The meeting will be held Monday, October 26th at North Plainfield Community Center, 614 Greenbrook Road at 7:30pm.
The attorneys, for the property owners of the Crystal Ridge development, have approached the borough to eliminate the age restriction. The impact on the borough, with respect to education costs, should concern all North Plainfield residents. It is important to note that a similar age restricted development has been proposed for the ‘Villa Maria’ property, now referred to as Watchung Hills. What follows the Crystal Ridge ruling could set precedent with regard to Watchung Hills and have significant impact on North Plainfield’s municipal and education expenses. The Crystal Ridge zoning change was intended to be on the agenda for tomorrow night’s joint meeting of Council, Board Of Adjustment, Planning Board. According to Jim McGarry’s letter (below), the zoning change was removed from the agenda despite his objections. Mr. McGarry was kind enough to allow us to post his letter and he urges all residents to attend Monday night’s meeting at Vermeule Community Center, 7:30pm.
Jim McGarry is the Republican Candidate for Borough Council. The posting of Jim’s letter is in the interest of the residents of North Plainfield and not meant to be partisan.
Jim’s Letter:
You will recall that the owners of the Crystal Ridge property have applied to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to drop the age restrictions on their property.
In the first public hearing before the BOA, the attorney for Crystal Ridge stated on the record that he has previously spoken with Mayor Mike Giordano, who indicated that he would favor the application, as long as it included a number of low-income housing units in the development. I paraphrase the attorney here, but believe a full transcription of the meeting will bear me out.
Aside from the legal question of whether the Mayor has tainted the application and our proceedings, I am concerned as to whether a decision in favor of the Crystal Ridge application would become a matter of binding legal precedent, perhaps in favor of the developer of the Villa Maria property? If so, the impact of the resultant increase in the public school enrollment could be enormous, contrary to Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein’s comments a few months ago.
Accordingly, I requested that this matter be included for full discussion during the October 26 Joint Meeting of the Borough Council, Mayor, Board of Education, Planning Board and Board of Adjustment.
Today (Friday, October 23rd – ed.), it became obvious that this subject has been pulled from the October 26 agenda, at the last minute, despite my objections.
I believe the members of NPCCR and every other concerned resident of North Plainfield should be made aware of these proceedings, attend the meeting on Monday and let our public officials know how they feel about this kind of decision-making.
Thanks
Jim
3 responses so far ↓
Greg Hatala // October 26, 2009 at 7:13 am |
This is solely and simply a money and profits issue, am I right?
A developer gets permission to build age-restricted condominiums at a point in the past, and does so (Crystal Ridge). For quite a while, it hasn’t been that completely anyway (I’m aware of different people who have lived there who didn’t fit the guidelines anyway), but who cares, why bother to make sure someone’s actually following laws? Then, when the developer can’t keep making his nice tidy profits because he can’t find enough senior citizens to live there, he applies for the rules to be changed in his favor.
The rulemakers agree provided that some politically-correct verbage is added (we need affordable housing? Not only do we meet our COAH requirements in North Plainfield, there are residences available for rent or sale all over town and prices are plummeting).
Let me try an analogy. Let’s say I buy a two-family home in North Plainfield, and rent it out, but after a while, darn it, I’m not making the kind of money I want to be making off the property. Should I be allowed to ask the borough if I can start breaking the house own into individual rooms and multiple-family units to rent because profits aren’t to my liking?
Are these the “new ideas” politicians in this town have?
Barbara Habeeb // October 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
It is dangerous if they agree to allow Crystal Ridge to lose the age restriction. It not only sets a precedent for the Villa Maria to do the same, but it will also be a huge detriment to our already overcrowded schools.
I made mention of this at last nights meeting. Will this too fall on deaf ears?
npadministrator // October 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
Apparently that decision goes to the Planning Board although I don’t know if it RESTS with the Planning Board. I know they vote on it, but that might be in terms of giving their opinion to the council. Someone may want to address this to the Planning Board.
The thing about Crystal Ridge is that we didn’t REQUIRE the age restriction when they made application. They OFFERED it. One would assume they did their homework in terms of marketing and cost, etc.
Hatala is right: if I owned a 2-family that wasn’t turning enough of a profit, I couldn’t appeal to the town, either. Why should they be able to?