HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ON RANDOLPH RD?

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

This subject has come up before the council time and time again.  Developers proposing high density housing on Randolph Rd.

In the Christmas spirit, let's take a visit with the "Ghost of Christmas Past"....

(Cut to the May 5th, 2003 council meeting, discussion on the sewer service plan...)

Mr Davis:  This is an issue that came up a month or two ago in reference to have a gravity fed line in that area which the fear was it would promote residential growth in the future.  Even though we said in the plan but it doesn’t even mean it would be constructed today, tomorrow, or ever…

Mayor Konopka:  And where was that?

Mr. Tobasco:

Where Randolph Rd goes away from Alexander Ave.

Mr. Davis:  I suggest we take it out of the plan.

Mr. Nunziato:  What happens is if you leave it in it is just an area where sewer can be considered.  If an application were to come in and the SED zone would require sewer the permits it and they just go for their construction permits.

Mr. Tobasco:  Take it out.

Mrs. Schomaker:  It also opens up residential right there.

Mr. Nunziato:  The residential component on Bry, they are smaller lots that have septic.  If they have septic failures and there is no sewer available again what they would have to do is restone the existing bags and either bury it onsite if they have the room or dispose of it as hazardous waste.  Again, these were just areas for planning purposes.  Again an SED zone that might want to require sewer, smaller residential areas that might want sewer because it is septic.  We can absolutely take them out and then 2 years from now we can do a plan analysis.

Mr. Tobasco:  Take them out.

Mr DiBella:  Take them all out.

Pretty clear to me.  No residential on Randolph Rd.  Period.

So, Jim, this is why my opinion of Joe DiBella did a 180.  He promised that Randolph Rd would not see high density housing and now he's shoving it right down our throats.

Well, get ready because we are going to shove it right back!

[Jay_Migliaccio]

WELL JIM, WE'RE WAITING!

I'm dying to hear how your buddy the Mayor will try to spin this one!

[Joan_Leimbach]

I don't know if I missed something in another thread, but Sharon and Jay, can you explain exactly what is going on with Randolph Road?  I am presuming PRC? If so, is this part of the master plan or an approval to a builder?
Forgive my ignorance!!

Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy holidays

Joan

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

Yes, Joan, they rezoned approx 200 acres to allow high density age restricted housing 6 units to an acre.

My prediction is in Spring 2007, when there will be an opportunity for developer to object to our COAH plan, the age restricted development will be replaced (or in addition to) with a non age restricted inclusionary development that gives the town 150% or more of their COAH requirement for FAMILY units.

This is NOT  currently residentially zoned, and I had the mayors assurances over the past 3 years that it would stay non residential.

So much for his word.

Have  a great holiday, Joan, and thank you for all you do with the BOE, I appreciate it.

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

This is also the area that was mention in the 2002 election flyer by the HOWELL CITIZENS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT and the HOWELL COMMITTEE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT, both known PAC's supporting Wayne Lucey and future Republican candidates in Howell.

Quote from the flyer:

Alvarez and Pettignano-as well as Tobasco advocate bonding for the Rt9 sewer lines,sewer lines that will tie into Lakewood and enable the development explosion of Alexander Ave and Randolph Rd: 3000+ low income apartments

This paragraph was followed by another mentioning "the hassidic exodus into southern Howell"

This from an organization the mayor defends.  I mention this only because the mayor has branded certain individuals as anti semites in public, but I guess it's OK when they support his agenda.

In case anyone is confused about why the HGCC would be against Pete Tobasco, remember he was not their first pick, Marcie Nowicki was and then dropped out.  The Republicans were forced by law to run Peter on the ticket as the next highest voter getter.  They didn't want him then, and they still don't want him now.

[Joe_DiBella]

Much misinformation abound. Typical I suspect. There is no approval for residential anything near Randolf Road. This is a lie being spun for politically driven reasons. Here are the facts, which as usual get in the way of the fear mongers who think active seniors are "ok" when it benefits where they live only.

On active seniors, as Paul Harvey says, "now, for the rest of the story" or at least the truth that is:

1)  4 units to the acre, not 6. The Villages by the way is
    4 units to the acre. It was at 6. I made the motion
    to 4 which passed,

2)  The posisbiliy of 6 units to the acre if the apaplicant
    satisfies 150% of their COAH obligation in their      
    project,

3) The plan called for a max of 400 units on any such
   project. I motioned to cap at 300 but could not get
   the votes. A compromise of 350 max was reached,

4)  Any COAH obligation created, incuding the 50%
    more issue, would have to be in that project, all
    subject to the 350 max,

5)  Any area must have 30 buildable acres. That means
    if they have 50 acres, but 40 are wet, no go,

6)  Dwellings can be no taller than 3 stories,

7)  Active seniors would be a conditional use in HD-1
    HD-3 and SED 2,

      There is NO guaranteed approval on ANYTHING.    
     Active seniors are a 'conditional' use in these areas.
     There are no approvals for High Density anything.
     This is purely a part of the doom and gloom machine,

COAH obligations are a serious issue and can be addressed. Plus, no one can know the future of COAH regulations, changes that could be made and the like. This COAH 'will end the world fear mongering' is just wrong and it is creating mis information for the public.

As an aside, and this does not weigh in any planning issues, but note that a single active project at 350 units would generate EVERY YEAR in excess of $5,000,000 in local tax revenue. With the non senior COAH obligation it would throw off that could generate school kids, it would be limited at best and the in excess of $5,000,000 in tax revenue would absord that 10 times over.  If you added up most the ratables on Rt 9 in the newly built areas it does not amount to $5,000,000.

We need to be mindful of revenue issues and how we will pay for things in our community. The 'fear mongers' refuse to share this with you because when the average tax payer hears this it is most enlightening.

Lets look at the facts and avoid the 'fear mongering'.

Most Respectfully,
Joseph M. DiBella

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

1.  What density the Villages is has no bearing on  the current zoning climate.

2.  How are they satisfying the non age restricted portion of the COAH requirement?

3.  The original plan called for 300 units max, so 350 is not a compromise by any means.

4.  Where are the non age restricted COAH units going?

5.  30 buildable acres?  180 units minimum.  But if they have 50 acres with 30 buildable they can still build 300 units.

6.  Who wants a 3 story building on Randolph Rd or 547?

7.Condition use- Definition from the MLUL-

a use permitted in a particular zoning district only upon a showing that such use in a specified location will comply with the conditions and standards for the location or operation of such use as contained in the zoning ordinance, and upon the issuance of an authorization therefor by the planning board

Meaning that if the applicant fulfills all the conditions (and it won't be that hard to do) the planning MUST approve the application.

I am not discussing future COAH obligations, I am discussing previous approvals which are currently being constructed and will incur an obligation when they are CO'd.  There is at least one developer who is aware of our dilemma and is waiting in the wings to bring it to the attention of COAH and/or a judge in order to construct non age restricted high density housing.  And since the mayor is not interested in addressing the issue, he is allowing Howell to be exposed to serious consequences.

And by the time it actually happens, the mayor will be long gone and we will be left holding the bag, just as we were with the Fountains, Adelphia Greens, Toscana,  Countryside Apartments and the "army barracks" by 195 and rt 547.


If age restricted housing is so great, with all the senior housing in Lakehurst, why is the Lakehurst school district almost in financial ruin?

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

It's not fear mongering, it's called using a little common sense.

The residents DON'T WANT IT!

Who are you to force it upon us?

Those are your words at the top[ of this thread, verbatim.  You ran on a platform of restricting residential development and now you are going back on your word.

[Vincent_Mattera]

ok, so how much in additional expenses are required to handle the people that 5 million in new taxes bring in?
How many more police with vehicles will we need. How many more fire personnel (trained for "high rise") and how much new equipment will we need? How about EMS? seniors tend to need an ambulance more than most.
Infrasturcture expenses, snow removal on public roads, road maintenance, etc.
townships employees at town hall to handle the additional influx of people with permits, problems, tax issues, etc.?
The list goes on and on, but no one ever does the balance sheet. We show the revenue, but NEVER the expense!

[Joe_DiBella]

If the Villages does not matter, I guess Lakehurst does not either.

The fact is we are not forcing anything on anyone. There is a fair and open process. A board made up of community volunteers is voting on this and how can you, with any credibility, suggest the residents do not want this? Has a statistically representative sampling beedn done of all 52,000 people or are you making this statement based on the people you speak too - some who only know the parts of the story you have elected to tell them.

And please tell us - who is this developer waiting in the wings that I allegedly know of and am doing nothing about? What inside "scoop" do you have? I'd like to know so please share it herein.

I stand by my statement that the rhetoric on this by many is pure and simple fear mongering - half baked stories and a denial of any other view that is different from what they believe to be right.

Again, I guess active seniors on Rt. 9 to resolve the Fountains is ok but no where else. If it helps some that personally benefit by it, then its perfectly great, right?

Lets have a balanced debate on the issues and enough with the 'sky is falling'. I think when the people hear all the facts, this fear mongering will have to stop.

Most Respectfully,
Joseph M. DiBella

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

Actually I think our attorney made our position very clear at the planning board meetings, we wanted NOTHING there.  YOU came up with the compromise.

348 apartments or 98 seniors?...yea we'll take it


0 residential or 350 age restricted?....no, sorry we'll pass.

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

How are you personally benefitting by letting developers build 350 residential units where non are currently allowed?

[Charlene Ryan]

I'll take part in that survey.

Question:  Do you think Howell needs high density housing?  Yes or No?

Answer:  NO!

Anyone else care to participate?

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

Elon developers.......Skudera.......AST......any one working with Bob Yuro, engineer.....several planners familiar with our town....take your pick......

It's all public record...these people aren't stupid.

[Jim_Cooper]

Remember when the "Army Barracks" was a community garden?

To quote a famous movie line:

"My God. What have we done?"