Aschenbach: Questions in Closed Session

Editor's note: This piece was written by Daniel Aschenbach, Commissioner of Public Affairs. He is responding to a proposed settlement between developer Lehigh Valley Corp. and the township regarding the vacant lot at 555 South Avenue East. It has not been edited. If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor, email michelle@patch.com.

This agreement completely abdicates Cranford's planning and zoning authority and settles for overdevelopment in an area that already has a major redevelopment project.  No one has talked to the Walnut Avenue school that is already at capacity; assessed the sewer costs; nor considered that design standards would be decided not in Cranford but at the county courthouse. I voted no maybe seven times already since 2009 on this and will find private funds to appeal.

Cranford should not in any way give in to this overreach of the court. For God sakes this developer is a hedge fund who could care less about Cranford let alone affordable housing.  The following is a slight revision of the questions I asked in CLOSED SESSION which should have been in open. They are not confidential and citizens should hear the discussion.   

Mr. Smith proposed that Cranford give up its planning and zoning authority which gives in to the assertion that Cranford did not address the state affordable housing objective.  Did we not show a good faith effort?  Prior to the lawsuit, the township included an affordable housing component in the 555, Riverfront and Woodmont plans and funded a master plan review ($135,000) which would establish a detailed housing element.  Did we not show a good faith effort? Did Cranford not meet over and over with the 555 property owner to narrow the differences in the proposed development plan? Why should we not assert that we made a strong good faith effort? By not appealing this issue now it sets up a precedent for the state to continue to interfere with the community's decisions and to permit the overdevelopment most have fought in Cranford for many years. I have tried to keep an open mind but at every step the 555 plan has gotten larger and larger and now this settlement has no community planning standards.

  To permit the decision making to end up in Elizabeth at the courthouse is the last straw of this almost socialistic  approach to Cranford's planning and zoning needs.  

So for my questions: (1) I would like to know what happens if we ditch this proposal?  What are the legal grounds for opposing it? I would also like to know what is the basis for an appeal should the case be settled against the township? And what time period would that happen? 

(2) I would like to know my legal obligation to the township should I provide the terms of the settlement (which are now in closed session) to the community?

(3) I would like the documents that define our assessment of our affordable housing obligation?  The last I had read, with the new state legislation and the county rehabilitated units we come close to the required number.   Shouldn't we present to the court 1) our prior good faith effort with this developer and then 2)an alternative approach to meet the state objective (this of course makes sense if the issue is affordable housing and not developer greed)  (4) I would like the opinion of another attorney on the impact of the pending state legislation S-1 on the court attitude and on this case. 

(5) I would like to know if there has been any studies done on the environmental and infrastructure issues with 555 South Avenue.  Has NJ Transit been consulted on the environmental issues? Has the sewer system been evaluated whether it can accept such a large development? 

(6) Before you abdicate Cranford planning and zoning authority to a judge can you provide me with examples where this abdication has happened elsewhere in NJ. 

(7) Why is there no design standards in the agreement? A hard working citizen task force in 2006-bipartisan-developed what was called a redevelopment plan. That plan went through both Township Committee and Planning Board review and now you plan to junk that work.  I am not a lawyer but some of the wording suggests they can put in the cheapest material and there is no recourse. 

(8) I would like a complete breakdown on the hours of both attorney and professional fees spent by Cranford on this in 2007,2008, 2009 and 2010.  I would also like the cost of what the court has spent to date on their review of this matter. 

(9) I would like to know if the school district has been consulted on this plan.  I count about 80 new students for the Walnut Avenue school from this and Riverfront. Shouldn't they have a role in this decision?

(10) I would like to see the financials of the hedge fund and also the property owner whether they can even do this project.  What recourse will we have should the project be half-constructed  and they go bankrupt.

(11) I would like to know whether the vacant land adjustment has been ruled on as yet.  I would also like to know if it hasn't what is the calculation on this as far as its impact on what the COAH numbers would be.   I was elected first in 1988 and I have since only tried to do what was right for the community.  That is the spirit of my questions.