objections by cda (hekemian) to cranford's objections to site plan hearing findings
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
1/91
202 CARNEGIE CENTER, CN 5226, PRINCETON NJ 08540-5226TELEPHONE: (609) 924 0808 FAX: (609) 452-1882
WWW.HILLWALLACK.COM
STEPHEN EISDORFER, ESQ.PARTNER, LAND USE LITIGATION AND APPLICATIONS
DIRECTDIAL: (609) [email protected]
January 25, 2013
Hon. Lisa F. ChrystalSuperior Court of New Jersey
Union County Court House11th Floor2 Broad St.
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207
Re: LEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. v. TOWNSHIP OF
CRANFORD et al,DKT NO. UNN-L-0140-08
CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC et alv. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al,
DKT NO. UNN-L-003759-08(consolidated)
Dear Judge Chrystal:
Plaintiffs Cranford Development Associates LLC et al (hereinafter
in the above entitled consolidated matter submit this
response to the objections to the report of Special Hearing Officer Douglas
Wolfson filed by defendants Township of Cranford and the Planning Board of
the Township of Cranford . For the reasons
set forth below, the Court should determine that those objections provide no
basis for rejecting the findings and recommendations of the Special Hearing
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
2/91
Officer. Rather, the Court should adopt the findings and recommendations of
the Special Hearing Officer in their entirety with the clarifications suggested by
CDA in its letter of November 30, 2012, which is attached to this Memorandum
as Appendix 1.
POINT I
THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER AND THIS COURT AREREQUIRED TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION UNDER BOTH THE
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE MUNICIPAL LAND USELAW AND THE SPECIAL STANDARDS GOVERNINGINCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COURT-
granting a site- of the issues before the Special
Hearing Officer were governed by two complementary standards those that
generally govern applications for site plan approval under the Municipal Land
Use Law and those that specifically govern inclusionary developments designed
to satisfy municipal fair share housing obligations.
A. STANDARDS UNDER THE MLUL
Like a planning board, the Special Hearing Officer was required to
recommend approval of the application unless it violates specific standards
contained in the land
development ordinance, as amended by Cranford Ordinance No. 2012-11. As
construed by the Supreme Court in Pizzo Mantin Group v. Randolph, 137 N.J.
216 (1994), the Municipal Land Use Law bars the Planning Board from denying
an application on any other grounds. In particular, the Special Hearing Officer
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
3/91
could not recommend disapproval of the application based solely upon the
general planning considerations, the general purposes of zoning, or general
considerations of the public welfare, but only based upon noncompliance with
the specific standards enumerated in the
ordinances. Id. at 228-230.
The courts have consistently applied the standards enunciated in Pizzo
Mantin. Green Meadows at Montville, L.L.C. v. Planning Board of Montville, 329
N.J. Super. 12, 13 (App. Div. 2000); W.L. Goodfellows and Co. of Turnersville,
Inc. v. Washington Township Planning Board, 345 N.J.Super. 109 (App. Div.
2001); Allocco and Luccarelli v. Holland, 299 N.J. Super 491, 497 (Law Div.
1997).
B.CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR SHARE HOUSINGOBLIGATIONS
The Supreme Court has held that the duties imposed municipalities by
the New Jersey Constitutional have both a "negative" and an "affirmative"
component. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151,179-
80 (1975) (Mt. Laurel I). Municipalities have a "negative" duty not to take
actions that will thwart or preclude the provision of low and moderate income
housing. Id. at 180. Among other things, they must remove all requirements
unnecessary for the protection of public health or safety that directly or
indirectly generate costs or otherwise impede or prevent the construction of
affordable housing.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
4/91
In order to meet their Mount Laurel obligations, municipalities, atthe very least, must remove all municipally created barriers to the
construction of their fair share of lower income housing. Thus, tothe extent necessary to meet their prospective fair share andprovide for their indigenous poor (and, in some cases, a portion of
the region's poor), municipalities must remove zoning andsubdivision restrictions and exactions that are not necessary toprotect health and safety. [Southern Burlington County NAACP v.Mt. Laurel Township, 92 N.J.158, 259 (1983) (Mt Laurel II)
See, e.g., Home Builders League of South Jersey v. Berlin Township, 81 N.J. 127
(1983); Toll Brothers, Inc. v. West Windsor, 303 N.J. Super. 518, 541-42 (Law
Div 1996), , 334 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 2001),
pertinent part on opinion below, 173 N.J. 502 (2002); AMG Realty v. Warren
Township, 207 N.J. Super. 388, 445-46 (Law Div. 1984); Urban League of Essex
County v. Mahwah, 207 N.J. Super. at 208-237. This includes elimination of
requirements or standards that would be permissible in other contexts.
Zilinsky v. Board of Adjustment of Verona, 105 N.J. 363, 367-68 (1987).
Municipalities also have an "affirmative" duty to take such positive
actions as may be necessary to actually create a realistic opportunity for the
creation of the units. Mt. Laurel I, 67 N.J. at 179; Mt. Laurel II, 92 N.J. at 260-
62. These positive actions include both enactment of suitable zoning
ordinances and such other exercises of the municipal police power as may be
necessary to make it realistically likely that the housing will be built. Mt.
Laurel II, 92 N.J. at 260-77.
The negative duty to remove restrictions and exactions unnecessary to
protect public health and safety and the affirmative duty to take additional
steps necessary to create realistic housing opportunities do not cease with the
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
5/91
mere enactment of zoning ordinances. They continue throughout the
development process.
It was never intended in Mount Laurel I that this awesome
constitutional obligation, designed to give the poor a fair chance forhousing, be satisfied by meaningless amendments to zoning orother ordinances. "Affirmative," in the Mount Laurel rule, suggeststhat the municipality is going to do something, and "realistic
opportunity" suggests that what it is going to do will make itrealistically possible for lower income housing to be built. [Mt.Laurel II, 92 N.J. at 261-62.]
These duties, for example, bar planning boards from unduly prolonging the
development application process, from unreasonably denying approvals, from
failing to remove unreasonable restrictions or exactions, and from imposing
unreasonable conditions upon approvals which they grant.
The special duties and standards imposed by the Mt. Laurel principles
upon municipal planning boards are exemplified by the decisions in Morris
County Fair Housing Council v. Boonton Township, 220 N.J.Super. 388 (Law
Div. 1987), , 230 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 1989). In that case, the
Morris Township Planning Board denied an application for site plan approval of
a Mt. Laurelproject. The planning board denied the application on the
grounds that the application violated a zoning requirement that the project
have a landscaped buffer between it and existing adjacent houses. Morris
Township Planning Board emphasized that it was entitled to demand strict
compliance with the terms of its ordinance and that its decision was entitled to
a presumption of correctness. The court (Skillman, J. sitting) held that the
planning board Mt. Laurelstandards.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
6/91
220 N.J. Super. at 403-
remove municipally created barriers to the construction of affordable housing
as set forth in Mt. Laurel II, 92 N.J. at 259, the court held that, as applied to
proceedings before municipal planning boards, " the thrust of the Mount Laurel
II opinion . . . [is] that zoning and related provisions should be flexibly applied
in the areas zoned for Mount Laurelhousing." 220 N.J. Super. at 404.
The court held that, in light of this standard, that Morris Township
court found that the Planning Board could and should have granted a design
waiver from the buffer requirement.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the conclusion and reasoning
of the trial court, modifying the decision only by noting that the relief granted
by the trial court should have been a variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2),
rather than a design waiver. Morris County Fair Housing Council v. Boonton
Township, 230 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 1989).
The special duties and standards imposed by the Mt. Laurelprinciples
have been codified and elaborated by the Council on Affordable Housing
("COAH") in regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act of 1985. N.J.S.A.
52:27D-301 et seq. In adopting the Fair Housing Act, the Legislature created
the COAH and charged it with the "mission" of "bringing about statewide
compliance with the Mount Laurelobligation." Hills v. Bernards Township, 103
N.J. 1, 56 (1986). It incorporated into the statute the constitutional standards
enunciated by the Supreme Court. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-2, 3.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
7/91
The Fair Housing Act specifically mandates that the municipalities that
wish to secure the benefits of substantive certification must demonstrate that
The combination of the elimination of unnecessary housing cost-
generating features from the municipal land use ordinances andregulations, and the affirmative measures in the housing elementand implementation plan make the achievement of themunicipality's fair share of low and moderate income housing
realistically possible. . . [N.J.S.A. 52:27D-314(b)]
The COAH has implemented these constitutional standards through its
regulations, including N.J.A.C. 5:97-10.1 et seq. The COAH has expressly
enactment of ordinances. The COAH has mandated that "[i]n order to receive
and retain substantive certification, municipalities shall eliminate development
standards that are not essential to protect the public welfare and to expedite
(or "fast track") municipal approvals/denials on inclusionary development
applications." N.J.A.C. 5:97-10.1(a).
Th
applications, municipal boards must not challenge the zoning of the site as
shall be whether the design of the inclusionary development is consistent with
the zoning ordinance and the mandate of the Fair Housing Act regarding
unnecessary cost generating features." N.J.A.C. 5:97-10.1(b). Moreover, where
variances or waivers are needed to facilitate the development, "[m]unicipalities
shall be expected to cooperate with developers of inclusionary developments in
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
8/91
granting reasonable variances necessary to construct the inclusionary
development." Id.
comments published in the New Jersey Register at the time this regulation
then numbered N.J.A.C. 5:93-10.1 et seq.--was promulgated:
RESPONSE: A municipality, to meet its Mount Laurel obligationsmust provide a realistic opportunity for the creation of affordable
housing, including the elimination of barriers to the creation ofaffordable housing. This obligation continues during site planreview. It is not possible to envision every problem that can occurwhen a specific development takes the form of a site plan
application. Although the mapping of sites included in a housingelement may indicate the approximate extent of wetlands, theprecise extent of the wetlands may be greater than originally
envisioned. Whereas the yard requirements imposed on specificdevelopments may seem reasonable on paper, their application on
a site may not allow the completion of a proposed low andmoderate income development. In some cases, such scenariosmight require a plan amendment expanding the number ofmunicipal sites assigned to address the housing obligation.However, in other cases, the granting of reasonable variances will
address potential design problems encountered in developing aninclusionary site. The granting of such variances to further a
s Mount Laurel obligation is consistent with theMLUL.
RESPONSE: At times, the zoning of a specific site may appear tofoster an inclusionary development. However, when designing theproject, the combination of buffer areas, set-backs, distancebetween buildings and environmental regulations may not allowthe developer to complete the entire development. In suchcircumstances, it is expected that the municipality will cooperate
with the developer so that he/she will be able to build the entiredevelopment. . . .
The COAH regulations are applicable to the present case because the
Supreme Court has expressly enjoined the courts to conform to the COAH's
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
9/91
policy decisions so as to avoid the possibility that cases might have different
outcomes depending upon whether they are decided by COAH or the courts
While the Legislature has left a continuing role under the Act for
the judiciary in Mount Laurelmatters, any such proceedings beforea court should conform wherever possible to the decisions, criteria,and guidelines of the Council. We do not believe the Legislaturewanted lower income housing opportunities to develop in two
different directions at the same time, contrary to soundcomprehensive planning. [Hills Development Corp. v. BernardsTownship, 103 N.J. 1, 63 (1986).]
See, e.g., Toll Brothers, Inc. v. West Windsor, 303 N.J. Super. at 544-45
(applying COAH standards); see generally, Bi-County Development Co. v.
Oakland, 224 NJ Super 455 (Law Div. 1988)
POINT II
THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICERUNDER THE SAME STANDARD BY WHICH APPELLATE
COURTS REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURTS
This Court is to review the findings and recommendations of the Special
Hearing Officer under the same standards that would be utilized by an
appellate court in reviewing the findings and conclusions of a trial court.
Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140, 146 n. 2 (2009); State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 93
(2008). The Court must accept the factual findings if supported by substantial
credible evidence on the record, but may consider determinations of law de
novo. Thus, in State v. Chun, the Supreme Court declared:
In reviewing the findings and conclusions set forth by the Special
Master in his report, we employ our ordinary standards of review,considering them in the same manner as we would the findings
and conclusions of a judge sitting as a finder of fact. We thereforeaccept the fact findings to the extent that they are supported by
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
10/91
substantial credible evidence in the record, see Locurto, supra, 157N.J. at 472, 724 A.2d 234, but we owe no particular deference to
the legal conclusions of the Special Master, see Manalapan Realty,L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d1230 (1995). [Id. at 93.]
The significance of the standard of
in this context is illuminated by its
citation ofState v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 472 (1999). In that opinion, the
Supreme Court held that an appellate court reviewing the findings of trial court
is not permitted to weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or
make conclusions about the evidence. It must merely test whether the
findings could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence
present in the record :
The Law Division's review of the Municipal Court's implicit
the printed record, and ... the best and most accurate record [oforal testimony] is like a dehydrated peach; it has neither the
v. Ford Motor Co., 19 N.J.Super. 100, 104, 88 A.2d 235
(App.Div.1952). The Appellate Division was also obligated tooperate in that it was not permitted to
conclusions about the evidence. [It was restricted to the test of]
have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in therecord. State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615, 689 A.2d 132 (1997)(quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 162, 199 A.2d 809). {State v.
Locurto, 157 N.J. at 472 (brackets in original).]
As the analysis bel
consists of demands that this Court should reject the findings of the Special
Hearing Officer and should i weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of
witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence. Application of the
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
11/91
standard set forth in Abbottand State v. Chunrequires this Court to reject all
of such demands.
POINT III
THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLY FOUND THAT
CDA GAVE SUFFICIENT PRIOR NOTICE OF THE HEARINGS
Cranford Township has objected on various grounds to both the form
and scope of the public notice.
This objection was not raised in a timely manner. CDA requested lists of
the owners of properties within 200 feet of the Block 291, Lot 15.03 (215
Birchwood Avenue) and Block 292, Lot 2 (235 Birchwood Avenue) on May 25
and June 1, 2012. See Exhibit 1,
objections. These requests were reviewed by Cran
municipal engineer, and tax assessor. Id. The list of parties to whom notice
would be given was printed on the site plan application delivered to Cranford
on June 6, 2012. CDA circulated its proposed form of public notice to Philip
Morin, Esq., counsel for Cranford, and to the Special Master by e-mail on July
20, 2012, and solicited their comments. Email from S. Eisdorfer to E.
McKenzie and P. Morin, July 20, 2012, attached as Exhibit A to Certification of
S. Eisdorfer (which is attached as Appendix 2). CDA received no response from
counsel for Cranford. Id.
To effectuate notice 10 days before the scheduled hearing on August 8,
2012, notice had to be in the hands of the relevant newspapers by July 27,
2012. Having received no objections from Cranford either as to the list of
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
12/91
persons to be given notice or to the form of notice, CDA proceeded to mail the
on July 6, 2012. Certification of S. Smith, August 6, 2012 (Ex. A-1). Cranford
first objected to the form of notice on August 3, 2012-- a week after notice was
given and at a time when any revision in the notice would have required a
postponement of the hearing.
Thus, Cranford knowingly bypassed the opportunity raise its concerns
about the form of notice or the identity of the persons to whom notice would be
given at a time when these could be changed without affecting the date of the
hearing. It did so even though CDA expressly solicited it to identify any
concerns that it might have. It made this tactical choice at the same that it
was petitioning the Court to compel the postponement of the hearing for at
least a month. Under such circumstances, the Township should not be
permitted to be heard on any belated claims as to the form of the notice or the
persons to whom it was given.
In any event, none of objections is justified. First, Cranford
asserts that notice was defective because it listed only the first scheduled date
for hearings and not any subsequent dates. The Appellate Division has
expressly held that the requirement in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-11 that the notice state
requires that only the first hearing date
be specified in the notice. Pond Run Watershed Association v. Township of
Hamilton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 397 N.J.Super. 335, 342-43 (App. Div.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
13/91
2008).1 Cranford cites no contrary authority and nothing in the language of
the statute requires any different practice.
The Township also asserts that notice should have been given to persons
within 200 feet of the proposed improvement to Birchwood Avenue. N.J.S.A.
40:55D-
of all real property shown on the current tax duplicates located within the State
and within 200 feet in all directions of the property which is the subject of the
privately owned properties off-tract which
the applicant owns, or intends to acquire, for the purpose of providing
infrastructure to serve the proposed project, see, e.g., Brower Development
Corp. v. Planning Board of Township of Clinton, 255 N.J.Super. 262 (App. Div.
1992), the term has never been extended to include proposed improvements of
public infrastructure on publicly owned property.
Such an extension would have absurd consequences.
theory, an application that requires improvement of several hundred feet of
existing public water pipe within a public street bed would, for example,
require individual mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of the
existing street bed. An application that might require improvement of an
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
14/91
existing public water or sewer pumping station a half mile away from the
proposed project would require individual mailed notice to all property owners
within 200 feet of the pumping station or perhaps even all properties served by
the pumping station.
In the present instance, all of the proposed improvements are
improvements to an existing public street and within the existing public right
In addition, the Township has not demonstrated that any properties
within 200 feet of the proposed street improvement were not provided
individual mail notice. The maps that it has included in Exhibits C and D to
Attachment 1 of its objections suggest that there may in fact not be any such
properties.
Finally, the Township objects to the description of the proposed street
improvement in connection with the proposed project. Specifically, it contends
that the notice gives the impression that it has already been determined that
the street improvement had been or would be approved. The language to which
Cranford objects is the italicized language in the following paragraph of the
notice:
The applicant, Cranford Development Associates, LLC, is seekingimplementation of the site-
the Order Granting Remedy in Exclusionary Zoning Litigationentered on December 9, 2011 in the above entitled litigation in theform of preliminary and final site plan approval for a residentialdevelopment consisting of 360 residential units, of which 15percent will be units reserved for, and affordable to, low or
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
15/91
moderate income households. The project will include a three-story residential structure over podium parking, a four-story
residential structure, and a four-level parking structure, togetherwith drainage structures. The residential units in the uppermoststory of each building will include a loft level. The project will also
include exterior surface parking spaces. Altogether the project willprovide 667 parking spaces. Ingress and egress will be ontoBirchwood Avenue. A stretch of Birchwood Avenue will be regradedto one foot above the flood hazard area design flood elevation.
In context, the italicized sentence is plainly part of the description of the
project for which CDA was seeking approval. Contrary to the contentions of
the Township, nothing in the notice assumed that, or purported to predict
whether, the Special Hearing Officer would approve the application or any part
of it. The notice merely conformed to the statutory requirement that the notice
must -
11.
POINT IV
THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLY FOUND THAT
THE PLAN MIGHT NOT SATISFY NJDEP PERMITTINGSTANDARDS ARE NOT PROPER BASES FOR DENYINGAPPROVAL
The Special Hearing Officer carefully weighed the evidence offered by
CDA and Cranford as to whether the project would satisfy state regulatory
standards as to wetlands, construction in flood hazard areas, and stormwater
management. He affirmatively found that the plan would satisfy all of those
standards. hese findings
are amply supported by credible evidence in the record. As discussed below,
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
16/91
the evidence, rejecting, for example,
the relevance, credibility, and weight of the testimony of the various expert
witnesses.
The Special Hearing Officer, however, made additional findings on these
points which are just as important. He repeatedly noted that these issues are
properly matters that must be decided by the NJDEP. He found that CDA has
in fact made applications for NJDEP approval of its proposed wetlands
transition area waiver, its stormwater management plan, and flood hazard area
permit. Cranford can raise any concerns that it may have as to these issues
before the NJDEP. Moreover, it has in fact done so. Report at pp. 21, 24, 26.
Letter from R. Marsden to Engineering Supervisor for Union County, NJDEP,
January 3, 2012 (Ex. A-26); Memorandum from R. Marsden to V. Opara,
NJDEP, August 2, 2012 (Ex. A-27). For this reason, objections based on
concerns that the plan may not meet those standards are not legitimate bases
for denying this application.
As noted by the Special Hearing Officer, issues of protection of wetlands,
flood control, and stormwater management are entirely governed by regulations
issued by the NJDEP.2 As the Court recognized in its Order of December 9,
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
17/91
2012, CDA cannot construct the proposed inclusionary development without
first securing permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. Specifically, because a portion of the project lies in the so-called
Hazard Area Pe
governed by regulations issued by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, N.J.A.C. 7:13-1 et seq. pursuant to the Flood
Hazard Area Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq. The scope of the NJDEP
review of an application for an individual Flood Hazard Area Permit is very
stormwater management regulations and NJDEP flood hazard regulations.
N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.1(b). In addition, CDA must file an application under the
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq., for approval of a
wetlands transition area averaging plan.
As found by the Special Hearing Officer, CDA filed application for a
wetlands transition area averaging plan and an individual Flood Hazard Area
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
18/91
Permit in December 2011. Report at pp. 21, 24, 26. The Flood Hazard Area
Permit application specifically addressed compliance with wetland regulations,
stormwater management regulations and flood hazard regulations. As required
by the NJDEP regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:13-16.1 et seq. CDA provided public
notice, including notice to Cranford Township. Public notices of CDA
application for flood hazard area permit and wetlands permit, December 9,
2011 (Ex. A-19). Cranford Township made extensive submissions to the
NJDEP in opposition to these applications. The NJDEP issued a deficiency
notice requesting additional information as to the flood hazard area permit. In
response, CDA provided supplemental information in February 2012, including
modifications of its proposed detention basin for stormwater management.
NJDEP issued a second deficiency notice identifying one substantive issue,
which as discussed in detail below, can only be addressed with the consent of
Cranford.
For purposes of the review of the site plan application, it would not be
the proper function of a planning board or of the Special Hearing Officer to
assume the functions of the NJDEP. Dowel Associates v. Harmony Township
Land Use Board, 403 N.J.Super. 1, 30-37 (App. Div. 2008). Where the project
requires a permit by the NJDEP, a planning board cannot substitute its
judgment for the NJDEP but must defer to the determination of that agency. As
the Appellate Division held in Dowel, a closely analogous case:
[I]f the DEP determines that the [sanitary sewage} disposal systemwas safe and the technical storm-water issues were adequatelyaddressed, the subdivision application would have to be granted
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
19/91
because there would be no basis for denial by the Board. [Id. at35.]
The proper function of a planning board or the Special Hearing Officer--
is merely to determine whether it is infeasible for CDA to comply with NJDEP
standards. Id. at 30-35. A determination that compliance with NJDEP
standards is not infeasible does not involve any actual determination as to
compliance with those standards a function reserved to NJDEP but merely a
threshold determination that the applicant has proposed a project sufficiently
specific and detailed that NJDEP could review it. Id.
The proper course where a project requires NJDEP permits is not for the
planning board or the Special Hearing Officer to hear the same evidence that
would be presented to the NJDEP but simply to condition the site plan
approval upon the applicant securing the necessary permits from the NJDEP.
The MLUL provides that
In the event that development proposed by an application for
development requires an approval by a governmental agency otherthan the municipal agency, the municipal agency shall, inappropriate instances, condition its approval upon the subsequent
approval of such governmental agency. . . .[N.J.S.A. 40:55D-22(b)(emphasis added).]
In appropriate circumstances, a planning board must follow this course and it
is reversible error for it to do otherwise. See Dowel, 403 N.J. Super. at 35;
Save Hamilton Open Space v .Hamilton Township Planning Board, 404
N.J.Super. 278 (App. Div. 2008); W.L. Goodfellows and Co. of Turnersville, Inc.
v. Washington Township Planning Board, 345 N.J.Super. 109 (App. Div. 2001).
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
20/91
Thus, must
be denied for failure to demonstrate that it complies with State standards
governing freshwater wetlands, construction in flood hazard areas, or
stormwater management must be rejected for two reasons. First, the Special
proposed project complies with all relevant
standards are amply supported by credible evidence in the record before him.
Second, because it is NJDEP that must ultimately determine whether these
standards are met, this was not even a proper consideration for the Special
Hearing Officer.
POINT V
THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLYRECOMMENDED THAT CDA SHOULD BE PERMITTED TOELEVATE OF A STRETCH OF BIRCHWOOD AVENUE
Cranford particularly objects to the portion of the Special Hearing
at its own expense to
elevate a portion of Birchwood Avenue in front of its property as shown in the
proposed site plan (Ex. A-4). Cranford offers a variety of different objections to
locations in its submission. We shall address them systematically here,
regardless of where they occur.
A. THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLY HELDTHAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUIRINGCDA TO SEEK A HARDSHIP WAIVER FROM NJDEPFLOOD HAZARD AREA PERMIT STANDARDS RATHERTHAN PERMITTING CDA TO ELEVATE A STRETCH OF
BIRCHWOOD AVENUE.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
21/91
Cranford asserts that CDA should not be permitted to elevate a stretch of
Birchwood Avenue. Rather, it asserts, CDA should be required to seek a
hardship waiver from NJDEP a Permit standards.
the Mt. Laurelprinciples. As set forth above, once the Court has awarded a site
facilitate construction of the court-mandated inclusionary development on that
site. As part of its negative obligations, Cranford is required to remove all
part of its affirmative obligations, the municipality is required to act
affirmatively to facilitate construction of the proposed inclusionary
development on the site.
In the present instance, the undisputed evidence is that CDA requires a
Flood Hazard Area Permit to construct the proposed inclusionary development.
Report at 35. If NJDEP does not grant the permit, construction of the project is
impossible and provision of low and moderate income housing on the site will
be thwarted. Id. NJDEP has issued a deficiency notice on the grounds that
Building A, which lies within the flood fringe, does not have a roadway access
that is elevated one foot above the flood hazard design elevation. Specifically,
NJDEP has interpreted its regulation, N.J.A.C. &:13-11.5(h)(2), to require not
only that there be on-site roadway access elevated one foot above the flood
hazard design elevation but also that the public street onto which that
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
22/91
driveway exits also be elevated one foot above the flood hazard design elevation.
Report at 30.
Elevating Birchwood Avenue in the vicinity of the westernmost driveway
would bring the project into compliance with N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.5(h) (2), as
construed by NJDEP. Report at 30-31. There is no other feasible means of
doing so. Id. at 31-32.
As found by the Special Hearing Officer, the proposed elevation of
Birchwood Avenue does not create any threat to public health and safety. To
the contrary, it will enhance public health and safety. Report at pp. 32-35. As
acknowledged by Cranford Fire Chief Dolan, it will provide an access to the site
for emergency vehicles, such as fire equipment, even under flood conditions.
In addition, because elevation of the roadway will also involve installation of
additional storm drains, it will decrease the amount of stormwater that flows
down Birchwood Avenue. Id.
Thus,
improvement is creating a municipal obstacle to inclusionary development that
is It violates both the
Mt. Laurel II.
Cranford urges that CDA be required to attempt to develop the project in
a manner that violates NJDEP regulations and to seek relief from the NJDEP
under its hardship waiver regulation, N.J.A.C. 7:13-9.8. Given the Special
on public health and safety, Cranford offers no justification for this position
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
23/91
other than its implicit preference to obstruct inclusionary development on the
site rather than facilitating it. Certainly, there can be no public policy
justification for an insistence on a design that NJDEP has determined to be in
where the
public health safety than the non-compliant design. Id. at 35.
Cranford offered no expert testimony as to whether NJDEP would be
likely to grant a waiver under N.J.A.C. 7:13-9.8. Precisely because it is feasible
ordinance in a manner that fully complies with NJDEP standards, this would
foreseeably be, at best, a disfavored request for hardship waiver under N.J.A.C.
7:13-9.8.
Hardship waivers are governed by N.J.A.C. 7:13-9.8, which provides in
pertinent part:
7:13-9.8 Hardship exception for an individual permit
(a) The Department shall issue an individual permit for an activity
that does not comply with one or more of the requirements atN.J.A.C. 7:13-10 and 11 only if all of the requirements of (b) beloware satisfied and, additionally, one or more of the followingrequirements are satisfied:
1. The Department determines that there is no feasible and
prudent alternative to the proposed project, including not pursuingthe project, which would avoid or substantially reduce theanticipated adverse effects of the project, and that granting the
hardship exception would not compromise the reasonablerequirements of public health, safety and welfare, or theenvironment;
***
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
24/91
(b) To obtain an individual permit based on a hardship exception,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the Department that thefollowing requirements are satisfied:
***4. The hardship was not created by any action or inaction of theapplicant or its agents.3
In connection with the promulgation of the current regulation in 2007,
the NJDEP explained the policies that govern its implementation of this
regulation. Adopted Repeal and New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:13, 39 N.J.Reg. 4573(a)
(Nov. 5, 2007). It stressed that the standards set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:13-9.8
embody the policy that the best implementation of the Flood Hazard Area
standards is full compliance and that an applicant who can comply with those
standards must do so.
All applicants who can design a project to comply with any of themyriad situations addressed specifically by the rules, will berequired to do so because the Department believes that fullcompliance with the rules is the best mechanism available tocontrol flooding and protect the environment. ]Id. Response to
Comments 707 and 708].
NJDEP has consciously the made the criteria for a hardship waiver in this
regulation very stringent because it envisions and intends that that very few
projects will qualify for such a waiver.
Due to the importance of requiring projects to meet all design and
construction standards of the Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules,the standards for issuing a hardship exception to these rules areextremely stringent. As a result, the Department has historically
issued very few hardship exceptions to the Flood Hazard AreaControl Act rules . . . . [Id. Response to Comments 712 and 713.]
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
25/91
Plainly, if full compliance with the Flood Hazard Area standards can be
achieved by a modest off-site improvement involving a short stretch of a local
public street, CDA cannot satisfy the waiver criterion
to full compliance with those standards. N.J.A.C.
7:13-9.8(a)(1).
In addition, a hardship waiver is only available if
-
9.8(b)(4). If CDA has not first exhausted the option of securing approval by
Cranford or by the Court for the construction that would enable full
compliance and avoid the need for a waiver, it cannot demonstrate that the
contention that CDA must first attempt to develop its project in a manner that
does not comply with NJDEP standards and to seek relief from those standards
under N.J.A.C. 7:13-9.8 is amply supported by the his findings and the
relevant law. Report at 35.
B. CDA PROPOSAL TO ELEVATE A STRETCH OF BIRCHWOODAVENUE DOES NOT REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION OF THE
INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED FOR IN ITS ORDEROF DECEMBER 9, 2011
Cranford seizes upon this issue to assert for the third time that the
Court should reconsider its opinion and order determining that the CDA site is
suitable for construction of a 360 unit inclusionary development and awarding
In light of the
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
26/91
any legitimate basis.
The site plan application that CDA filed with the Special Hearing Officer
ber 9, 2012. The
only new feature is that CDA has proposed an off-site improvement the
elevation of a short stretch of Birchwood Avenue in the vicinity of the
westernmost driveway, which is necessary to conform to NJDEP Flood Hazard
Area Permit standards as specifically construed by NJDEP in connection with
its Flood Hazard Permit application. The Special Hearing Officer has found
that the proposed off-site improvement can be made without detriment to the
public and without cost to Cranford or taxpayers. In light of this finding, there
is utterly no factual basis for an application to the Court to reconsider its
determination that the site is suitable.
Cranford contends that CDA misled the Court as to the condition of the
site at trial. s granting Flood Hazard Permits in prior
applications in which the ingress and egress were onto streets that were within
the flood fringe and at elevations below the flood hazard design elevation, CDA
reasonably anticipated that NJDEP would continue to do so. Report at pp. 30-
32.
Indeed, one of the projects for which NJDEP granted a Flood Hazard Area
Permit was the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, the one new inclusionary
multifamily project in Cranford that the Township has supported and claimed
credit for. As shown by the permit itself, the entire Riverfront Redevelopment
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
27/91
Project site and all the surround streets are within the flood fringe. Indeed,
the NJDEP specifically found that all the public streets that provide access to
the site would be under two feet of water in a one hundred year flood event.
Report at p. 30-31; NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Verification and Individual
Permit, Riverfront Redevelopment Project, Feb. 2, 2010, at p.4 25. (Ex. A-22).
The NJDEP did not find that this violated under N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.5(h)(2). It
merely required signage on the street. Id at p. 4 26. This permit was granted
just seven months before the trial in this case. The terms of the permit granted
by the NJDEP to the Riverfront Redevelopment project were precisely those that
7/2010 Tr.
47, attached as Appendix 3..
To the surprise of CDA, NJDEP construed the standards in N.J.A.C.
7:13-11.5(h)(2) in the present application in manner different from its
construction of that regulation in connection with the Riverfront
Redevelopment project in February 2010. In response, CDA in good faith
regulations. As found by the Special Hearing Officer, it has done so in the only
feasible manner that would comply NJDEP standards. It also done so in a
manner that is not detrimental to the residents and that imposes no costs on
the taxpayers of Cranford. Report at pp. 30-35. Nothing in these facts suggests
any misrepresentation to the Court or lack of candor by CDA at the trial in
2010.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
28/91
In its order of December 9, 2012, the Court itself anticipated the
possibility that NJDEP review might require modification of the project. It
expressly provided that CDA could make such modifications. Paragraph 4(j) of
the Order provided:
j) Plaintiffs may alter the layout of the project set forth in
Exhibits P-63 and P-63A to bring the project into conformancewith the foregoing conditions and the terms of any permits issuedby NJDEP.
In the present instance, the modification required was very modest and has no
impact on the magnitude or layout of the project or the number of low or
moderate income units provided.
C. THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLY FOUNDTHAT CDA SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ELEVATE A
STRETCH OF BIRCHWOOD AVENUE AT ITS OWNEXPENSE.
As forth in his Report, the Special Hearing Officer found, based upon his
evaluation of the testimony of the five expert witnesses who appeared--
Ph.D, and Cranford Fire Chief Leonard Dolan--that the proposed elevation of
Birchwood Avenue does not create any threat to public health and safety. To
the contrary, it would enhance public health and safety. Report at pp. 32-35.
As acknowledged by Cranford Fire Chief Dolan, it will provide an access to the
site for emergency vehicles, such as fire equipment, even under flood
conditions. In addition, because elevation of the roadway will also involve
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
29/91
installation of additional storm drains, it will decrease the amount of
stormwater that flows down Birchwood Avenue. Id.
As forth in the eport, this determination
involved a carefully weighing of the relevance, weight, and credibility of these
witnesses. Report at pp. 32-35. It is amply supported by credible evidence in
the record.
Cranford urges that the Court should not accept the findings of the
Special Hearing Officer, but should itself re-weigh the evidence, reassess the
credibility of witnesses, and make different conclusions about the evidence.
Under the standards set forth in Abbott, supra, and State v. Chun, supra, this
would be ou
engage in the wholesale reevaluation of this testimony would defeat the whole
purpose of appointing the Special Hearing Officer.4
D. THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO GRANT THIS RELIEF
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
30/91
Cranford asserts that the Court does not have the power to require it to
permit CDA to elevate a portion of Birchwood Avenue
assertion misconceives its own constitutional obligations. As noted above, the
constitution as construed in the Mt. Laureldecisions imposes on municipalities
negative and affirmative obligations. It imposes on municipalities the negative
obligation not to create obstacles to the construction of low and moderate
income housing and an affirmative obligation to facilitate the development of
such housing. Once the Court has found the municipality to have failed to
satisfy its fair constitutional share housing obligation and has ordered a site
specific remedy, these negative and affirmative obligations specifically attach to
the inclusionary development authorized by the Court.
The courts have consistently held that these constitutionally mandated
negative and affirmative obligations require municipalities to facilitate provision
of necessary infrastructure for inclusionary developments. As the court
declared in Toll Brothers, Inc. v. West Winsdor, 303 N.J. Super. 518, 543 (Law
Div. 1996), , 334 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 2000),
in pertinent part on opinion below, 173 N.J. 502, 558-59 (2002),
have an affirmative obligation to facilitate provision of the infrastructure
Thus, for example, where
necessary to facilitate the construction of inclusionary developments,
municipalities have been required to vacate adjacent public streets, Menk Corp.
v. Township Committee of Barnegat, 389 N.J. Super. 263 (Law Div. 2006), or
reverse the vacation of such streets, Howell Properties, Inc. v. Township of
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
31/91
Brick, 347 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 192 (2002).
Similarly, they must affirmatively assist in the provision of public water and
sewer service. Toll Brothers, Inc. v. West Winsdor, 173 N.J. 502, 558-59 (2002);
Dynasty Building. Corp. v. Upper Saddle River, 267 N.J. Super. 611,
616(App.Div.1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 467, appeal dismissed, 135 N.J.
468 (1994); Samaritan Center, Inc. v. Englishtown, 294 N.J. Super. 437 (Law
Div. 1996).
Cranford asserts that this constitutional obligation does not extend to
street improvements or to precisely the form of street improvement sought in
the present instance. It attempts to distinguish each of the cases cited above
on that basis, but cites no contrary authority. The refined distinctions made by
Cranford do not negate the broad principle enunciated by the Supreme Court
and enforced by the lower courts in a wide variety of contexts.5
These constitutional obligations are judicially enforceable. It is well
established that the courts in New Jersey have the inherent equitable power to
effectuate their own decisions. See, e.g., Welser v. Welser, 54 N.J.Super. 555,
563-
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
32/91
have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that
they are enforced when they are called upon to do so. To deprive a court of
power to execute its judgments is to impair its jurisdiction, and the general
rule is that every court having jurisdiction to render a particular judgment has
inherent power and authority to enforce it, and to exercise equitable control
The Supreme Court has particularly emphasized the breadth of the
remedial power of the trial courts in exclusionary zoning cases so as to fully
vindicate the constitutional rights of low and moderate income households. Mt.
Laurel II, 92 N.J. at 285-90. The trial courts have freely exercised that power to
prevent a wide variety of local obstructions to the construction of low and
moderate income housing. See, e.g., Howell Properties, Inc. v. Township of Brick,
supra(prohibiting vacation of road by town adjacent to inclusionary project);
Samaritan Center, Inc. v. Borough of Englishtown, 294 N.J.Super. 437 (Law Div.
1996)(ordering municipality to cooperate to provide public water to affordable
housing project in adjacent community); Menk Corp. v. Township Committee of
Barnegat, supra(ordering vacation of street required for construction of
inclusionary project); Tomu Development Co., Inc. v. Borough of Carlstadt, A-
5512-05T1; 2008 WL 4057912 (App. Div. August 29, 2008) (appointing
compliance monitor to perform municipal permitting function); Dynasty Bldg.
Corp. v. Borough of Upper Saddle River, 267 N.J.Super. 611 (App. Div. 1993)
(ordering regional sewerage to cooperate with developer of affordable housing to
provide sanitary sewer service).
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
33/91
effectuation of a judicial decision, the plaintiff may properly bring that
obstruction before the court in an a
court may properly grant any equitable relief that will remove the obstruction.
Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332, 342, 359, 368-72 (2011); Loigman v.
Middletown, 308 N.J.Super. 500, 503 (App. Div. 1998), see also Abbott v.
Burke, 170 N.J. 537 (2002)( Abbott VIII); 163 N.J. 95, 100 01 (2000) ( Abbott
VI). In particular, the courts have held that alleged municipal obstruction to
the implementation of judicial decisions granting site-specific builder remedies
can
and that the courts can properly grant any relief necessary to remove those
obstructions. See, e.g., Morris County Fair Housing Council v. Boonton Tp., 220
N.J.Super. 388 (Law Div. 1987)(relief against obstructive tactics by planning
board in considering site plan applications for inclusionary development),
on other grounds, 230 N.J.Super. 345 (App. Div. 1989); cf. Mount Olive Complex
v. Township of Mount Olive, 340 N.J.Super. 511, 531 (App. Div. 2001) (appellate
had already established that parties to Mount Laurelconsent decrees could
vindicate their interests through motions to enforce litigant' 6
POINT VI
ALL AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD BEFORE HIM.
Loigman v. Middletown, 308 N.J.Super. at 503.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
34/91
At pages 13 through 22 of its objections, Cranford objects point-by-point
to the findings of fact made by the Special Hearing Officer. CDA will respond to
these objections point-by-
It should be noted what is not at issue. Cranford does not dispute the
extensive findings by the Special Hearing Officer that the proposed
development fully conforms to the specific terms for this development set forth
findings by the Special Hearing Officer that, except for two waivers expressly
requested in its application, the proposed development fully conforms with the
applicable Cranford zoning and site plan ordinances. Finally, Cranford does
not object to the findings by the Special Hearing Officer that the project
conforms to the statewide Residential Site Improvement Standards, N.J.A.C.
5:21-1 et seq. The remaining issues, although indisputably important, are
very narrow.
The vast majority of objections follow a common pattern. The
Special Hearing Officer, based upon his evaluation of the expert testimony, has
made a specific findings supported with citation to evidence in the record.
Cranford urges the Court to re-weigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of
witnesses, and reach specific different conclusions about the evidence.
Because the Special Hearing Officer has carefully set forth the basis in
the record for each of these findings and because, as discussed above, it is not
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
35/91
properly the function of this Court re-weigh the evidence, CDA will not provide
shows that his findings are amply supported by credible evidence in the record.
For objections that fall into this pattern, CDA will therefore simply note
that Cranford seeks to have the Court reweigh the evidence before the Special
Hearing Officer.
Page 2, para. 2
This is presented as an objection only to the form of the report. To the
extent that it is an objection to
CDA to elevate a portion of Birchwood Avenue, it is unsound for the reasons
set forth in Point V(D) above.
Page 5, para. 1
The language that Cranford seeks insert in this paragraph is incomplete
and misleading. As indicated in the Memorandum by Special Master McKenzie
of May 15, 2012, when the issue of where the hearing should be held was
raised, CDA suggested that it be held in Cranford. In response to this
suggestion, the Special Hearing Officer determined on May 16, 2012, that the
hearing should be held in the Union County Court House. Cranford did not
seek review of this determination by the Court. The parties then worked with
the Special Master and the Special Hearing Officer to arrange mutual agreeable
dates for the hearings. They agreed that the hearings would commence on
August 8, 2012, and to the extent possible would continue on successive days.
Cranford first sought review by this Court by letter dated July 24, 2012, and
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
36/91
orally at a telephonic conference held by the Court the following day. At that
point, CDA opposed holding the hearing in Cranford both for the reasons set
the venue of the hearing would also result in a substantial delay and a
disruption of the plans that had been painstakingly worked out for the hearing.
By order dated August 2, 2012, the Court confirmed the determination of the
Special Housing Officer. Certification of Stephen Eisdorfer, January 24, 2013,
attached at Appendix 2.
Page 5, para. 2
This objection to the adequacy of the notice of the hearing should be
rejected for the reasons set forth in Point III above.
Pages 15, para. 3 to 16, para. 2.
Cranford seeks to have the Court reweigh the evidence before the Special
Hearing Officer.
Page 18, para. 2.
Cranford seeks to have the Court reweigh the evidence before the Special
Hearing Officer. In addition, the objection does not accurately characterize the
testimony of Mr. Dipple, which is set forth at 8/9 T 35-40; 8/21 T 103-105,
8/22 T. 37-40 and his Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study, Tables 1 and 2 (Ex. A-
14)
Page 24, para. 1.
Cranford seeks to have the Court reweigh the evidence before the Special
Hearing Officer.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
37/91
Page 24, para. 2.
This is presented as an objection only to the form of the report. To the
ext
standards, it should be rejected for the reasons set forth in Point IV above.
Page 26, para. 2.Page 26, para. 3.
Page 29, para. 3.Page 30, para. 2.
Page 30, para. 4.Page 32, para. 1.
Page 33, para. 2.Page 34, para. 2.Page 34, para. 3.
Page 35, para. 2.Page 35, para. 3.
These objections
proposed elevation of a stretch of Birchwood Avenue should be rejected for the
reasons set forth in Point V above.
Page 37, paras. 1 and 2.
the Special Hearing Officer
ions of its
ordinance appears to be inconsistent with its objection to Page 39, para. 4 its
very next objection. To the extent the objection asserts that there is no
authority for a waiver of the tree replacement provisions of its ordinance, this
assertion is wrong as a matter of law. The tree replacement provision of
by Cranford Ordinances 136-23 (L)(1)-(3). These are
design standards. They can, and, in suitable circumstance, must be waived
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
38/91
under the Municipal Law Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-51(b), and the regulations
of the COAH, N.J.A.C. 5:97-10.1(b).
The objection also does not accurately describe the applicable legal
standard. As discussed above in Point I(B), Cranford has a constitutional
obligation to affirmatively facilitate construction of the inclusionary project
obligation to grant variances and waivers where doing so will not substantially
public health or safety. This duty codified in N.J.A.C. 5:97-10.1(b), as set forth
in Point I(B). In Morris County Fair Housing Council v. Boonton Township,
supra--a case that antedates the promulgation by COAH of its regulations on
site plan approval the court addressed the appropriate standard for granting
design waiver variances for inclusionary projects under Mt. Laurel II. The court
rejected the claim that design waivers could only be granted where the
Rather, the court noted,
Many normal construction and design standards are impedimentsto the construction of lower income housing without any single onecreating an insurmountable obstacle to such development.Therefore, the obvious intent of [of the Morris Township site plan
ordinance], consistent with the direction in Mount Laurel II that
92 N.J. at 259, is to confer broad authority upon the board towaive such requirements, where this will facilitate the constructionof lower income housing and can reasonably be done withoutjeopardizing public health and safety. [Id. at 405 (emphasisadded).]
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
39/91
As set forth above, the COAH subsequently codified a similar standard into its
own regulations.
plan. In accordance with the terms of the Court order, it provides for a 10 foot
wide landscaped buffer between the driveway and the lot line for the health
care facility which will be landscaped with a dense row of arborvitae in addition
to the existing deciduous trees. Also in accordance with the terms of the Court
order, it provides for a dense buffer of evergreens along the south side of the
buildings between the buildings and single family houses on Wadsworth
Terrace. More street trees will be planted along Birchwood Avenue in addition
to the existing street trees. There will foundation plantings along the
foundations of the buildings and ornamental trees in the court yards and near
the entrances.
Existing trees will remain undisturbed in the wetlands areas, in the
wooded areas at the south end of the site, in the buffer along the eastern edge
of the site, and on the street in front of the buildings. These include mature
trees with heights of 30 feet and diameters of 16, 18, 24, and 36 inches and
some trees as high as 79 feet.
Nonetheless, approximately 72 existing trees will have to be removed to
make way for the proposed structures. Under the terms of tree replacement
these trees with 295 new trees. CDA proposes instead to plant only
approximately 180 new trees 108 more tree than will be removed.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
40/91
No witness testified that planting 295 trees rather 180 is necessary to
protect public health and safety. In this respect, the case is closely analogous
to the extensive landscaped buffer ordered waived in the Morris County Fair
Housingcase.
To the contrary, the only area in which 115 additional trees could
realistically be planted is in the state-designated floodway. These trees, even if
only 3 inches in diameter today, will ultimately grow to diameters of 24 or 36
inches. As found by the Special Hearing Officer, they will increasingly block the
floodway, obstructing the flow in severe weather and serving as traps for loose
branches and other detritus that would yet further obstruct the floodway.
Requiring the planting of 295 trees to replace the 72 that will be removed
would add to the cost and burden of constructing the 360 unit inclusionary
development authorized by the Court. Because it is not necessary to protect
public health or safety, a waiver is justified under the constitutional standard
as set forth in Morris County Fair Housing, supra.
Page 39, para. 4.
As set forth at page 6 of Comments on the Report of the Special
Hearing Officer (November 30, 2012), a copy of which is attached as Appendix
2, this conclusion should be modified in light of the post-hearing meeting held
by the parties in accordance with the direction of the Special Hearing Officer.
Rather than the open-ended language included in the Report or the no less
vague language urged by Cranford, this conclusion should be replaced with
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
41/91
and magnitude of tree replacement recommended by Mr. Marsden
engineer.
Page 39, para. 6.
CDA does not object to the condition proposed by Cranford.
Page 39, para. 7.
These objections to the Special Hearing Officers findings and conclusions
concerning elevation of Birchwood Avenue should be rejected for the reasons
set forth in Point IV above.
Page 41, para. 8.
As noted by the Special Hearing Officer, the only open issue as to off-site
approximately 1,300 linear feet of sanitary sewer line. As set forth at pages 4
he Special Hearing Officer, Cranford
has subsequently provided CDA with a figure for its pro rata contribution to
the upgrading these sewer line segments. CDA has, with one qualification,
accepted that figure. In light of this development, CDA has proposed
replacement language conclusions
and recommended conditions on this subject.
Page 46, para. 1
CDA does not object to this correction.
Page 53, para. 32.
This condition requires CDA to construct turnouts at specified points on
the internal driveway to permit vehicles to move out of the way of emergency
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
42/91
vehicles. Cranford objects only to the last sentence of this condition, which
permits these turnouts to be Cranford made
this objection to the Special Master and the Special Hearing Officer when they
circulated a draft of set findings, conditions, and conclusions. The Special
Hearing Officer, acting with the advice of the Special Master, rejected this
objection. This Court should similarly reject it.
The use of permeable pavers, which are designed to provide a drivable
surface that nonetheless permits rainwater to the pass through and to be
absorbed into the soil below, are approved and actively recommended by the
NJDEP as required best practices to minimize stormwater runoff. NJDEP, New
Jersey Stormwater Best Practices Manualpp. 2-8 to 2-9 (2OO4), attached as
Appendix 5. They are endorsed in Cranford Ordinances 136-45(A)(1). Because
they are permeable, they are not included in calculations of impermeable
coverage.
cover must not exceed pre-existing impervious cover and to comply with
NJDEP stormwater management requirements. Cranford, however, offers no
valid health or public safety justification for its objection. To the contrary, its
objection conflicts with the general approval of pervious paving by the NJDEP
and Cranford ordinance, the testimony by Mr. Marsden at the hearing on
the desirability of minimizing the amount of stormwater that must be detained
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
43/91
in drainage structures, and the very extensive testimony by Mr. Slachetka at
development.
Plaintiffs therefore urge the Court to reject this objection.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should determine that Cranford
objections provide no basis for rejecting the findings and recommendations of
the Special Hearing Officer. Rather, the Court should adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Special Hearing Officer in their entirety with the
clarifications suggested by CDA in its letter of November 30, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,HILL WALLACK LLP
By: StephenEisdorferStephen Eisdorfer, Esq.
cc: Philip Morin, Esq.Carl Woodward, Esq.Wendy Berger, Esq.Elizabeth McKenzie, PPDouglas Cohen, Esq.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
44/91
January 25, 2013
Page 44
Appendi ces
Plain t iffsComment s on the Report of the Special Hearing Officer , November30, 2012................................................................................................... App. 1
Cert ification of Stephen Eisdorfer, Janu ary 24, 2013 ............................. App.2
Email from S. Eisdorfer to E. McKenzie and P. Morin , Ju ly 20, 2012Ex. AMemorandu m of Elizabeth McKenzie, May 15, 2012 ..................... Ex. B
E-mail from D. Wolfson to counsel, May 16, 2012 ......................... Ex. CLett er from P. Morin to Court , Ju ly 24, 2012................................. Ex. DCourt Order, August 6, 2012 .........................................................Ex. E
Transcript of the tr ial t estimony of Michael Dipple, 9/ 27/ 2010 ............. App. 3
Toll Brothers, Inc. v. Township of West Windsor, A-5858 97T3 (August 16,2000) (unr eported port ion of the opinion r eported at 334 N.J. Super. 109(App. Div. 2000)........................................................................... App. 4
NJDEP, New Jersey Stormwater Best Practices Manual pp. 2-8 to 2-9 (2OO4)................................................................................................... App. 5
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
45/91
20 2 CARNEGI E CENTER, CN 5226, PRINCETON NJ 08540-5226TELEPHONE: (609) 9 24 0808 FAX: (609)452-1882
WWW.HILLWALLACK.COM
STEPHEN EISDORFER, ESQ.PARTNER , LAND USE LITIGATION ANDAPPLICATIONS
D IRECT D IAL : (609)[email protected]
November 30, 2012
Hon. Lisa F. ChrystalSuperior Court of New Jersey
Union Coun ty Cour t House11th Floor2 Br oad St.Elizabeth , New J ersey 07207
Re: LEHI GH ACQUISITION CORP. v. TOWNSHI P OFCRANFORD et al,DKT NO. UNN-L-0140-08
CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC et alv. TOWNSHI P OF CRANFORD et al,
DKT NO. UNN-L-003759 -08
Dear J udge Chrystal:
ent itl ed matter submi t t he following comm ent s on th e report of Special Hearin gOfficer Douglas Wolfson, Esq.
In general, CDA supports the recommendations of Special HearingOfficer Wolfson and urges the Cour t to adopt th em. As to a number of issues,
however, th e report requ ires amplification or clari fication.
Conclusion 9 p. 43 (off-sit e im provement s t o th e public water syst em )
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Special Hearing Officer directedcounsel for plain tiff t o submi t p roposed findings and conclu sions and alsoproposed cond it ions on any site plan approval. He dir ect ed counsel forCranford to submi t objections and counterfindings and conclu sions. He also
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
46/91
directed t he part ies to confer on potential condi tions t o any site plan approvaland to try to agree, insofar as possible, on condit ions. 8/ 23 T. 239. OnSeptember 11, 2012, CDA submitted a set of proposed findings and
and 35 concern ed pu blic water.
Proposed Condit ion 34 stat ed:
34. An in dependent t est of the level of water service available atth e hydr ants in front of th e project will be condu cted by the watercompany (or some oth er th ird par ty agreed u pon by both part ies)in accordance th e relevant national standard, NFWA 291. If thetest shows that water service at th e hydrant s is significant ly below2,000 gallons per m inu te, then CDA will r eplace th e existin g 8 inchwater main from the easternmost hydrant on the property to thewater m ain in Bloomin gdale Avenu e with a 12 inch water m ain. It
may elect to constr uct th is impr ovement i tself or to reimbu rseCranford for its pro rata share of the reasonable cost of the
133-34.
th eir coun sel and their engineers met at th e Cranford Mu nicipal Bui ldin g onSeptember 21, 2012 and discussed pr oposed condit ions, inclu ding publi cwater. On October 3, 2012, Cranford submi tt ed its own proposed findings andconclu sions and its own condi tions. Its condi tion 34 was ident ical to th at ofCDA.
An independent test of water flow was conducted by American WaterCompany on October 12, 2012 in th e presence of representat ives both of CDAand Cranford Township. The resu lts of that test were subm itt ed to th e SpecialMaster and th e Special Hearing Officer . The test resu lt s indicated that, at apressure of 20 poun ds per square inch, the flow on the two hydrants was 2,778gallons per min u te and 2,887 gallons per square inch.
In light of th is test, plain tiffs subm itt ed revised pr oposed conditi ons toth e Special Master and t he Special Hear ing Officer on October 12, 2012. CDA
proposed that, i n accordance with its own t erm s, any r equir ement t o upgradeth e water li ne in Bir chwood be deleted. Cranford did n ot submit any objectionsto this revised proposal.
35. The appli cant will make a good faith effort to secur e th econsent of the owner of the health care facilit y to connect a water
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
47/91
lin e from the proposed project to th e public water l ine in th eservice road of the health care facility and to acquire the propertyri ght s necessary to constr uct the conn ecting line. If it can secureth is consent and pr opert y ri ght s at reasonable cost wi th in 90 daysafter entr y of the order grant ing site plan approval, it will constr uct
an 8 inch water line from t he water lin e in th e eastern dri veway ofth e project t o the public water main in service road of the healthcare facilit y. If it cann ot do so, th is condi tion will term inate. 8/ 23T. 127-28, 134-
At their September 21, 2012 meeting, t he par t ies fu r ther discu ssed thesuggestion by Fir e Chief Dolan that the water line through th e project also belinked t o the water line in th e dr iveway of th e adjacent health care facilit y toachieve a sort of gri
join t review of the municipal water system map, however , revealed that thewater m ain wh ich the Fire Chief assumed in hi s testimony lay in Bir chwood
Avenue al l the way to Cr an for d Avenue does not in fact fol low that rou te. Justeast of 215 Birchwood Avenue, it turns, goes down in the driveway of theadjacent health facilit y and then pr oceeds around t hat bu ildin g and out t oCranford Avenu e. The water line in th e dr iveway of the health care facili ty isth us not a separate water lin e bu t i s in fact th e very water main t hat serves theCDA site. An additi onal link to that lin e would n ot have th e beneficial effect ofcreating any addit ional grid.
In conn ection wi th its r evised pr oposed condit ion of October 12, 2012,CDA provided t hi s additional inform ation t o the Special Master and th e SpecialHearing Officer. I n light of th is new information, CDA recommended that, notonly was conn ecting to th is line un lik ely to be feasible, since it wou ld requir eplaint iffs to acqu ire an easement t hr ough th e propert y of the health carefacilit y, bu t th at it wou ld provide lit tle benefit to public safety. CDA th ereforeproposed th at any requir ement to lin k t o th e water li ne in the dri veway of thehealth care facili ty also be deleted.
Cranford d id not object t o th is revised pr oposed condit ion.
The recommendations of the Special Hearing Officer are informed by theforegoing int eraction of the parties all condu cted in conformity with th e
dir ections of the Special Hearing Officer . For th is reason, the Special HearingOfficer properly concluded that no conditions need be imposed concerning off-site improvements concerning provision of public water service. CDA urges theCourt to adopt that recommendation.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
48/91
Fin din gs p. 23; Conclusion 10 p. 44; and Condi t ion 3 4 p. 53 (off-sit eimprovements to public sanitary sewer l ines)
Marsden had r ecomm ended th at various stretches of the sani tary sewer lin e
totaling approximately 1,300 linear feet serving the proposed project be re-linedto mit igate the risk of futu re sewer l ine failu res. It was th e positi on of CDAth at Cranford had n ot proven th e essent ial evident iary basis for imposing anobligation t o cont ri bu te to off-sit e improvement to th e sanitary sewer system.The Township had not offered any evidence that re-lining the 1,300 linear feethas any real nexus with t he thr eatened futu re risks to the system caused byth e project. Nor h ad the Townsh ip offered any evidence as to th e magnitu de ofth e ri sk of fu tu re breaks in t he system, th e increase in r isk t hat wou ld becaused by th e additional flow from th e project, or h ow that r isk shou ld pr operl ybe allocated between the existing condition of the system--which the partiesagree is very old, suffers fr om serious u nr emediated in flow and in filtr ation, and
is already subject to br eaks--and th e additional burden that would be placedon th e system by t he flow from t he project. In th e absence of such evidence,CDA urged, th ere is no basis for determining th at there is a su fficient nexusbetween the project and the proposed off-site improvements or that some shareof th e cost of th e proposed improvements be allocated to the project. Itproposed to the Special Hearing Officer that there should be no conditionrequ ir ing CDA to constr uct, or r eimburse th e Townsh ip for any portion of thecost of constructin g, th is improvement . CDA Proposed Conclu sion 111.
Subsequent to th e hearin g, Mr . Marsden ident ified for CDA the fivesegments of sewer line serving the project t hat he had in min d when hetestified: between manh oles 1 and 2 (276 li near feet), manh oles 2 and 3 (226lin ear feet); manholes 6 and 7 (265 l inear feet), manholes 11 and 12 (256 linearfeet), and manh oles 14 and 15 (300 li near feet). These segment s total 1 ,323lin ear feet.
In accordance with the direction of the Special Hearing Officer, thepart ies discussed th is subject at t heir September 21, 2012 meetin g. Followingth at m eetin g, Mr . Marsden undertook to estim ate the costs of lining th e sewer
estimates are set forth in a spreadsheet and explanatory e-mail, whichaccompany th is lett er.
plaint iffs are willing--in a spirit of accomm odation- -estim ates as applied t o th e five segment s of sewer lin e which were th e basis forhis testimony at th e hearing. In l ight of Mr. Marsden analysis, there is no
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
49/91
need for further proceedings on the issue of off-site improvements to thesanit ary sewer system. The relevant data can just be read off Mr.spreadsheet.
relevant sewer lin e segment s, Mr . Marsden has estim at
rata share of th e cost of labor and m ateri als is $63,478.88. To th is, Mr .
broken pi pe, lateral & MH l in ing, roadway rep
34. Pr ior to receipt of a final cer ti ficate of occupancy for the fir stresident ial uni t i n th e project, CDA shall pay the Townsh ip ofCranford an amoun t equal to its pr o rata share of th e estimated
Development Capacit y and Cost Shar e Analysis for ProposedResident ial Development - 215 and 235 Bir chin iti ally pr epared by Richard Marsden and modified by L2A Designdated October 19, 2012, of slip-lining the following segments of thepu bli c sanit ary sewer line serving the project: between man holes 1and 2 (276 l inear feet), manholes 2 and 3 (226 linear feet);manholes 6 and 7 (265 linear feet), manholes 11 and 12 (256lin ear feet), and manh oles 14 and 15 (300 l inear feet). The totalpayment shall equal $96,487.90 less any so-
erly attr ibut able to theproject.
attr ibu table to CDA and are nondu plicative of other costs in h is estimate.
Through Mr. Morin , plaint iffs have requested th at Mr . Marsden pr ovide a more
less any so-called
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
50/91
For these reasons, CDA recommends that the Court adopt its proposedCondi tion 34 in lieu of the Condi tion 34 r ecomm ended by th e Special HearingOfficer.
Condit ion 35 p. 53 (t ree replacem ent )
discussed possible conditions to site plan approval concerning treereplacement at their September 21 meeting. At that meeting Mr. Marsdenrecommended t hat CDA plant additional t rees on a portion of the propert y at235 Birchwood Avenue consisting of a swath approximately 80 feet deep northof th e wetlands tr ansition area boundary and parallel to th at boundary. Herecommended th at th e additional plan tin gs include the plant ing of 10additional t rees in th is swath.
In response, CDA prepared a revised landscaping plan embodying this
recommendation. They submi tt ed th is plan to Cran ford on October 4, 2012and to th e Special Hearing Officer and t he Special Master on October 16, 2012.
Cranford has not objected to this revised plan.
recommendations would avoid fu tu re disput es on t hi s issue and potent iallythese circumstances, CDA
Condition 35:
35. The landscaping plan shall be amended to conform to theLandscapin g and Tree Replacement Plan prepared by L2A LandDesign and Paul Keyes Associates and dated October 2, 2012.
For these reasons, CDA recommends that the Court adopt its proposedCondi tion 35 in lieu of the Condi tion 35 r ecomm ended by th e Special HearingOfficer.
CONCLUSION
at p. 53,
concern ing tree replacement, and the his fin dings at p. 23, Conclusion 10 at p.44, and Condit ion 34 at p. 53, concern ing off-site improvements to publi csani tary sewer lin es, CDA respectful ly u rges th e Cour t to adopt t herecomm endations of the Special Hearing Officer in th eir ent irety. As to thosetwo issues, CDA recommends th at t he Court adopt the conditi ons proposedabove, which are based upon post-hearing discussions between the partiescarried out in accordance with the direction of the Special Hearing Officer.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
51/91
Respectful ly subm itt ed,HILL WALLACK LLP
By: StephenEisdorfer
Stephen Eisdorfer, Esq.
Enc.cc: Carl R. Woodward III, Esq.
Phi lip Morin , Esq.Douglas Wolfson, Esq.Elizabeth McKenzie, PPDouglas Cohen, Esq.
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
52/91
VQ!TUSFBN!
NI !$
EPX O!TUSFBN!
NI !$
QJQF!EJB!
)Jodi f t *
QJQF!MFOHUI !)Gu/*
FYJTU!NBY!
GMP X !SBUF!)dgt *
QSPQ!NBY!GMP X !S BUF!
GSPN!
EF WFMP QNF OU!
)DGT*
QP TU!NBY!
GMP X !SBUF!)dgt *
UX Q!& !NBY!
VTBHF
DEB!& !NBY!
VTBHF
DPTU!QFS!
MJOFBS !GPPU
UPUBM!DPTU!GPS!
MJOJOH!QJQF
UX Q!& !DPTU!GPS!
MJOJOH !QJQF
DEB!& !DPTU!GPS!
MJOJOH!QJQF
25& !DEBSFEVDUJEVF!UP!NBY
ZFBS !QJQ
EF UFSJP SBU
2 3
3 4
7 8
21 22
24 25
Upx ot i jq!pg!Dsbogpse-!!!!!Vojpo!Dpv ouz-!!!!!!!Of x !Kf st f z
!!!!!!T VN N BSZ !P G!QP TU!EF WFMP QN FOU!!DBQBDJUZ!BOE!DP TU!TI BSF !BOBMZT JT!!!!GP S!QSP QP TF E!S FT JEF OUJBM!EF WFMP QNFOU!!.!!!326!BOE!346!CJSDI X PP E!B WFOVF
Mbt u!Sf wjt f e; !!2102: 03123 Qbhf !.!2
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
53/91
UPSTREAM
MH #
DOWNSTREAM
MH #
PIPEDIA
(Inches)
PIPELENGTH
(Ft.)
EXIST
MAX
FLOWRATE
(cfs)
PROP MAX
FLOW RATEFROM
DEVELOPMENT
(CFS)
POST
MAX
FLOWRATE
(cfs)
TWP %MAX
USAGE
CDA %MAX
USAGE
COST
PERLINEAR
FOOT
TOTALCOST FOR
LINING PIPE
TWP %COST FOR
LINING PIPE
DCA % COSTFOR LINING
PIPE
14% DCA $
REDUCTIONDUE TO MAX 70
YEAR PIPE
DETERIORATION
1 2 21 387 1/236 1/394 1/519 1/42 1/7: !%!211/11! !%!!!!38-711/11! !%!!!!!!9-566/99! !%!!!!!2: -255/23! !%!!!!!!27-574/: 5!
2 3 21 337 1/391 1/394 1/674 1/61 1/61 !%!211/11! !%!!!!33-711/11! !%!!!!22-34: /8: ! !%!!!!!22-471/32! !%!!!!!!!!:-87: /89!
3 4 21 353 1/391 1/394 1/674 1/61 1/61 !%!211/11! !%!!!!35-311/11! !%!!!!23-146/63! !%!!!!!23-275/59! !%!!!!!!21-572/56!
4 5 21 354 1/391 1/394 1/674 1/61 1/61 !%!211/11! !%!!!!35-411/11! !%!!!!23-196/37! !%!!!!!23-325/85! !%!!!!!!21-615/79!
5 6 23 237 1/391 1/394 1/674 1/61 1/61 !%!231/11! !%!!!!26-231/11! !%!!!!!!8-62: /83! !%!!!!!!!8-711/39! !%!!!!!!!!7-647/35!
6 7 23 378 1/391 1/394 1/674 1/61 1/61 !%!231/11! !%!!!!43-151/11! !%!!!!26-: 45/75! !%!!!!!27-216/47! !%!!!!!!24-961/72!
7 8 23 327 1/496 1/394 1/779 1/69 1/53 !%!231/11! !%!!!!36-: 31/11! !%!!!!25-: 49/: 3! !%!!!!!21-: 92/19! !%!!!!!!!!:-554/84!
8 9 23 353 1/496 1/394 1/779 1/69 1/53 !%!231/11! !%!!!!3: -151/11! !%!!!!27-848/24! !%!!!!!23-413/98! !%!!!!!!21-691/58!
9 10 23 4:7 1/496 1/394 1/779 1/69 1/53 !%!231/11! !%!!!!58-631/11! !%!!!!38-499/13! !%!!!!!31-242/: 9! !%!!!!!!28-424/61!
10 11 23 367 1/496 1/394 1/779 1/69 1/53 !%!231/11! !%!!!!41-831/11! !%!!!!28-816/4:! !%!!!!!24-125/72! !%!!!!!!22-2: 3/68!
11 12 26 636 1/718 1/394 1/9: 1/79 1/43 !%!261/11! !%!!!!89-861/11! !%!!!!64-81: /38! !%!!!!!36-151/84! !%!!!!!!32-646/14!
12 13 26 354 1/718 1/394 1/9: 1/79 1/43 !%!261/11! !%!!!!47-561/11! !%!!!!35-96:/83! !%!!!!!22-6:1/39! !%!!!!!!!!: -: 78/75!
13 14 26 4:: 1/718 1/394 1/9: 1/79 1/43 !%!261/11! !%!!!!6:-961/11! !%!!!!51-92: /15! !%!!!!!2: -141/: 7! !%!!!!!!27-477/73!
14 15 26 348 1/718 1/394 1/9: 1/79 1/43 !%!261/11! !%!!!!46-661/11! !%!!!!35-356/: 1! !%!!!!!22-415/21! !%!!!!!!!!:-832/64!
15 16 26 381 1/718 1/394 1/9: 1/79 1/43 !%!261/11! !%!!!!51-611/11! !%!!!!38-732/: 2! !%!!!!!23-989/1: ! !%!!!!!!22-186/27!
16 17 26 2:7 1/7:3 1/394 1/: 86 1/82 1/3: !%!261/11! !%!!!!3: -511/11! !%!!!!31-977/57! !%!!!!!!!9-644/65! !%!!!!!!!!8-449/95!
UPUBM 5471 66: -671/11%!!! 447-273/68%!!! 334-4: 8/54%!!!! 2: 3-232/8:%!!!!!
!%!!894-495/11! !%!!!581-738/6: ! !%!!!423-867/52! !%!!!!379-: 81/62!
!%!!94: -451/11! !%!!!615-354/96! !%!!!446-1: 7/26! !%!!!!399-293/7: !
!%!!961-642/31! !%!!!621-: 78/21! !%!!!44: -675/21! !%!!!!3: 3-136/23!
Township of Cranford, Union County, New Jersey
SUMMARY OF POST DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND COST SHARE ANALYSISFOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - 215 AND 235 BIRCHWOOD AVENUE
Qmvt !51&!JODJEFOUJBM!DPTUT
MBUFSBM!!' !NI !MJOJOH-!SPBEX BZ!SFQBJS!' !SPBEX BZ!CBDLGJMM
Qmvt !21&!NPCJMJ[ BUJPO!BOE!USBGGJD!DPOUSPM
Qmvt !3& !SFTUPSBUJPO!' !DMFBOVQ UPUBM!DPTU!>!
UPUBM!DPTU!PG!QJQF!MJOJOH!POMZ
Engineering Department
Last Revised: 11/9/2012 Page - 1
-
7/29/2019 Objections By CDA (Hekemian) to Cranford's Objections to Site Plan Hearing Findings
54/91
From: Philip Morin
To: Stephen M. Eisdorfer
Cc: Douglas M. Cohen; Marsden, Richard
Subject: Birchwood Sa