| Author | Message | ||
     Openspacer Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 33 Registered: 6-2001 |
South Orange has 88 acres of recreational open space for 16,000 residents. Floods Hill is being turned into an overused brown spot. There is no official park west of Ridgewood Road. There is a recreational master plan being prepared that should officially conclude that S.O. is woefully lacking in recreational space. How sad will it be when that report comes out after we have lost the last thirty acres of open space to development. Village Mews, Gaslight Commons, 321 N. Wyoming, Village Green and The Newstead (609 SO Ave) have all added ratebles to to S.O. tax roles. Have your taxes stablized or gone down? The quarry, Gaslight Commons, the proposed Buifus development, the ShopRite development and the Irvington Avenue redevelopment will add hundreds of mostly rental housing units to the Village. This will increase the demand on public services, increase our taxes and lower the quality of life. Tonight is just one more skirmish in the fight to Preserve South Orange. Come out and join the fun! | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 81 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well an "interesting" presentation was given last night on the architecture and layout for 62 townhouses + 7 houses. Interestingly what WASN'T discussed publicly was the "Memorandum of Agreement" between TCR, the Village Trustees & the Planning Board which stipulates that the VILLAGE will pay for the affordable housing obligation to Orange (at least $480,000), the VILLAGE will pay for the rehabiliation of 10 units in South Orange (at least $100,000)and the VILLAGE will pay for water supply improvements (up to $600,000) if the proposed development is approved. In about 30 seconds the Planning Board unanimously passed a motion to accept this agreement which will cost the vilage $1.2 MILLION DOLLARS. Sheesh...with that kind of fiscal responsibility, no wonder my taxes are up almost 50% in 4 years. Mr. Rosner, can you comment on whether the Village Trustees are going to "sign-off" (or have already signed off) on this agreement as quickly? | ||
| Mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 77 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mayhewdrive: It is kind of hard to give a full picture using this format. Personally, I think this deal is very good for the village and your brief synopsis leaves a lot out. Proposals for development of the quarry date back to at least the 1950's so very hard to say this was agreed to quickly. The quarry has certainly been a major topic of discussion since I have been on the board (almost four years) and there has obviously been numerous meetings and discussions that led to the current agreement. As for your taxes, the municipal portion of your bill is around 25% of the total. I know that the municipal increase has been substantially less than the 50% number you posted. But again, I invite you to come to the budget meetings or the CBAC meetings where your participation would be greatly welcomed. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 82 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, Can you elaborate on why this is a "good deal for the Village"? At the very least it is costing the Village $1.2 million dollars up front. Of course that doesn't begin to account for the impact on Village services of schools, police, fire, etc. When asked last night how much the units would sell for, the attorney for TCR objected saying it was "irrelevant", which I found to be an insulting response. If you believe what the Star Ledger reported that units would sell for $800,000, that assumes that people are willing to pay between $40,000 and $50,000 in taxes per year for a townhouse. Personally, I find that very hard to believe. How does the Village "suddenly" have $1.2 million to pay to a developer, yet taxes have gone up the past few years? If South Orange is so desirable, why would the Village agree to pay anything to a developer? Has the Memorandum of Agreement already been executed by the Trustees or will there be an opportunity for public comment? | ||
| Mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 79 Registered: 4-2002 |
Instead of 192 units (for rent) in the quarry, there will be 62 units and 8 - 9 acres of open space. If the units sell for $750,000 - $800,000 then the taxes are based on the equalized market value dating back to the last revaluation. That would make the taxes closer to $30,000 per unit. Still a very large number, but I have always been amazed at how much people pay in property taxes for houses everywhere in the Northeast. I do not think there will be any need for additional fire (there were already plans to hire more firefighters) or police. As for schools, it is hard to predict the student population (of this project or the current residents). The amount of money the schools get should be more than enough to justify the number of students that might go to the school. Usually more money for the schools with the same amount of administrative costs should mean more money will be available for students, education and improvements to the current school buildings. I would hope you would see the positives in this deal. And yes, I do support this new proposal and I think anyone who looks at all the facts will see that this is a good deal. And because we took our time and showed that we would not just go along with whatever they wanted we were able to negotiate this deal. I will also say if you go back to the minutes from several years ago, most of the public input was for reducing the size of the project, have for sale units, keep some space open, increase ratables, and not cause a increase in taxes. At a later point I will address the issue of the tax impact of this project and think that you will see that this will not have an impact in your tax bill. As for what an attorney for TCR says, I cannot answer. I would only guess that he meant that the exact price of the unit was not important as long as it was in the same ballpark. I would also guess that he does not want an exact price put out there untill the units are being built so the developer can see what the market will bear. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 83 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, I certainly cannot argue with you that 69 units for sale is better than 198 rental units. Although, certainly the current deal of 30 acres of Open Space which generates $80,000 per year in tax revenue & consumes no services is even better!  With regard to Open Space, we both know that either proposal would have the same 8-9 acres of Open Space because the wetlands MANDATE that land be left undisturbed. However, I am still very concerned regarding the questions I posed above: How does the Village "suddenly" have $1.2 million to pay to a developer, yet taxes have gone up the past few years? If South Orange is so desirable, why would the Village agree to pay anything to a developer? Has the Memorandum of Agreement already been executed by the Trustees or will there be an opportunity for public comment? | ||
| Mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 80 Registered: 4-2002 |
The "current deal" is not an option though. The owner wants to sell (he won in court the right to sell and build 198 units) and I am sure he would like to stop paying taxes for land he does not use any longer. And because he has the right to build 198 units I see the 69 units as a major improvement. As I said earlier, I will address the money issue in a later post. Public comment is always welcomed. Not only do we have a specific time for the public to speak about any issue they want at trustee meetings we have almost always allowed someone to speak whenever they have made a request. The planning board also took questions from the public. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 84 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, Unfortunately, soliciting public comment at the Planning Board was pretty pointless, since the MOA was not a public document that anyone in the public had seen until the meeting began. Was this issue addressed last night at the Trustees Meeting? I only caught some of it on TV, but it was pretty hard to hear. Has the MOA been officially executed by the Trustees? It has been requested here several times that the Agenda of Trustees meetings be posted here prior to the meetings, like they do in Maplewood. Would that be possible? I would be happy to volunteer to post and/or scan the agendas each week if they were given to me by Friday before the meeting. Finally, are you now able to address the financial issues of the proposed quarry development raised in the earlier post? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2002 |
The quarry was not on the agenda last night. I cannot completely address the financial issues because I am still waiting for confirmation on two of the points (I am looking for information from more than one year ago and the village clerk is out this week due to surgery). I am hoping that we will have the agenda posted on here by the end of the year. I appreciate your offer and will definitely mention to the clerk when she is back. I do think you should express any concerns you have about the proposed development to the planning board or to this board or come to the next trustee meeting (9/23 at 8:00p.m.). | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 85 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, Why will it take 4 months for agendas to be posted here??? Maplewood doesn't seem to have a problem posting the agenda here every week. If there are technical challenges for our town's employees, if you fax or email me the agenda each Friday, I will be happy to do it effective immediately. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 85 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mayhewdrive: Regarding the $1,200,000 that you asked about in an earlier post. First, the number is actually less that $1,100,000. Of that number $480,000 must be paid to Orange under the agreement with the coalition of affordable housing (COAH). That money was already put aside by the village over the years. $600,000 will be paid for water and sewer improvements for the development that will be built. I know that you do not want any development in the quarry and do not think that the village should agree to any project. However, they have a right to build a project there (they went to court and won) and I prefer this project to the one that they had been proposing. This project is significantly smaller in number of units and the homes will be for sale, not the rental units that they originally wanted. In fact this project is the result of negotiations over the past few years and a refusal of the board to rubber-stamp their project. I have maintained that the only project I was going to agree to was one that had "for sale" homes and one that was significantly smaller than the original plan. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 86 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, If you want to be technical, the dollar amount is actually $1,180,000 (rounded to $1.2 million). You are correct that $480,000 must be paid to Orange for the COAH obligation. In addition, $100,000 will need to be paid to rehabilitate housing units in South Orange. Plus, $600,000 for water/sewer improvements BECAUSE of this project. However, the original Consent Agreement from 1992 and the Memorandum of Understanding from earlier this year explicitly stated that the DEVELOPER would pay these fees. I reiterate my earlier question: How does the Village "suddenly" have $1.2 million to pay to a developer, yet taxes have gone up the past few years? If money has been "put aside" why have our taxes been raised each year? If South Orange is so desirable, why would the Village agree to pay anything for a developer? You are right that I would prefer to not see any development in the quarry. However, I agree that 69 units is certainly an improvement over 198 units. I still contend that the Village could have come up with many other alternatives for utilizing 30 acres to BENEFIT the town (i.e. school, library, park, garden, soccer fields, etc etc) instead of spending $1.2 million dollars to benefit a developer. Using that $1.2 million dollars, plus the $100,000 that the Village collects annually for its Open Space Trust Fund, plus the Green Acres Grants it has recently received, the town could have just as easily purchased the property. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 3621 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Thanks for the continued updates on this and other matters. I bet a lot of readers appreciate it. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 86 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: Thanks... Mayhew Drive: I think you keep avoiding the main point. The owner of the propery went to court and won. He has the right to build 198 units there. If we could buy it, the purchase price would be in excess of $6,000,000 with no revenues and a big maintanence bill. Now that would lead to a very significant tax increase! The $480,000 was already put aside by the village. The money is not suddenly there. It has been there. The $100,000 for rehabilitation of units in S. Orange is not money that is given to the developer. It is money that S. Orange will have to use (following COAH regulations) and it is not money that we have to come up with right away. You need to remember that things change in negotiations. They lowered the number of units and the type. We agreed to pay for the sewers in return. I do not just mean they lowered the number from 198, the 62 units in the quarry was the result of several years and several different proposals. One of the major concerns about a large development was the traffic. Putting a school there or a large park with soccer fields (or both) would have created an enormous traffic problem as any parent of a school age child knows from doing carpool or from going to soccer tournaments. I would also maintain that some of our parks need upgrading and the $100,000 that the village collects for the open space fund can be used to improve the parks and ball fields we have. I cannot see spending money on a new library when we have one that currently needs more funding. For the most part taxes go up every year mostly for the following reasons: 1. Salary increases mandated by contracts (3.5 - 4%). 2. Cutbacks in revenues from the State and County. 3. Increasing expenses of maintaining the infrastructure (roads, curbs, etc). Obviously there are other cost factors, but as long as the trend continues with those three items it becomes difficult to not to have increases. By the way, my opinion is that our taxes would go up significantly more if we purchased the quarry and put a park, soccer fields, and a garden in there. Parks are very expensive to maintain and we need to fix up what we have first. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 58 Registered: 5-2001 |
Great place for a new high school wouldn't it be? Empty, flat, good drainage for fields, benefit to the whole community. School board picks up the tab and maybe even gets a grant from the State to build. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 88 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr Rosner, You think that "Parks are expensive to maintain"? I am sure that SCHOOLCHILDREN are even more expensive. Oh wait....I forgot, according to the developer, the majority of children of parents paying $30,000+ per year in taxes to live in the quarry will send the kids to PRIVATE school, of course. I don't understand how the $480,000 "has been there". The agreement all along was for the DEVELOPER to pay that fee. Why has that money not been used to help alleviate our tax burden? In addition, where is the $600,000 for water & sewer improvements coming from? Most communities have created "impact fees" for developers to pay for the infrastructure improvements necessary to support their projects. Why are South Orange taxpayers subsidizing this developer with $1.2 million? P.S. I reiterate my offer to post Trustee Meeting agendas here, like Maplewood has done for some time. Why is there such hesitation? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 87 Registered: 4-2002 |
I do not think I ever took a sarcastic tone with you Mayhewdrive nor have I ever twisted things that you have said, so please don't do so with me. You were given information in person and seem to pick and choose which facts you want to post and which ones you wish to change. I never said schoolchildren are inexpensive to maintain. But it is probably revenue neutral at worst when you consider the probable number of children (assmume they all go to public schools since I never said a word about private schools). Each unit will be paying around $30,000 in taxes with $16,500 going to the BOE. With the average home having less than two schoolage children that should be considered neutral. The fact is that if you look at the statistics in S. Orange, there is a large number of children going to private schools from homes that have high property taxes. But more importantly, there will be a lot less students with a development of 62 homes instead of the 192 that the developer has a right to build. The $480,000 has been put there by developers and can ONLY be used to fund COAH projects. The $600,000 is funded from the water utility capital funds most of which will come from East Orange pursuant to our contract with them. I have forwarded your offer to post the agenda on to John Gross (village administrator) and asked him to respond to you. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 89 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Please re-read my earlier post. My "sarcasm" was attributed to what the DEVELOPER said at the Planning Board meetings, not you. I apologize if that was misinterpreted as a comment against you. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 90 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's that time AGAIN. The next Planning Board meeting to discuss the proposed development of the quarry is TONIGHT at 7:30pm in Village Hall. Please come out and make your presence known!! P.S. Mr Rosner, I never did hear from Mr. Gross regarding Trustee Agendas being posted here. Can you please follow-up with him again? | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 106 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sorry for the late post, but this is just a reminder that the next (& possibly LAST) Planning Board to discuss the proposed development of Kernan's Quarry is TONIGHT at 7:30pm in S.O. Village Hall. At tonight's meeting the public will finally have the opportunity to speak. Hope to see you all there. |
