Uncategorized

BOROUGH OF FORT LEE NOTICE OF INTRODUCTION    Notice is hereby given that the following Ordinance #2013-26 was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Fort Lee on Thursday, October 10, 2013, and passed on first reading, and the same was then ordered to be published in full or in summary according to law; and that such Ordinance will be further considered for final passage at a meeting of the Mayor and Council to be held at the Memorial Municipal Building, 309 Main Street, Fort Lee, New Jersey on Thursday, November 14, 2013, commencing at 7:00 p.m., at which time and place, or any time and place to which such meeting shall from time to time be adjourned, all persons interested will be given opportunity to be heard concerning such Ordinance.  By order of the Mayor and Council.  Neil Grant, RMC Municipal Clerk Date: October 11, 2013  BOROUGH OF FORT LEE ORDINANCE #2013-26   AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 261, LAND USE PROCEDURES, ARTICLE VII, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FEES OF THE CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF FORT LEE  BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Fort Lee, County of Bergen and State of New Jersey, that Chapter 261, Land Use Procedures, Article VII, Affordable Housing Development Fees of the Code of the Borough of Fort Lee, is hereby amended as follows:  Section 1. That Borough Ordinance ? 261-50, Eligible exaction, ineligible exaction and exemptions, shall be amended and supplemented and hence forth provide as follows:  A. Eligible exactions, ineligible exactions and exemptions for residential development. (1) Affordable housing developments, developments where the developer is providing for the construction of affordable units elsewhere in the municipality, and developments where the developer has made a payment in lieu of on-site construction of affordable units shall be exempt from development fees.
(2) Developments that have received preliminary or final site plan approval prior to the adoption of this amended article shall be required to pay development fees calculated based on the development fee ordinance in effect prior to the adoption of this amended article, unless the developer seeks a substantial change in the approval. Where a site plan approval does not apply, a zoning and/or building permit shall be synonymous with preliminary or final site plan approval for this purpose. The fee percentage shall be vested on the date that the building permit is issued.
(3) Development fees shall be imposed and collected when an existing structure undergoes a change to a more intense use, is demolished and replaced, or is expanded, if the expansion is not otherwise exempt from the development fee requirement. The development fee shall be calculated on the increase in the equalized assessed value of the improved structure.
(4) Owner-occupied residential structures demolished and replaced as a result of a fire, flood, or natural disaster shall be exempt from paying a development fee.
(5) Owner-developers of (i) newly-constructed one or two family owner-occupied dwelling units; or (ii) reconstructed one or two family owner-occupied dwelling units; or (iii) additions to one or two family owner-occupied dwelling units (but maintaining such units as one or two family owner-occupied dwelling units), shall all be exempt from paying a development fee.
B. Eligible exactions, ineligible exactions and exemptions for non-residential development (1) The non-residential portion of a mixed-use inclusionary or market rate development shall be subject to the two and a half percent (2.5%) development fee, unless otherwise exempted below.
(2) The two and a half percent (2.5%) fee shall apply to an increase in equalized assessed value resulting from additions to existing structures to be used for non-residential purposes.
(3) Non-residential developments shall be exempt from the payment of non-residential development fees in accordance with the exemptions required pursuant to P.L.2008, c.46, as specified in the Form N-RDF “State of New Jersey Non-Residential Development Certification/Exemption” Form. Any exemption claimed by a developer shall be substantiated by that developer.
(4) A developer of a non-residential development exempted from the non-residential development fee pursuant to P.L.2008, c.46 shall be subject to it at such time the basis for the exemption no longer applies, and shall make the payment of the non-residential development fee, in that event, within three years after that event or after the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy of the non-residential development, whichever is later.
(5) If a property which was exempted from the collection of a non-residential development fee thereafter ceases to be exempt from property taxation, the owner of the property shall remit the fees required pursuant to this section within 45 days of the termination of the property tax exemption. Unpaid non-residential development fees under these circumstances may be enforceable by the Borough of Fort Lee as a lien against the real property of the owner.
Section 2. Any ordinance or part thereof inconsistent with this ordinance is repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.  Section 3. The exemptions from payment of residential development fees contained in this ordinance shall apply to and be effective for all developments which are the subject of applications for development, and applications for certificates of occupancy, pending at the time this ordinance is adopted. This ordinance shall take effect following adoption and approval in a time and manner provided by law.   ATTEST: BOROUGH OF FORT LEE  Neil Grant Mark J. Sokolich, Mayor Borough Clerk October 15, 2013 Fee:$164.43(174)3577628

WESTFIELD

SUPERIOR COURT
OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION –
UNION COUNTY
DOCKET NUMBER
UNN-L-135-09
Civil Action
(Mount Laurel II)
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
OF FAIRNESS AND
REASONABLENESS OF
SETTLEMENT
STICKEL, KOENIG, SULLIVAN & DRILL
571 Pompton Avenue
Cedar Grove, New Jersey 07009
Ph 973-239-8800 Fx 973-239-0369
Email: SKSIaw@aol.com; jondrill@aol.com
Attorneys for Defendants Town of Westfield,
Andrew Skibitsky, and Town Council of the
Town of Westfield SUNNYSIDE SENIOR HOUSING OF WESTFIELD, L.L.C.,
PIaintiff,
vs.
TOWN OF WESTFIELD, ANDREW SKIBITSKY (Mayor of the Town of Westfield), TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD and PLANNING BOARD OF
THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD
Defendants.
This matter having been jointly opened to the court by: Stickel, Koenig, Sullivan & Drill (Jonathan E. Drill, Esq., appearing) and Dentons US LLP (Robert W. Cockren, Esq., appearing), attorneys for
defenfants Town of Westfield, Mayor Andrew Skibitsky, and Town Council; Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper (Kenneth Soriero, Esq., appearing) , attorneys for the Planning Board. of the Town of Westfield; R. Marcel Pirtea, Esq., attorney for plaintiff; and Adam M. Gordon, Esq., staff attorney with Fair Share Housing Center, a public interest organization representing, the housing rights of New Jersey’ s poor ; and the aforementioned parties having signed a Settlement Agreement dated December 11, 2012 (the “Settlement Agreement”) settling Mount Laurel II
litigation, which Settlement Agreement in paragraph 1 provides that the Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the Superior Court, Law Division (the *Court”) (1) approving the Settlement Agreement after a “Fairness Hearing” conducted pursuant to East / West Venture v. Borough of Fort Lee, 286 N. J. Super. 311 (App. Div. 1996) , and (2) granting a Declaratory Judgment of Compliance and Repose pursuant to N.J.S.A.
52:27D-313 (a) after a “Compliance Hearing” (the Fairness Hearing and Compliance Hearing: together referred to as the “hearing”) ; and East /
West Venture / supra, at 326 , holding that Mount Laurel litigation may be settled only after a finding by the Court that : (1) the settlement has apparent merit, (2) notice has been given to all members of the class and others who have an interest in the settlement, (3) a hearing has been conducted on the settlement where those affected have sufficient time to prepare ; and ( 4 ) the settlement is “fair and reasonable to members of the protected class”; and the Court, having determined for the reasons set forth on the record on January 23, 2013 that the Settlement Agreement had apparent merit, entered an Order of Remand and Scheduling of a Fairness and Compliance Hearing on January 23, 2013 (the “Remand Order”) , with the hearing being scheduled for June 10, 2013, and the Remand Order required Defendant Town af Westfield (the “Town”) to provide notice of the hearing to various specified parties at least 30 days prior to June 10, 2013 and that the notice be in the form approved by the Court and attached to the Remand Order; and the required notice having been provided to all required parties within the time ordered by the Court; and the Court having duly conducted the hearing on June 10, 2013; and the Court having found upon the conclusion of the hearing for the reasons set forth on the record on September 9, 2013 that all criteria set forth in East / West Venture have been satisfied; and the Court having further found for the reasons set forth on the record on September 9, 2013 that the Town’s Compliance Plan, consisting of its 2013 Housing Plan Element. and Fair Share Plan (the ”2013 HPE&FSP”) along with various attachments as well as various implementing ordinances ( all such documents together referred to as the ”2013 Compliance PIan” ) , all of which 2013 Compliance Plan documents were entered into evidence during the hearing as exhibits, create the realistic opportunity to achieve the Town’s affordable housing
obligation under Mount Laurel II; and the Court determining to settle an issue that has arisen regarding payment of the fees of the Court appointed Special Master; and the Court determining to enter a separate Declaratory Judgment of Fairness and Reasonableness of the Settlement with a provision for the payment of the Special Master’ s fees ; and the Court determining to enter a separate Declaratory Judgment of Compliance and Repose; and the within order being the Declaratory Judgment of Fairness and Reasonableness;
IT IS THEREFORE ON THIS 7TH OF OCTOBER, 2013, ADJUDGED , DECLARED
AND ORDERED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Court hereby declares that the Settlement Agreement is approved as reasonable and fair to the interests of low and moderate income households as to the Sunnyside site as well as all other aspects of the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court specifically declares that the Sunnyside site is available / approvable, developable and suitable to produce affordable housing from a Mount Laurel perspective in accordance with N.J.A.C.
5:97-3.13, which the Court determines it should follow in accordance with Hills Development Co. v. Bernards Township, 103 N.J. 1, 63 (1986)
(courts “should conform wherever possible to the decisions, criteria, and guidelines” adopted by COAH) .
3. The Court also specifically declares that the proposed 16% affordable housing set aside for the Sunnyside site is fair and reasonable as the affordable housing will be rental units (4 units of the 24 units proposed on the site will be set aside for affordable rental housing) .
4. Plaintiff and the Town shall pay the Court appointed Special Master’s firm (Clarke Caton Hintz) Invoice Number 56818 dated. June 12, 2013 within 30 days of the entry of the within Judgment in accordance with the terms of the Court’s March 26, 2012 Order appointing the Special Master as follows: Plaintiff shall pay $9,999.88 and the Town shall pay $5,617.04. Any further costs and fees which the Special Master may charge in this matter shall be paid by the Town exclusively within 30 days of receipt of the Special Master’s invoice(s).
5, The Court shall retain jurisdiction so as to ensure the implementation of of the within Judgment. Notwithstanding
the retention of jurisdiction, the within Judgment is hereby declared to be a final judgment.
/s/ Frederic S. Kessler,
P.J.Ch.
($107.80) 875743

TOWNSHIP OF BRANCHBURG Request for Qualifications The Township of Branchburg is soliciting proposals through a fair and open process in accordance with N.J.S.A 19:44A-20.4 et seq. for Historic Preservation Professional service The Applicant will designate a specific individual(s) to work with the Township of Branchburg and provide resumes for both the individual and Principals of the Business Entity. Sealed RFQ responses will be received by the Purchasing Agent on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 10:00 A.M. local prevailing time in the Court Room at the Municipal Building, 1077 U.S. Highway 202 North, Branchburg, NJ 08876-3936, at which time and place responses will be opened. Qualification documents, Scope of Work, and instructions to applicants may be obtained via the Township Website: www.branchburg.nj.us. It is the bidder’s responsibility to check the website regularly for possible addenda Proposals shall be submitted in duplicate, one copy on the proposal forms contained in the bid package and one copy scanned as a PDF file and submitted on a CD. Proposals shall be in a sealed envelope, bearing the name and address of the bidder and the name of the project. This information shall be on the outside of the envelope and addressed to the Purchasing Agent. In the following format: RFQ #: Q02-2013 RFP Title: Historic Preservation Professional If the bid is sent by overnight or express mail, the above designation SHALL also appear on the outside of the courier company envelope. Any proposal received not complying with these requirements SHALL not be opened and returned to sender marked “Unresponsive”. Applicants shall comply with the requirements of P.L. 1975, C127, and N.J.A.C. 17:27et seq. John A Gregory, Jr., Purchasing Agent/Assistant Administrator ($32.12) 873446

Mercer County and the Township of Ewing will hold a public meeting to review transportation access alternatives for the Parkway Avenue Redevelopment Area. The meeting will be held at the West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company ballroom, 40 W Upper Ferry Rd, Ewing Township, NJ 08628, on Monday, October 28, 2013, 7:00 – 9:00 PM. For more information, contact the Mercer County Planning Division at 609-989-6545

PUBLIC NOTICE  October 3, 2013 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Economic Development Sub-Committee of the Maplewood Township Committee will meet in Closed Session at the Maplewood  Memorial (Main) Library, 51 Baker Street, Maplewood, New Jersey on the following  date and time: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 at 3:15 P.M. The purpose of the meeting is to meet with potential developers for the  Maplewood Post Office Redevelopment Plan. ELIZABETH J. FRITZEN, R.M.C., C.M.C., C.M.R. Township Clerk 10/7/2013 $29.00

NOTICE OF
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE
Take Notice that the Planning Board will be conducting a public hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Borough Hall, 167 Main Street, Sayreville.
The purpose of the public hearing is to review the Landfill and Melrose Redevelopment Plan prepared and revised by the Planning Board. If the Redevelopment Plan is found to be consistent with the Borough’s Master Plan, the Planning Board will adopt a resolution referring the Redevelopment Plan to the Governing Body for adoption by ordinance.
This meeting is being advertised in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, P.L. 1975
Patricia Gargiulo
Planning Board Secretary
October 4, 2013
($28.08) 866878

BOROUGH OF BELMAR
BOROUGH COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2013-17
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, ADOPTING THE  BOARDWALK REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Borough of Belmar, in the County of Monmouth, New Jersey (the Borough) a public body corporate and politic of the State of New Jersey (the State), is authorized pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. (the Redevelopment Law), to determine whether certain parcels of land within the Borough constitute an area in need of rehabilitation and/or an area in need of redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2013 the Borough Council (the Borough Council) adopted Resolution No. 2013-32 authorizing the Planning Board of the Borough (the Planning Board) to investigate whether certain property within the Borough, specifically, the property bordered to the north by the northern edge of the roadbed of Second Avenue; to the south by Lake Como; to the east by the Atlantic Ocean; and to the west by the westerly edge or the roadbed of Ocean Avenue (the Boardwalk Study Area), qualified as an area in need of redevelopment in accordance with the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A 1 et. seq. (the Redevelopment Law); and
WHEREAS, as part of the investigation, the Planning Board caused a map of the area, as well as a redevelopment investigation, to be prepared by David G. Roberts of Maser Consulting Professional Engineers (the Planning Consultant)  to assist in the Boards investigation (the Report); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board on March 20, 2013, after providing notice as required under the LRHL, reviewed the Report and heard from the Planning Consultant that the Boardwalk Study Area satisfies one of the criterion in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 to be designated as an area in need of redevelopment, specifically subsection (f) – areas in excess of five continuous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been destroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or altered by the action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado, earthquake, or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the area has been materially depreciated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board heard from all persons who are interested in or would be affected by a finding that the Boardwalk Study Area is an area in need of redevelopment and all objections to that determination were received and considered by the Planning Board and made part of the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that the Boardwalk Study Area satisfied the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 to be designated as an area in need of redevelopment and recommended that the Borough Council so designate the Boardwalk Study Area; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, the Borough Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-102 designating the property identified in the Report as an area in need of redevelopment in accordance with Redevelopment Law and designating such area as the Boardwalk Redevelopment Area (the Redevelopment Area); and
WHEREAS, the Borough Council desires to adopt a redevelopment plan to effectuate the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area; and
WHEREAS, the Borough Council referred by resolution to the Planning Board for its review and comment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(e) a proposed redevelopment plan for the Redevelopment Area prepared by the Planning Consultant and entitled Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan (the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted a review of the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan on September 24, 2013 and made certain recommendation for revisions to such Plan; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(e), the Borough Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and decided to adopt the Planning Boards recommendations and to proceed to adopt the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan as so revised.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Borough Council hereby adopts the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The zoning ordinances of the Borough are hereby amended to include the provisions set forth in the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan.
Section 3. The Mayor and Council of the Borough of Belmar shall serve as Redevelopment Entity for purposes of implementing the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan and exercising the powers granted to a redevelopment entity under the Redevelopment Law.
Section 4.   In case any one or more of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan shall, for any reason, be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance or the Boardwalk Redevelopment Plan and this Ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect upon final adoption and publication thereof according to law.
NOTICE OF
PENDING ORDINANCE
The Ordinance published herewith was introduced and passed upon first reading at a meeting of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Belmar in the County of Monmouth, New Jersey held on October 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM.  It will be further considered for public hearing at a meeting of said Council to be held in the Council Chambers on October 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM and during the week prior to and up to and including the date of such meeting, copies of said ordinance will be made available at the Clerk’s Office, 601 Main St., Belmar, N.J. between the hours of 9AM to 4:30 PM to the members of the general public who shall request the same.
April Claudio
Municipal Clerk
($70.04) (206) (10/10)
The Coast Star

BOROUGH OF NEW MILFORD   PLEASE BE ADVISED there will be a SPECIAL MEETING of the New Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday October 29, 2013 at 7 PM. The Proposed Agenda:  Old Business: 12 -01 New Milford Redevelopment Associates, LLC Block 1309 Lot 1.02 Mixed Use Development – Supermarket, Bank and Residential Multifamily Housing The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at the New Milford Borough Hall at 930 River Road, New Milford. October 14, 2013-Fee: $14.18 (15) 3577561

NOTICE OF HEARING
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
PLEASE BE ADVISED that the Borough of Bound Brook Planning Board (the “Board”) will continue a public hearing on October 24, 2013, to determine whether or not certain properties in the Borough identified in this notice may be designated as an area in need of redevelopment pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (N.J.S.A. 40A: 12A-1 et. seq.). This hearing will take place on October 24, 2013, at 7:30 p.m., in the Bound Brook Borough Municipal Building, 230 Hamilton Street, Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805
The Study Area is identified on the Borough Tax Assessor’s Records as follows:
Block 1 Lots 38, 38.01, 38.02, 39.01, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49.01, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56.01, 56.02, 57, 68.01, 68.02 and 70,; Conrail right of way (the “Study Area”)
A map showing the boundaries of the Study Area and the location of the various parcels included in the Study Area, as well as the Redevelopment Study & Preliminary Investigation Report, which Report may be updated, revised, and/or supplemented prior to the continued public hearing, all of which will be considered by the Board at its October 24, 2013 hearing, shall be on file at the office of the Planning Board Secretary, Bound Brook Borough Municipal Building, 230 Hamilton Street, Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805. The map, the Report, and any supplemental reports that may be generated may be viewed during regular business hours, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, between 9 am to 4:30 pm, and Tuesday between 9 am to 8 pm.
Based on the testimony presented at this hearing, the Board may take action and recommend to the Borough Council that all or a portion of the Study Area be designated in need of redevelopment. This recommendation will be sent to the Borough Council of the Borough of Bound Brook for further action as per the requirements of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The Borough Council can approve, reject, or amend the Planning Board’s recommendation and may adopt a resolution determining that the Study Area, or any part thereof, is in need of redevelopment.
If the Borough Council adopts a resolution that the Study Area is in need of redevelopment, this designation will include all of the properties in the Study Area unless the Council alters or revises the list of properties in the Study Area. The designation that the properties in the Study Area are in need of redevelopment will serve as a finding of public purpose that provides the Borough with the authority to acquire property in the area so designated by eminent domain (a.k.a. condemnation ) if necessary to advance the purposes of the redevelopment plan for the area.
If the Borough Council adopts a resolution designating the Study Area as being in need of redevelopment, any property owner wishing to challenge the designation must file a complaint in the Superior Court within 45 days of the adoption of that resolution.
Any interested party may appear at said hearing and participate therein. All evidence provided at the hearing, given orally or in writing, shall be received and considered and made a part of the public record.
Attest: Donna Marie Godleski, Municipal Clerk