordable housing.

Roberts and Doria were part of a long line of officials and housing advocates who addressed the Housing and Local Government Committee. More than 130 people crowded the hearing room and state troopers had to clear the doorways and send spectators to an adjoining room where testimony was piped in.

In a related development, the state Council on Affordable Housing has asked a state appeals court to grant a six-month extension of a Dec. 31 deadline to finalize a formula for determining how much affordable housing suburban and rural towns must provide.

On Jan. 25, an appeals court tossed out the council's formula for determining how much affordable housing must be provided by suburban and rural towns. A three-judge panel declared that the rules discriminated against low- and moderate-income households with children. The court noted that the cost of providing schools spurs towns to limit housing for families.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The following article appeared in the Star Ledger newspaper on December 12, 2007

Retooling affordable-housing rulesState will seek to increase the supply of units and to broaden eligibility

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff

Trying to confront New Jersey's shortage of affordable housing, the state is preparing regulations that would require that one in every five new houses or apartments be affordable for people who range from low-income to middle-class.
It means developers would have to erect more affordable housing and suburban and rural towns would have to accept it. The ratio was one in every eight houses and apartments, until a state appeals court in January tossed out the rules as discriminatory against low- income families. The rules were set by the state Council on Affordable Housing.

Under the new regulations, if a developer, for example, gains approval to erect 100 houses in wealthy Tewksbury in Hunterdon County, 20 of them must be affordable. If a developer constructs a 200-unit apartment building in Newark's reviving Penn Station neighborhood, 40 must be affordable. COAH is expected to give preliminary approval to the new regulations Monday.

State Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph Doria told a meeting of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey in Trenton yesterday that the regulations contain new financial advantages and allow developers to build more units per acre, which hopefully will encourage a mix of affordable housing with market-rate units.

"The new regulations will create a major incentive for developers to build on site," he said. "We will have economically integrated communities and, hopefully, racially."

Doria said much of the money to finance Gov. Jon Corzine's plan to erect 100,000 affordable units in 10 years will come from $168 million in builder fees that municipalities have been collecting and basically sitting on for as long as a decade.

The new regulations would give municipalities two years to develop a plan to use their affordable hous ing money and another two years to actually put up the housing. If a town does not meet the deadline, it will risk having the state confiscate the money and use it to build hous ing elsewhere.

Doria said that threat should spur towns to allow affordable housing within their borders. "If you don't spend it, you lose it," he said. "They will need to commit to using it within two years and spend it within four."

"The state does not have the funding to get this done alone," Doria said. "I can assure you the publication of the new rules next week will be a major step forward."
Doria said eligibility standards to qualify for affordable housing will be increased to include, for example, a family of four earning $83,000 annually, and a family mak ing as little as $17,000 a year.

The Legislature is moving to eliminate so-called regional contribution agreements that allow wealthy suburban and rural towns to sell their affordable housing obli gations to urban centers. However, Doria said that until the issue is decided, COAH's new rules will call for a contribution of $70,000 per unit from municipalities, up from $35,000.

The regulations also will cut back drastically on so-called hous ing filtering, the ability of towns to reduce their affordable housing ob ligations by claiming lower-income residents were finding affordable units vacated by other residents who had moved up to more expensive housing. Before the court tossed out COAH's regulations, council officials had calculated that filtering had provided 59,156 affordable units between 1989 and 2005. A consultant who helped prepare the new regulations found the number to be 26,744.

Doria said the task force he has developing affordable housing proposals will have to offer a plan for the Corzine administration by late March.
"We must create a housing policy for all of the state, for all of the people," he said. "We do that and I guarantee we will have affordable housing."
Once given preliminary approval by COAH, the rules will be open to public input and possible changes. They would become official June 2.

RIVERFRONT FLYER

The link/website below contains a flyer about contact information for the Riverfront development proposal on South Avenue in Cranford. Please help get the word out. Print out and give copies to your neighbors, friends, fellow commuters and other parents.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/937991/A-L-E-R-T