Hearings on asphalt plant continue in T.F.
Stavola manager testifies plant site is too small
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The latest in a series of hearings on an application seeking approval for an asphalt plant to be constructed on Shafto Road was held by the Tinton Falls Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 15.
Stavola Realty Co., Tinton Falls, is opposing the plant that is being proposed by FLM Associates.
Stavola Realty is represented by John Giunco, Middletown, who brought Stavola Asphalt Division Manager Fred Wallenquest to provide expert testimony.
The site of the proposed plant is located in the MFG Zone where permitted uses include offices, research facilities, hospitals, veterinary hospitals without outdoor kennels, libraries and parks.
John Tatulli, of Tucci & Tatulli, West Long Branch, represents FLM Associates, which is seeking a use variance and site plan approval for the proposed warm-mix asphalt plant.
Asphalt plants are permitted in another zone in the borough, but zoning ordinances require that they be located on a site of at least 10 acres. The site of the plant proposed on Shafto Road is 4.7 acres.
Wallenquest testified that his main concern with the proposed plant is the relatively small size of the site.
"My concern would be if I had to operate that facility, there is a whole lot going on there on a very small piece of land," he said. Wallenquest was concerned that the stockpiles at the plant would cause problems.
"My concern is the size of the stockpiles," he said, "the ability to bring in material and let the material dry out before you put it in the plant."
Wallenquest said that larger stockpiles mean you don't have to replenish them as frequently, which results in less truck traffic.
"Most asphalt plants store fairly large stockpiles," he said, "so you don't have peaks of traffic.
"You could have a busy day, so you don't have to replenish it the same day," he added.
Wallenquest said that Stavola's stockpiles generally contain a few thousand tons of material. He was unaware how the proposed plant would manage the stockpiles.
"I would have to see how high they stockpile it, how high those walls are," he said. Wallenquest was asked by board Chairman Ron Palmieri what the perfect size for an asphalt plant would be.
"What would be your perfect size asphalt plant area?" Palmieri asked.
"Of course bigger would be better," Wallenquest said. "It allows you the flexibility of moving the materials in the winter with cheaper prices.
"Fifty acres would be great, but as a minimum I would say somewhere between 10 and 15 [acres] would be sufficient," he added.
Plans also call for the plant to use warm asphalt, and Wallenquest said studies on the benefits of this type of mix are inconclusive at this point.
"We don't even know yet the value of that product because it's in a study," he said. "It has yet to be evaluated."
Wallenquest said a study is being done at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, but the results are not in yet.
Wallenquest also criticized the plant because he said it would have to do the recycling of material off-site.
"You lose the benefit of the recycled [material] by not recycling it on-site," he said. "I would compare it to buying locally grown fruit from the West Coast.
"You save on the fuel to move it," he added. "It is more environmentally sound to do the recycling on-site."
Toward the end of the hearing, Tatulli was able to cross-examine Wallenquest. During the cross-examination, Wallenquest admitted he was unaware of a Stavola asphalt plant in Millville and another of the company's plants in North Bergen that both have smaller sites than the proposed FLM site.Also opposing the development is Edgewood Properties LLC, represented by Ron Gasiorowski, Fox Chase Condominiums, represented by Michael S. Karpoff, and Borough Properties LLC, represented by Robert Inglima.
Hearings will continue at the Nov. 5 Zoning Board meeting at Borough Hall.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Lawson will decide if blight challenge can proceed
Lawson will decide if blight challenge can proceed
Fuschia Triangle suit hinges on expanding time for legal redress
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — After hearing oral arguments on Oct. 14, a state Superior Court judge will decide whether a challenge to the city's blight designation of a lower Broadway property can be brought 13 years after the fact.
Judge Lawrence M. Lawson will rule on a motion for an enlargement of time filed on behalf of Long Branch property owners by attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson, Princeton, who is seeking an enlargement of time in order to argue merits of the blight designation, which dates back to 1996.
Potter, who represents plaintiffs Kevin and Adele Fister, principals in Fuschia Triangle Corp. and Coach Corp., is claiming that the original notice of the blight designation received by the plaintiffs was unconstitutional.
"We are here looking at whether the notice was sufficient to the property owner," he said during the Oct. 14 oral arguments in front of Lawson. "Here we are looking for your honor to grant us the ability to move forward and challenge the constitutionality of the designation."
Long Branch City Attorney James Aaron is opposing Potter. Potter's law partner Pete Dickson also appeared at court.
The property in question is located in the Broadway-Gateway redevelopment zone and is composed of commercial properties made up of five contiguous lots bounded by North and South Broadway, Long Branch Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The city designated the site blighted and "an area in need of redevelopment" in 1996.
The time frame for challenging the city's blight designation was 45 days, and Potter is seeking to expand that window, arguing that his clients were made aware of the designation but remained uninformed about just what the ramifications were.
"Yes, they knew of the redevelopment designation, but, no, they did not know of the significance of it," Potter said. "Yes, they welcomed it because they were under the misimpression that it was beneficial, and the misimpression was conveyed over and over again by city officials.
"They could not have known what was in store for them," he added.
Potter cited the precedent-setting case, which he successfully argued, Harrison Redevelopment v. DeRose (2008), as a case that is similar in ways.
Potter said the property owners in that case, whose properties were taken by eminent domain, were in a different situation because they received compensation.
"My clients have taken very difficult steps to get here," he said. "They are actually in far worse situation than the property owners in Harrison versus DeRose.
"That property was actually taken by eminent domain, and money was deposited into escrow," he added. "They still had the money available to them."
Potter went on to say that the property in Long Branch has not been taken and this has been a hardship on the property owners.
"They have been tied up for 13 years," he said. "They have been unable to sell their property; they've come very close.
"Each time it's fallen through because this cloud of blight designation hangs over their property," he added. "They are in an even worse situation.
"In Harrison versus DeRose, it was a taking with compensation," he continued. "Here we have a de facto taking without compensation."
However, he argued, the fact that the lower Broadway property is intact makes it easier because nothing physically needs to be reversed.
"It's actually much easier [to base it on] the merits than it was in Harrison versus DeRose," Potter said. "We aren't talking about digging up something that's been done."
In his July 26 motion for enlargement, Potter cited criteria the courts have used to grant enlargements, including substantial and novel constitutional questions and an important public, rather than a private, interest that requires adjudication or clarification as exceptions the courts have used for granting enlargement.
"All the courts have found that if the plaintiff meets one of the categories, then we go to the merits," Potter said. "You don't have to meet all of them.
"When a plaintiff meets at least one category, courts have not looked at whether or not they could have challenged then," he added.
"Here we are challenging the constitutionality," he continued. "Your Honor, in the interest of justice, the enlargement is necessary."
Aaron argued that the exceptions should not always be used.
"The exceptions are just that—exceptions. They are to be used sparingly," he said.
Lawson asked Potter multiple questions during the arguments, including, "When does it end?" regarding the length of the 13-year delay and the possibility that future cases could be sought from further back than 1996.
Aaron contended that the longer the wait, the less of a case for an enlargement.
"The longer a party waits to mount its challenge, the less it has a case for an enlargement," he said.
Aaron argued that through some of the property owners' actions, the plaintiffs were well aware of what the redevelopment designation was well before the 13 years have passed by.
"Courts also consider the length of the delay and the reason for the delay," he said. "It is also appropriate to look at the previous actions or inactions of the plaintiff.
"You have to look at what the parties did or didn't do to make the decision whether or not to enlarge time," he added. "Counsel argues 'My client didn't understand what was going to happen to my property.' "
Aaron stated that the plaintiffs came to the city in 1999, and if they were unhappy with the ruling they should have challenged then.
"Between 1998 and 1999 they actually came to a recommendation to devise a plan that the city would accept," Aaron said. "Suddenly that plan is changed, the city would not accept.
"Why not challenge the plan in 2000/2001?" he asked. "Why not challenge then if you're being harmed by the municipality? Silence is the answer."
Aaron cited the history between the plaintiffs and the city in which they met with city officials to discuss planning for a period around the year 2000 and then were not heard from after that, he said.
Aaron also said that the city was willing to work with the property owners.
"The city has never once said your property is at risk and if you don't do it our way your property is going to be taken," he said. "Never once. The city has been saying we want you to develop it, we want to help you develop it."
Aaron reiterated his point that the plaintiffs should have challenged years ago if they were being harmed.
"There is no basis for this court to reopen what the city did 13 years ago," he said. "To come to the court with the pretense of 'We didn't know what was happening' simply doesn't jibe with the facts.
"If you didn't know, then when did you know?" he added. "It may not be the 13-year delay, it may be the seven-year delay.
"Thirteen years later, after an extensive relationship with the city — good, bad or indifferent — they want to challenge this," he continued.
Lawson agreed that the property owner could have challenged before now.
"What you're asking me to do is expand," he said. "They could have challenged then [2000]."
Potter argued that what has happened during the 13-year period isn't relevant.
"What did or did not happen between 1996 and 2008 has no bearing on anything," he said. "We don't need to go there. I realize the city wants to go there."
Potter also claimed that the city's response to the brief filed on behalf of the Fisters is irrelevant to the request for enlargement.
"What does the city argue in the rebuttal?" Potter asked. "They tried to shift the focus. They tried to simply say 'Mr. Fister, it is all your fault.'
"They want to have a trial on something Mr. Fister did or did not say in 2000-2001," he added. "That is totally irrelevant. It really doesn't make any sense. We'd have to depose witnesses from 1996. We don't need to go there."
As the arguments closed, Lawson said he would reread all the briefs and arguments and rule on the enlargement. No timetable was given.
In the lawsuit filed against the city on April 8, Potter argues that the Fisters have exhaustively pursued alternative courses of action and failed to gain the city's approval of any plans to develop the Fuschia Triangle, one of the city's six redevelopment zones.
The lawsuit claims that in July 2008, a Notice of Tort Claim was filed in an effort to obtain just compensation for the "de facto" taking of the Fuschia Triangle property.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn the blight designation of the Fuschia Triangle and asks the court for compensatory and punitive damages for the "inverse condemnation 'taking' of the Fuschia Triangle that has resulted from the city's ongoing pattern and practice of 'freezing' the Fuschia Triangle in place for some ill-defined future use or redevelopment purpose that may never transpire."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Fuschia Triangle suit hinges on expanding time for legal redress
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — After hearing oral arguments on Oct. 14, a state Superior Court judge will decide whether a challenge to the city's blight designation of a lower Broadway property can be brought 13 years after the fact.
Judge Lawrence M. Lawson will rule on a motion for an enlargement of time filed on behalf of Long Branch property owners by attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson, Princeton, who is seeking an enlargement of time in order to argue merits of the blight designation, which dates back to 1996.
Potter, who represents plaintiffs Kevin and Adele Fister, principals in Fuschia Triangle Corp. and Coach Corp., is claiming that the original notice of the blight designation received by the plaintiffs was unconstitutional.
"We are here looking at whether the notice was sufficient to the property owner," he said during the Oct. 14 oral arguments in front of Lawson. "Here we are looking for your honor to grant us the ability to move forward and challenge the constitutionality of the designation."
Long Branch City Attorney James Aaron is opposing Potter. Potter's law partner Pete Dickson also appeared at court.
The property in question is located in the Broadway-Gateway redevelopment zone and is composed of commercial properties made up of five contiguous lots bounded by North and South Broadway, Long Branch Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The city designated the site blighted and "an area in need of redevelopment" in 1996.
The time frame for challenging the city's blight designation was 45 days, and Potter is seeking to expand that window, arguing that his clients were made aware of the designation but remained uninformed about just what the ramifications were.
"Yes, they knew of the redevelopment designation, but, no, they did not know of the significance of it," Potter said. "Yes, they welcomed it because they were under the misimpression that it was beneficial, and the misimpression was conveyed over and over again by city officials.
"They could not have known what was in store for them," he added.
Potter cited the precedent-setting case, which he successfully argued, Harrison Redevelopment v. DeRose (2008), as a case that is similar in ways.
Potter said the property owners in that case, whose properties were taken by eminent domain, were in a different situation because they received compensation.
"My clients have taken very difficult steps to get here," he said. "They are actually in far worse situation than the property owners in Harrison versus DeRose.
"That property was actually taken by eminent domain, and money was deposited into escrow," he added. "They still had the money available to them."
Potter went on to say that the property in Long Branch has not been taken and this has been a hardship on the property owners.
"They have been tied up for 13 years," he said. "They have been unable to sell their property; they've come very close.
"Each time it's fallen through because this cloud of blight designation hangs over their property," he added. "They are in an even worse situation.
"In Harrison versus DeRose, it was a taking with compensation," he continued. "Here we have a de facto taking without compensation."
However, he argued, the fact that the lower Broadway property is intact makes it easier because nothing physically needs to be reversed.
"It's actually much easier [to base it on] the merits than it was in Harrison versus DeRose," Potter said. "We aren't talking about digging up something that's been done."
In his July 26 motion for enlargement, Potter cited criteria the courts have used to grant enlargements, including substantial and novel constitutional questions and an important public, rather than a private, interest that requires adjudication or clarification as exceptions the courts have used for granting enlargement.
"All the courts have found that if the plaintiff meets one of the categories, then we go to the merits," Potter said. "You don't have to meet all of them.
"When a plaintiff meets at least one category, courts have not looked at whether or not they could have challenged then," he added.
"Here we are challenging the constitutionality," he continued. "Your Honor, in the interest of justice, the enlargement is necessary."
Aaron argued that the exceptions should not always be used.
"The exceptions are just that—exceptions. They are to be used sparingly," he said.
Lawson asked Potter multiple questions during the arguments, including, "When does it end?" regarding the length of the 13-year delay and the possibility that future cases could be sought from further back than 1996.
Aaron contended that the longer the wait, the less of a case for an enlargement.
"The longer a party waits to mount its challenge, the less it has a case for an enlargement," he said.
Aaron argued that through some of the property owners' actions, the plaintiffs were well aware of what the redevelopment designation was well before the 13 years have passed by.
"Courts also consider the length of the delay and the reason for the delay," he said. "It is also appropriate to look at the previous actions or inactions of the plaintiff.
"You have to look at what the parties did or didn't do to make the decision whether or not to enlarge time," he added. "Counsel argues 'My client didn't understand what was going to happen to my property.' "
Aaron stated that the plaintiffs came to the city in 1999, and if they were unhappy with the ruling they should have challenged then.
"Between 1998 and 1999 they actually came to a recommendation to devise a plan that the city would accept," Aaron said. "Suddenly that plan is changed, the city would not accept.
"Why not challenge the plan in 2000/2001?" he asked. "Why not challenge then if you're being harmed by the municipality? Silence is the answer."
Aaron cited the history between the plaintiffs and the city in which they met with city officials to discuss planning for a period around the year 2000 and then were not heard from after that, he said.
Aaron also said that the city was willing to work with the property owners.
"The city has never once said your property is at risk and if you don't do it our way your property is going to be taken," he said. "Never once. The city has been saying we want you to develop it, we want to help you develop it."
Aaron reiterated his point that the plaintiffs should have challenged years ago if they were being harmed.
"There is no basis for this court to reopen what the city did 13 years ago," he said. "To come to the court with the pretense of 'We didn't know what was happening' simply doesn't jibe with the facts.
"If you didn't know, then when did you know?" he added. "It may not be the 13-year delay, it may be the seven-year delay.
"Thirteen years later, after an extensive relationship with the city — good, bad or indifferent — they want to challenge this," he continued.
Lawson agreed that the property owner could have challenged before now.
"What you're asking me to do is expand," he said. "They could have challenged then [2000]."
Potter argued that what has happened during the 13-year period isn't relevant.
"What did or did not happen between 1996 and 2008 has no bearing on anything," he said. "We don't need to go there. I realize the city wants to go there."
Potter also claimed that the city's response to the brief filed on behalf of the Fisters is irrelevant to the request for enlargement.
"What does the city argue in the rebuttal?" Potter asked. "They tried to shift the focus. They tried to simply say 'Mr. Fister, it is all your fault.'
"They want to have a trial on something Mr. Fister did or did not say in 2000-2001," he added. "That is totally irrelevant. It really doesn't make any sense. We'd have to depose witnesses from 1996. We don't need to go there."
As the arguments closed, Lawson said he would reread all the briefs and arguments and rule on the enlargement. No timetable was given.
In the lawsuit filed against the city on April 8, Potter argues that the Fisters have exhaustively pursued alternative courses of action and failed to gain the city's approval of any plans to develop the Fuschia Triangle, one of the city's six redevelopment zones.
The lawsuit claims that in July 2008, a Notice of Tort Claim was filed in an effort to obtain just compensation for the "de facto" taking of the Fuschia Triangle property.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn the blight designation of the Fuschia Triangle and asks the court for compensatory and punitive damages for the "inverse condemnation 'taking' of the Fuschia Triangle that has resulted from the city's ongoing pattern and practice of 'freezing' the Fuschia Triangle in place for some ill-defined future use or redevelopment purpose that may never transpire."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Mayor defends finance director's contract
Mayor defends finance director's contract
Citizens group criticizes payout for unused vacation, sick days
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Mayor Adam Schneider last week came to the defense of city Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr., who is under fire for contract provisions that allow him to cash out unused sick and vacation days.
"Ron is well paid; he is also one of the best at what he does in the state of New Jersey," Schneider said. "He is in a position where you have tens of millions of dollars coming in every year and going out every year.
"The decisions that he makes, that we rely on him to make, are critical to the taxpayers."
Mehlhorn's contract came under heat at the Oct. 13 City Council meeting. The contract allows the finance director to cash out an unlimited number of accrued sick and vacation days.
Schneider was absent for the meeting but responded in an interview last week and credited Mehlhorn for rarely taking any time off in his more than 25 years of service.
"He rarely takes a day off; it's only in the last couple of years that he did," the mayor said. "If I wanted to call him on Sunday, I'd call him at the office and the likelihood is he'd be there."
Schneider said much of Mehlhorn's contract was carried over from a previous administration in the '80s.
Tensions spilled over last week at the council meeting when a citizens group questioned contracts that allow some highlevel city officials to cash out accrued sick and vacation days.
This comes as the Long Branch Citizens for Good Government discovered through Open Public Records Act [OPRA} requests that Mehlhorn was able to cash out an additional $242,832 in 2006 and 2007 by banking sick and vacation days he has accrued during his more than 25 years of employment.
During the public discussion portion of the Oct. 13 meeting, members of the public repeatedly criticized the mayor and city administration for this practice.
"We in Long Branch need to adopt a use-or-lose policy on vacations," LBCGG spokesman Tom Sheedy said.
"These people supposedly represent the public and the public interest," LBCGG organizer Diana Multare said. "These figures were not easily accessible. They need to come up with an agreement that represents the public interest," she added.
Schneider, however, does not see real savings in the use-them-or-lose them way of doing business.
"The idea that you have to use them or lose, there is a slight savings in there, but it's not a huge number," he said. "So people either have to use their vacation days, which they will, or they'll cash them in every year."
Schneider admitted that the number of days cashed in sounds like a lot, but it also has another meaning.
"There are advantages for both sides when we say we'll pay you for your sick and vacation days," he said. "It sounds like a huge number, it is a big number, but it means he's worked those days."
Schneider was also critical of the timing of revelations about Mehlhorn's contract.
"How much he makes is public record," he said. "When people come up and say, 'Look what we've discovered,' that's false, that's a misrepresentation."
Multare went on to criticize Schneider and question the way contracts are negotiated.
"I don't blame any city employee for trying to get the best deal that they possibly can," she said. "The big question is why wasn't the public represented at the table.
"As we all know, Mayor Schneider controls every dollar spent and every contract negotiated," she said. "And the City Council has to pass on these contracts and budgets."
After Multare spoke, local CPA Lynn Petrovich, who is financial adviser to the LBCGG, spoke about her analysis of the contracts.
She said that the contracts for city employees with 25 years of service or more provide that unused sick and vacation days are compensated at 50 percent of the employee's daily pay rate, not to exceed $25,000. Mehlhorn's contract was different.
"The contract for Mr. Mehlhorn states that all unused sick days should be paid at 100 percent value," she said. "He can accrue an unlimited number of vacation days at 100 percent."
Resident Bill McLaughlin also criticized the city for what he said is the waste of taxpayers' money.
"This is no way to spend taxpayers' money that you are elected to serve," McLaughlin said. McLaughlin refused to blame Mehlhorn for the contract, focusing the blame on Schneider, who was absent from the meeting.
"If he asked for it and you [council members] gave it to him, more power to him," McLaughlin said. "Why did you give it to him?
"I've known Mr. Mehlhorn 20 years. Since you [Mehlhorn] got up there, you got yourself in bad company," he added.
Addressing the council, McLaughlin said, "You gave him that contract to run as your point man."
Both McLaughlin and Multare said that a change in administration is needed.
"If you continue on this track, I think the people of this town should throw you out of office, or run you out of office, or just vote you out of office," McLaughlin said.
"Is it indifference?" Multare asked. "Is it arrogance? As far as I'm concerned, it's time to go. There are other people out there, new blood to take the reins."
At the end of the meeting Mehlhorn responded to the criticism, defending the provisions of his contract.
"I didn't say I never took vacation," he said. "It's long hours and long days. It's a lot of money and I'm not hiding behind that."
Another point the city was criticized for was having more than $10.4 million in liability for sick and vacation time due employees, which is not audited, according to Petrovich.
"What is very interesting is the $10.4 million does not show up for the city's audited financial statements for accrued sick and vacation benefits," Multare said.
Mehlhorn defended the liability, saying that while it is a large number, it won't ever be paid out in full.
"It's a contingency liability fund," he said. "It doesn't appear in any of the city's books.
"It's contingent upon the city having to close its doors and having to pay every penny that it owed its employees," he added. "That'll never happen. If it did, that would be the least of your problems."
Councilman Brian Unger said the problem is on the part of the administration, not the employees.
"I've always enjoyed working with Ron," Unger said at the meeting. "However, I take exception to some of the practices we have here at City Hall.
"We should limit the compensated accrual of vacation and sick days," he said. "It's ridiculous; $200,000 and $300,000 payouts are absolutely outrageous and we can't afford them."
Unger said in an interview last week that he is not opposed giving special contracts to top officials, but he would like to limit the vacation payouts.
"It's deficient as a matter of fiscal policy," he said. "Most management employees are covered by the union contract we have."
Unger said that Mehlhorn, Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. and Director of Public Safety William Richards are the three city employees with special contracts.
"I'm not opposed to giving them a special contract, but it shouldn't be a violation of the public trust," he said. "I don't get a lot of [complaints] on the base pay from people. I think where people really take issue is these huge bonus payments from sick days."
Unger said the problem goes all the way up to the state level.
"The standards that the State of New Jersey uses are not as stringent as GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]," he said. "GAAP is considered the gold standard.
"Schools and other government agencies use GAAP," he added. "Municipalities can't use GAAP."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Citizens group criticizes payout for unused vacation, sick days
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Mayor Adam Schneider last week came to the defense of city Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr., who is under fire for contract provisions that allow him to cash out unused sick and vacation days.
"Ron is well paid; he is also one of the best at what he does in the state of New Jersey," Schneider said. "He is in a position where you have tens of millions of dollars coming in every year and going out every year.
"The decisions that he makes, that we rely on him to make, are critical to the taxpayers."
Mehlhorn's contract came under heat at the Oct. 13 City Council meeting. The contract allows the finance director to cash out an unlimited number of accrued sick and vacation days.
Schneider was absent for the meeting but responded in an interview last week and credited Mehlhorn for rarely taking any time off in his more than 25 years of service.
"He rarely takes a day off; it's only in the last couple of years that he did," the mayor said. "If I wanted to call him on Sunday, I'd call him at the office and the likelihood is he'd be there."
Schneider said much of Mehlhorn's contract was carried over from a previous administration in the '80s.
Tensions spilled over last week at the council meeting when a citizens group questioned contracts that allow some highlevel city officials to cash out accrued sick and vacation days.
This comes as the Long Branch Citizens for Good Government discovered through Open Public Records Act [OPRA} requests that Mehlhorn was able to cash out an additional $242,832 in 2006 and 2007 by banking sick and vacation days he has accrued during his more than 25 years of employment.
During the public discussion portion of the Oct. 13 meeting, members of the public repeatedly criticized the mayor and city administration for this practice.
"We in Long Branch need to adopt a use-or-lose policy on vacations," LBCGG spokesman Tom Sheedy said.
"These people supposedly represent the public and the public interest," LBCGG organizer Diana Multare said. "These figures were not easily accessible. They need to come up with an agreement that represents the public interest," she added.
Schneider, however, does not see real savings in the use-them-or-lose them way of doing business.
"The idea that you have to use them or lose, there is a slight savings in there, but it's not a huge number," he said. "So people either have to use their vacation days, which they will, or they'll cash them in every year."
Schneider admitted that the number of days cashed in sounds like a lot, but it also has another meaning.
"There are advantages for both sides when we say we'll pay you for your sick and vacation days," he said. "It sounds like a huge number, it is a big number, but it means he's worked those days."
Schneider was also critical of the timing of revelations about Mehlhorn's contract.
"How much he makes is public record," he said. "When people come up and say, 'Look what we've discovered,' that's false, that's a misrepresentation."
Multare went on to criticize Schneider and question the way contracts are negotiated.
"I don't blame any city employee for trying to get the best deal that they possibly can," she said. "The big question is why wasn't the public represented at the table.
"As we all know, Mayor Schneider controls every dollar spent and every contract negotiated," she said. "And the City Council has to pass on these contracts and budgets."
After Multare spoke, local CPA Lynn Petrovich, who is financial adviser to the LBCGG, spoke about her analysis of the contracts.
She said that the contracts for city employees with 25 years of service or more provide that unused sick and vacation days are compensated at 50 percent of the employee's daily pay rate, not to exceed $25,000. Mehlhorn's contract was different.
"The contract for Mr. Mehlhorn states that all unused sick days should be paid at 100 percent value," she said. "He can accrue an unlimited number of vacation days at 100 percent."
Resident Bill McLaughlin also criticized the city for what he said is the waste of taxpayers' money.
"This is no way to spend taxpayers' money that you are elected to serve," McLaughlin said. McLaughlin refused to blame Mehlhorn for the contract, focusing the blame on Schneider, who was absent from the meeting.
"If he asked for it and you [council members] gave it to him, more power to him," McLaughlin said. "Why did you give it to him?
"I've known Mr. Mehlhorn 20 years. Since you [Mehlhorn] got up there, you got yourself in bad company," he added.
Addressing the council, McLaughlin said, "You gave him that contract to run as your point man."
Both McLaughlin and Multare said that a change in administration is needed.
"If you continue on this track, I think the people of this town should throw you out of office, or run you out of office, or just vote you out of office," McLaughlin said.
"Is it indifference?" Multare asked. "Is it arrogance? As far as I'm concerned, it's time to go. There are other people out there, new blood to take the reins."
At the end of the meeting Mehlhorn responded to the criticism, defending the provisions of his contract.
"I didn't say I never took vacation," he said. "It's long hours and long days. It's a lot of money and I'm not hiding behind that."
Another point the city was criticized for was having more than $10.4 million in liability for sick and vacation time due employees, which is not audited, according to Petrovich.
"What is very interesting is the $10.4 million does not show up for the city's audited financial statements for accrued sick and vacation benefits," Multare said.
Mehlhorn defended the liability, saying that while it is a large number, it won't ever be paid out in full.
"It's a contingency liability fund," he said. "It doesn't appear in any of the city's books.
"It's contingent upon the city having to close its doors and having to pay every penny that it owed its employees," he added. "That'll never happen. If it did, that would be the least of your problems."
Councilman Brian Unger said the problem is on the part of the administration, not the employees.
"I've always enjoyed working with Ron," Unger said at the meeting. "However, I take exception to some of the practices we have here at City Hall.
"We should limit the compensated accrual of vacation and sick days," he said. "It's ridiculous; $200,000 and $300,000 payouts are absolutely outrageous and we can't afford them."
Unger said in an interview last week that he is not opposed giving special contracts to top officials, but he would like to limit the vacation payouts.
"It's deficient as a matter of fiscal policy," he said. "Most management employees are covered by the union contract we have."
Unger said that Mehlhorn, Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. and Director of Public Safety William Richards are the three city employees with special contracts.
"I'm not opposed to giving them a special contract, but it shouldn't be a violation of the public trust," he said. "I don't get a lot of [complaints] on the base pay from people. I think where people really take issue is these huge bonus payments from sick days."
Unger said the problem goes all the way up to the state level.
"The standards that the State of New Jersey uses are not as stringent as GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]," he said. "GAAP is considered the gold standard.
"Schools and other government agencies use GAAP," he added. "Municipalities can't use GAAP."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
T.F. council tired of staying up late
T.F. council tired of staying up late
Changes aim to make meetings more efficient
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Citing rushed sessions and late nights, the Borough Council has decided to restructure its meetings.
The council agreed at the Oct. 6 workshop meeting that the current format, which regularly runs past 10 p.m., is not working.
Currently, the council meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. The public session starts at 7:30 p.m. and is followed by a workshop meeting and an executive session if necessary.
Borough Attorney Brian M. Nelson suggested in a memo to council that the executive session be moved to the beginning of the meeting.
"I have a somewhat legal concern with executive sessions taking place at the end of the meetings rather than the beginning," Nelson said. "That way, if there are items that the council needs to take action on, may be discussed in the executive session, and take action during the public session so it's really fresh in everyone's minds.
"There are certain decisions you're going to make as council that I don't think you want to make late in the evening when people are looking to get out," he added.
Nelson suggested that the executive sessions begin at least one hour before the public session.
Council members were in agreement.
"I like the idea of the executive sessions early because by the time we get into executive session, everyone's exhausted, and you're asking us to decide on things and we've been here for six, seven hours," council President Duane Morrill said.
"I tend to agree with the idea of having the executive session before the meeting," Councilman Andrew Mayer concurred.
The council will regularly meet for executive session at 6:30 p.m. and, depending on the agenda, may meet earlier at times.
"If you know you have something that is super long, then you can schedule it at 6 [p.m.]," Morrill said.
Council members also agreed to change the order of business for their two monthly meetings. The council will restructure the schedule to have the first meeting of the month be a workshop and the second meeting be the meeting at which council conducts business.
"Every municipality I've done work with has a workshop meeting at the beginning of the month, which basically lays out the agenda and gives the council a chance to discuss those items," Nelson said.
Nelson said the council could still do some of the more routine work, such as bill payments and bond releases, during the workshop meetings.
The council would also be required to provide for public comment, but they would not vote on ordinances or hold public hearings on ordinances at the workshop session.
Mayer had some concerns about that format and suggested that they keep the format the same but move up the executive session; however, Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama disagreed.
"Why would we keep the meeting the way it is?" she asked. "We've been getting out at midnight and 1 in the morning," she added. "We can look toward making these meetings more productive."
Mayer continued to question the benefit of changing the meetings.
"That would leave us with just one business meeting a month," Mayer said. "I'm really wondering what the benefit of the workshop would be."
Nelson explained the benefits of the new meeting schedule
"The benefit of it would be the items that are not routine would be discussed at the meeting later in the month," Nelson said. "It is really a workshop where you roll your sleeves up.
"Have the items listed for discussion, not action," he added. "I have found it makes things a lot cleaner and gets a lot of issues out of the way in advance."
Councilman Scott Larkin, who joined the council in July, said he wants to maximize discussion among the council members.
"I think it's good how we argue about things, how we disagree," Larkin said. "We are starting to come together.
"For myself to do my job, I need to be able to have some time to sit down with you guys and roll up our sleeves and let's have our own discussion and arguments," he added. "Sometimes I feel I just don't get that chance."
Nelson suggested that the council limit public comment to five minutes per person. Currently residents are generally given up to 10 minutes each during the public discussion.
"Most places do five, but it's always really at the discretion of the council president," Nelson said.
The council sought advice from Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, who has 20-plus years of experience in the borough.
"I agree with many of the points that Mr. Nelson has brought forth," she said. "We are always willing to try it one way, and if it doesn't work, we can try it another way."
The council agreed that if the new meeting schedule doesn't work, it could return to the present schedule. A resolution setting the new meeting schedule is expected to be on the agenda at the next council meeting on Oct. 20.
"If it doesn't work, we can always go back," Morrill said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Changes aim to make meetings more efficient
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Citing rushed sessions and late nights, the Borough Council has decided to restructure its meetings.
The council agreed at the Oct. 6 workshop meeting that the current format, which regularly runs past 10 p.m., is not working.
Currently, the council meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. The public session starts at 7:30 p.m. and is followed by a workshop meeting and an executive session if necessary.
Borough Attorney Brian M. Nelson suggested in a memo to council that the executive session be moved to the beginning of the meeting.
"I have a somewhat legal concern with executive sessions taking place at the end of the meetings rather than the beginning," Nelson said. "That way, if there are items that the council needs to take action on, may be discussed in the executive session, and take action during the public session so it's really fresh in everyone's minds.
"There are certain decisions you're going to make as council that I don't think you want to make late in the evening when people are looking to get out," he added.
Nelson suggested that the executive sessions begin at least one hour before the public session.
Council members were in agreement.
"I like the idea of the executive sessions early because by the time we get into executive session, everyone's exhausted, and you're asking us to decide on things and we've been here for six, seven hours," council President Duane Morrill said.
"I tend to agree with the idea of having the executive session before the meeting," Councilman Andrew Mayer concurred.
The council will regularly meet for executive session at 6:30 p.m. and, depending on the agenda, may meet earlier at times.
"If you know you have something that is super long, then you can schedule it at 6 [p.m.]," Morrill said.
Council members also agreed to change the order of business for their two monthly meetings. The council will restructure the schedule to have the first meeting of the month be a workshop and the second meeting be the meeting at which council conducts business.
"Every municipality I've done work with has a workshop meeting at the beginning of the month, which basically lays out the agenda and gives the council a chance to discuss those items," Nelson said.
Nelson said the council could still do some of the more routine work, such as bill payments and bond releases, during the workshop meetings.
The council would also be required to provide for public comment, but they would not vote on ordinances or hold public hearings on ordinances at the workshop session.
Mayer had some concerns about that format and suggested that they keep the format the same but move up the executive session; however, Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama disagreed.
"Why would we keep the meeting the way it is?" she asked. "We've been getting out at midnight and 1 in the morning," she added. "We can look toward making these meetings more productive."
Mayer continued to question the benefit of changing the meetings.
"That would leave us with just one business meeting a month," Mayer said. "I'm really wondering what the benefit of the workshop would be."
Nelson explained the benefits of the new meeting schedule
"The benefit of it would be the items that are not routine would be discussed at the meeting later in the month," Nelson said. "It is really a workshop where you roll your sleeves up.
"Have the items listed for discussion, not action," he added. "I have found it makes things a lot cleaner and gets a lot of issues out of the way in advance."
Councilman Scott Larkin, who joined the council in July, said he wants to maximize discussion among the council members.
"I think it's good how we argue about things, how we disagree," Larkin said. "We are starting to come together.
"For myself to do my job, I need to be able to have some time to sit down with you guys and roll up our sleeves and let's have our own discussion and arguments," he added. "Sometimes I feel I just don't get that chance."
Nelson suggested that the council limit public comment to five minutes per person. Currently residents are generally given up to 10 minutes each during the public discussion.
"Most places do five, but it's always really at the discretion of the council president," Nelson said.
The council sought advice from Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, who has 20-plus years of experience in the borough.
"I agree with many of the points that Mr. Nelson has brought forth," she said. "We are always willing to try it one way, and if it doesn't work, we can try it another way."
The council agreed that if the new meeting schedule doesn't work, it could return to the present schedule. A resolution setting the new meeting schedule is expected to be on the agenda at the next council meeting on Oct. 20.
"If it doesn't work, we can always go back," Morrill said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
T.F. revises grant bid for recreation complex
T.F. revises grant bid for recreation complex
Lights added for practice field; tot lot dropped
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough has revised plans for an open space grant application to include lighting on football fields at the Liberty Park II recreation complex.
Council chambers were filled several rows deep with cheerleaders and football players and their parents for the Sept. 15 council meeting.
The crowd was there to hear discussion of an application for grant funding from the Monmouth County Open Space program, which had a Sept. 23 deadline.
During the council meeting, Borough Engineer David Marks, of T&M Associates, presented plans for the grant application for the Liberty Park II sports complex located on West Park Avenue.
The plan originally presented included additional parking spaces, an extension of the sidewalk, an additional playground designed for younger children, a picnic area and additional lighting for the parking lot.
Several parents involved in the Pop Warner youth football program spoke out against the application at the Sept. 15 Borough Council meeting, arguing the money would be better used for lighting on the two football fields.
After a meeting between representatives of Pop Warner and the borough, a compromise was reached on the application.
Borough Administrator W. Bryan Dempsey discussed the final draft of the application in an interview on Oct. 1.
Dempsey said the application submitted Sept. 23 included lighting for the practice field, rain gardens for the parking lot, a picnic area, fitness stations and additional parking.
Dempsey said that there will be a new 50-space parking lot, which will include a new access driveway. Plans also call for the sidewalk to be extended into the middle of the park.
"One of the main problems we've had is the parking problem," Marks said during his original presentation. "In an effort to try to correct some of those problems, we are looking at maintaining the existing driveway, but also expanding upon it and adding a new access drive and some additional parking."
The addition of the lighting for the practice field made it necessary for something from the original draft to be eliminated.
"The tot lot's out," Dempsey said. "The tot lot went, and basically the lights went in there."
The total project would cost about $500,000. The county would match funds with the borough up to $250,000 if the plan that Marks submits is approved.
Dempsey said that if the application is not approved by the county, the application would be brought back to the Borough Council and can either be approved, scaled back or dropped completely.
"We are looking for a $500,000 application," he said. "If they don't approve it, then it goes back to the council, and the council would have to decide if they wanted to do anything.
"We might not do anything," he added. "There is nothing that binds them to do this.
"The county could say we are going to grant you $200,000 and we'd have to scale it out if we had to or go out to bid as is and maybe have some alternates," he continued.
Dempsey also said that the application is estimated at $500,000 but may come in less than that and the borough can add to the project.
"If we got awarded the $250,000, it could be maybe this comes in less than the $500,000 and we could add something else," Dempsey said.
Dempsey explained that the borough plans to put lights on the practice field, as opposed to the field that football games are played on, because the practice field is used more.
"The reason for the practice lights is that you have more use on the practice field than you would on the game field," he said. "Their games are every other week.
"If you have a 10-game season, then you have five games on the home field," he added. "If it's on the practice field, then you could use it more."
The field is primarily used for football, but Dempsey said that other sports are allowed to use it.
"If there is something going on in the spring time and another sport wants to use it, then they have a field that has lights," he said.
According to Marks, the complex is 37 acres and contains football and softball fields, a dog park, two basketball courts, nature and jogging trails, and a concession stand as well as parking.
Dempsey said that he received an e-mail from Pop Warner President Rick Farrah supporting the revised proposal.
"To my knowledge, Pop Warner supports this," Dempsey said.
Monmouth Falcons Pop Warner serves Tinton Falls, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Township, Fort Monmouth and Naval Weapons Station Earle.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Lights added for practice field; tot lot dropped
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough has revised plans for an open space grant application to include lighting on football fields at the Liberty Park II recreation complex.
Council chambers were filled several rows deep with cheerleaders and football players and their parents for the Sept. 15 council meeting.
The crowd was there to hear discussion of an application for grant funding from the Monmouth County Open Space program, which had a Sept. 23 deadline.
During the council meeting, Borough Engineer David Marks, of T&M Associates, presented plans for the grant application for the Liberty Park II sports complex located on West Park Avenue.
The plan originally presented included additional parking spaces, an extension of the sidewalk, an additional playground designed for younger children, a picnic area and additional lighting for the parking lot.
Several parents involved in the Pop Warner youth football program spoke out against the application at the Sept. 15 Borough Council meeting, arguing the money would be better used for lighting on the two football fields.
After a meeting between representatives of Pop Warner and the borough, a compromise was reached on the application.
Borough Administrator W. Bryan Dempsey discussed the final draft of the application in an interview on Oct. 1.
Dempsey said the application submitted Sept. 23 included lighting for the practice field, rain gardens for the parking lot, a picnic area, fitness stations and additional parking.
Dempsey said that there will be a new 50-space parking lot, which will include a new access driveway. Plans also call for the sidewalk to be extended into the middle of the park.
"One of the main problems we've had is the parking problem," Marks said during his original presentation. "In an effort to try to correct some of those problems, we are looking at maintaining the existing driveway, but also expanding upon it and adding a new access drive and some additional parking."
The addition of the lighting for the practice field made it necessary for something from the original draft to be eliminated.
"The tot lot's out," Dempsey said. "The tot lot went, and basically the lights went in there."
The total project would cost about $500,000. The county would match funds with the borough up to $250,000 if the plan that Marks submits is approved.
Dempsey said that if the application is not approved by the county, the application would be brought back to the Borough Council and can either be approved, scaled back or dropped completely.
"We are looking for a $500,000 application," he said. "If they don't approve it, then it goes back to the council, and the council would have to decide if they wanted to do anything.
"We might not do anything," he added. "There is nothing that binds them to do this.
"The county could say we are going to grant you $200,000 and we'd have to scale it out if we had to or go out to bid as is and maybe have some alternates," he continued.
Dempsey also said that the application is estimated at $500,000 but may come in less than that and the borough can add to the project.
"If we got awarded the $250,000, it could be maybe this comes in less than the $500,000 and we could add something else," Dempsey said.
Dempsey explained that the borough plans to put lights on the practice field, as opposed to the field that football games are played on, because the practice field is used more.
"The reason for the practice lights is that you have more use on the practice field than you would on the game field," he said. "Their games are every other week.
"If you have a 10-game season, then you have five games on the home field," he added. "If it's on the practice field, then you could use it more."
The field is primarily used for football, but Dempsey said that other sports are allowed to use it.
"If there is something going on in the spring time and another sport wants to use it, then they have a field that has lights," he said.
According to Marks, the complex is 37 acres and contains football and softball fields, a dog park, two basketball courts, nature and jogging trails, and a concession stand as well as parking.
Dempsey said that he received an e-mail from Pop Warner President Rick Farrah supporting the revised proposal.
"To my knowledge, Pop Warner supports this," Dempsey said.
Monmouth Falcons Pop Warner serves Tinton Falls, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Township, Fort Monmouth and Naval Weapons Station Earle.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Condo owners hear plans for Ocean Ave.
Condo owners hear plans for Ocean Ave.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Members of the Long Branch Coalition of Condominiums Association heard about plans to extend the boardwalk and change the flow of traffic on Ocean Avenue.
Speaking on behalf of the Save Ocean Avenue committee, Dennis Sherman went over some of the future goals for the group during the condominium association's annual meeting held at the Harbor Mansion recreation room.
"We want to put historical information along the boardwalk so people could read about the history of Long Branch," Sherman said. "We want to extend that bike path all the way from where it ends on South Bath to Morris Avenue.
"We would like to change the traffic pattern [on Ocean Avenue] to one-way traffic," he added.
Sherman suggested that traffic on Ocean Avenue be directed one way toward the south.
"We'd like to have the path on the right for joggers and bikers," he said. "If the traffic goes south, the bikes can go south on the right side."
According to Sherman, the committee is meeting with Director of Public Safety William Richards about changing the traffic pattern and hopes to make a pitch to the city in the near future.
"We are hoping to get a movement on this very quickly," Sherman said. "Then we will approach the City Council."
Sherman also cited congestion and dangerous traffic as some problems on Ocean Avenue that need to be fixed.
"If you try to cross the street, you take your life in your hands," he said. "The traffic is horrendous in the summer. Cars come in and they are looking for streets and looking for parking."
Sherman cited increased beach revenues in the city as a way the city can reinvest and improve the boardwalk.
"We've asked that the city take some of that money and reinvest it into the boardwalk, particularly the boardwalk on the south end," he said. "What we're really concerned about is the boardwalk from Brighton up to Pier Village."
Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger addressed the group at the end of the meeting.
"I think the idea has merit," he said. "On Ocean Avenue the traffic is very fast.
"I've always favored a way to make access across the road easier."
In regard to the design aspect of the plans, Unger suggested that professionals be involved.
"My input would be to make sure to involve people in the arts community who really, really know what they are doing," he said. "Make sure the design is smart.
"The worst thing would be if we have something like a name spelled wrong," he added. "Silly things like that would be embarrassing for Long Branch."
Also discussed at the meeting was the problem with storm-water runoff into the Branchport Creek.
"We don't want to have polluted waters because of Monmouth Park," LBCC President Bill McLaughlin said.
"Basically, run-off waste from the site is going into the river in an unacceptable toxicity level," LBCC treasurer Steve Molnar said. "This has been an ongoing issue for a couple years now and it seems like Monmouth Park has really stonewalled the issue."
Molnar said Oceanport has been awarded $22 million to remediate the problem and said LBCC was one of the groups that pushed for that.
"Just recently we got some movement on it, partly with the help of the condo coalition, and also from some of the politicians from the Oceanport side," he said.
"The New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust awarded $22 million to Oceanport, which will act as a pass-through for the loan," he added. "That will take care of the water run-off issues.
"All this was done with the help of the state legislators," he continued. Another success we'd like to highlight that our group was able to push, obviously we are not the only group."
The LBCC holds one meeting a year, but discussed the possibility of holding a meeting in April, since a City Council and mayoral election are slated for May in Long Branch.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Members of the Long Branch Coalition of Condominiums Association heard about plans to extend the boardwalk and change the flow of traffic on Ocean Avenue.
Speaking on behalf of the Save Ocean Avenue committee, Dennis Sherman went over some of the future goals for the group during the condominium association's annual meeting held at the Harbor Mansion recreation room.
"We want to put historical information along the boardwalk so people could read about the history of Long Branch," Sherman said. "We want to extend that bike path all the way from where it ends on South Bath to Morris Avenue.
"We would like to change the traffic pattern [on Ocean Avenue] to one-way traffic," he added.
Sherman suggested that traffic on Ocean Avenue be directed one way toward the south.
"We'd like to have the path on the right for joggers and bikers," he said. "If the traffic goes south, the bikes can go south on the right side."
According to Sherman, the committee is meeting with Director of Public Safety William Richards about changing the traffic pattern and hopes to make a pitch to the city in the near future.
"We are hoping to get a movement on this very quickly," Sherman said. "Then we will approach the City Council."
Sherman also cited congestion and dangerous traffic as some problems on Ocean Avenue that need to be fixed.
"If you try to cross the street, you take your life in your hands," he said. "The traffic is horrendous in the summer. Cars come in and they are looking for streets and looking for parking."
Sherman cited increased beach revenues in the city as a way the city can reinvest and improve the boardwalk.
"We've asked that the city take some of that money and reinvest it into the boardwalk, particularly the boardwalk on the south end," he said. "What we're really concerned about is the boardwalk from Brighton up to Pier Village."
Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger addressed the group at the end of the meeting.
"I think the idea has merit," he said. "On Ocean Avenue the traffic is very fast.
"I've always favored a way to make access across the road easier."
In regard to the design aspect of the plans, Unger suggested that professionals be involved.
"My input would be to make sure to involve people in the arts community who really, really know what they are doing," he said. "Make sure the design is smart.
"The worst thing would be if we have something like a name spelled wrong," he added. "Silly things like that would be embarrassing for Long Branch."
Also discussed at the meeting was the problem with storm-water runoff into the Branchport Creek.
"We don't want to have polluted waters because of Monmouth Park," LBCC President Bill McLaughlin said.
"Basically, run-off waste from the site is going into the river in an unacceptable toxicity level," LBCC treasurer Steve Molnar said. "This has been an ongoing issue for a couple years now and it seems like Monmouth Park has really stonewalled the issue."
Molnar said Oceanport has been awarded $22 million to remediate the problem and said LBCC was one of the groups that pushed for that.
"Just recently we got some movement on it, partly with the help of the condo coalition, and also from some of the politicians from the Oceanport side," he said.
"The New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust awarded $22 million to Oceanport, which will act as a pass-through for the loan," he added. "That will take care of the water run-off issues.
"All this was done with the help of the state legislators," he continued. Another success we'd like to highlight that our group was able to push, obviously we are not the only group."
The LBCC holds one meeting a year, but discussed the possibility of holding a meeting in April, since a City Council and mayoral election are slated for May in Long Branch.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Takanassee talks in the home stretch
Takanassee talks in the home stretch
Arson ruled out in boathouse bldg. fire
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Uncertainty about the future of one of Long Branch's historical landmarks may soon be resolved.
A member of the Long Branch Museum Historical Association confirmed last week that talks on the future of the Takanassee Beach Club buildings may be nearing a successful conclusion.
"We are hoping within the next week or two we could finalize the discussions," said Jim Foley, of the Long Branch Historical Museum Association. "The talks are still ongoing."
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider agreed that the process is progressing forward.
"I'm decently optimistic," Schneider said. "We've met recently with the developer's attorneys at the site. We are making progress."
The Takanassee Beach Club site was originally U.S. Lifesaving Station No. 5.
Developer Isaac Chera, principal of Takanassee Developers, purchased the property for just under $18 million from members of the Peters family.
The developer was issued a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit by the state Department of Environmental Protection to construct luxury condominiums on the oceanfront site.
The developer cannot proceed with the project until the conditions listed in the CAFRA permit are met, including preserving the three historic buildings on the site.
Plans call for one of the structures, the boathouse, to be preserved on-site and become part of the new development, and for the others to be relocated and restored off-site.
A county official has confirmed that the county will move the Captain's House to Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch, which is county owned.
The Port Huron building, a former residence, is the structure whose fate remains uncertain.
Foley said there still is some uncertainty with the talks and where the buildings are ultimately going to end up.
"The talks are with the Long Branch Historical Museum Association, aka The Church of the Presidents, and Larry Jacobs, who is the attorney for Mr. Chera," he said. "There are also independent discussions between Jacobs' office and the county of Monmouth,
which represents the Seven Presidents Park.
"There are discussions about moving both buildings to The Church of the Presidents," he added. "There are discussions about moving one of the stations to Seven Presidents Park."
Some of the proposals
put forth in recent months, particularly by Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger, have called for turning one of the buildings into a maritime museum.
Foley and Dr. Richard Fernicola, representing the LBMHA, and Michael Winnick, representing the city, spoke last week at a meeting at the University of Delaware about the preservation of the buildings.
The three delivered a presentation in front of the United States Lifesaving Heritage Association on Oct. 8.
"It was a very exciting presentation," Foley said.
The city also concluded last week that the fire at the boathouse last month was not caused by arson.
City officials were called to the scene a little after noon on Friday, Sept. 25, in response to a fire in the tower of the boathouse building, located on Ocean Avenue.
After seven local fire companies arrived on the scene, the fire was contained and an investigation into the cause ensued.
Long Branch Fire Marshal Kevin J. Hayes Sr. said in an interview last week that there were no signs of arson but there were signs that people had been in the building not too long before the fire broke out.
"There have been reports of signs of people there," he said. "There were signs of drinking and cigarette butts on-site.
"When we arrived, the building was open," he added.
After the investigation was conducted, Hayes said the official cause of the fire is undetermined.
"The official ruling is undetermined as opposed to arson," Hayes said.
Hayes said the fire started in the east wall of the second floor of the building.
City Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. said that if it were arson, there wouldn't be a building right now.
"I'm not a fire expert, but if you were starting a fire, it would be started in the base of the building, not the second floor," he said. "If someone wanted to start a fire there, then the building wouldn't be there."
Both Hayes and Woolley confirmed that the Monmouth County fire marshal sent an investigator, who concurred with the finding that the fire was not arson.
"The investigator assisted us and agrees with the findings," Hayes said.
"They were very confident in their findings," Woolley added.
Hayes also assessed the damage to the building.
"The tower suffered heavy fire damage," he said. "The rest of the building is still intact the way it was. The entrances are boarded up and secured."
Plans call for the boathouse to be preserved on-site and to be converted into a community center. Housing units and condominium developments are scheduled to be constructed on the remainder of the property.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Arson ruled out in boathouse bldg. fire
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Uncertainty about the future of one of Long Branch's historical landmarks may soon be resolved.
A member of the Long Branch Museum Historical Association confirmed last week that talks on the future of the Takanassee Beach Club buildings may be nearing a successful conclusion.
"We are hoping within the next week or two we could finalize the discussions," said Jim Foley, of the Long Branch Historical Museum Association. "The talks are still ongoing."
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider agreed that the process is progressing forward.
"I'm decently optimistic," Schneider said. "We've met recently with the developer's attorneys at the site. We are making progress."
The Takanassee Beach Club site was originally U.S. Lifesaving Station No. 5.
Developer Isaac Chera, principal of Takanassee Developers, purchased the property for just under $18 million from members of the Peters family.
The developer was issued a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit by the state Department of Environmental Protection to construct luxury condominiums on the oceanfront site.
The developer cannot proceed with the project until the conditions listed in the CAFRA permit are met, including preserving the three historic buildings on the site.
Plans call for one of the structures, the boathouse, to be preserved on-site and become part of the new development, and for the others to be relocated and restored off-site.
A county official has confirmed that the county will move the Captain's House to Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch, which is county owned.
The Port Huron building, a former residence, is the structure whose fate remains uncertain.
Foley said there still is some uncertainty with the talks and where the buildings are ultimately going to end up.
"The talks are with the Long Branch Historical Museum Association, aka The Church of the Presidents, and Larry Jacobs, who is the attorney for Mr. Chera," he said. "There are also independent discussions between Jacobs' office and the county of Monmouth,
which represents the Seven Presidents Park.
"There are discussions about moving both buildings to The Church of the Presidents," he added. "There are discussions about moving one of the stations to Seven Presidents Park."
Some of the proposals
put forth in recent months, particularly by Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger, have called for turning one of the buildings into a maritime museum.
Foley and Dr. Richard Fernicola, representing the LBMHA, and Michael Winnick, representing the city, spoke last week at a meeting at the University of Delaware about the preservation of the buildings.
The three delivered a presentation in front of the United States Lifesaving Heritage Association on Oct. 8.
"It was a very exciting presentation," Foley said.
The city also concluded last week that the fire at the boathouse last month was not caused by arson.
City officials were called to the scene a little after noon on Friday, Sept. 25, in response to a fire in the tower of the boathouse building, located on Ocean Avenue.
After seven local fire companies arrived on the scene, the fire was contained and an investigation into the cause ensued.
Long Branch Fire Marshal Kevin J. Hayes Sr. said in an interview last week that there were no signs of arson but there were signs that people had been in the building not too long before the fire broke out.
"There have been reports of signs of people there," he said. "There were signs of drinking and cigarette butts on-site.
"When we arrived, the building was open," he added.
After the investigation was conducted, Hayes said the official cause of the fire is undetermined.
"The official ruling is undetermined as opposed to arson," Hayes said.
Hayes said the fire started in the east wall of the second floor of the building.
City Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. said that if it were arson, there wouldn't be a building right now.
"I'm not a fire expert, but if you were starting a fire, it would be started in the base of the building, not the second floor," he said. "If someone wanted to start a fire there, then the building wouldn't be there."
Both Hayes and Woolley confirmed that the Monmouth County fire marshal sent an investigator, who concurred with the finding that the fire was not arson.
"The investigator assisted us and agrees with the findings," Hayes said.
"They were very confident in their findings," Woolley added.
Hayes also assessed the damage to the building.
"The tower suffered heavy fire damage," he said. "The rest of the building is still intact the way it was. The entrances are boarded up and secured."
Plans call for the boathouse to be preserved on-site and to be converted into a community center. Housing units and condominium developments are scheduled to be constructed on the remainder of the property.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Hearings continue on proposed asphalt plant
Hearings continue on proposed asphalt plant
Planner for opponent says plant would deter future development
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Testimony on a proposed asphalt plant ran overtime at the Oct. 1 meeting of the Tinton Falls Zoning Board, which carried the hearing to the next meeting on Oct. 15.
After nearly two hours of testimony, the Zoning Board meeting had already run 20 minutes over the 10:15 p.m. time limit for meetings.
The Zoning Board has been hearing an application by FLM Associates, which is seeking approval to construct an asphalt manufacturing plant at 3212 Shafto Road, where the plant is not a permitted use.
The property is located in the MFG zone where permitted uses include offices, research facilities, hospitals, veterinarian hospitals without outdoor kennels, libraries and parks.
John Tatulli, of Tucci & Tatulli, West Long Branch, represents FLM Associates, which is seeking a use variance and site plan approval for the proposed warm-mix asphalt plant.
The application is being opposed by Stavola Contracting Co., Tinton Falls, which is being represented by attorney Ron Gasiorowski, Red Bank.
Gasiorowski called on Peter Steck, community planning consultant, to testify against the application at the meeting.
Steck cited the recent land use ordinance approved by the Borough Council in May, which he said does not allow the operation, adding that the previous ordinance also barred this use in the zone.
"Neither ordinance permitted asphalt plants," he said.
Asphalt plants are permitted in another zone in the borough, but zoning ordinances require that they be located on a site of at least 10 acres. The site of the plant proposed on Shafto Road would be 4.7 acres.
"This property is 4.78 acres, irregular in shape with about 209 feet of road frontage," Steck said. "It is now vacant and wooded."
Plans also call for the plant to use warm asphalt, which Steck says will not differentiate the plant enough for approval.
"There is no difference in a sense when the gases leave the flumes, because they have to meet the same DEP standard," he said. "I do not think it is relevant."
"Despite all of this rhetoric about warm mix, this is regulated whether it is hot or warm," Gasiorowski added.
Tatulli reviewed a few points in an email this week, including that the plant will create jobs and be good for the local economy.
Tatulli said the asphalt plant would serve as an economic stimulus as well as create additional jobs.
"In addition, this project is being considered by the state Economic Development Authority (EDA) for loan support because the EDA recognizes the economic stimulus and tax implications a manufacturing project like this will have in light of the fact that most manufacturers are leaving our state," he said.
"Additionally, it will give a boost to the ratables for the municipality and surrounding area, and also create 10-15 additional jobs that will be required to operate the asphalt facility, as well as the construction workers, engineers and others workers necessary that will be responsible for actually constructing the facility," he added.
"The plant would also utilize solar panels and other energy-efficient and state-of-the-art building designs," he continued.
He explained the advantages of the warmmix asphalt the plant will produce over hotmix.
"This project would develop the first strictly 'green' asphalt plant not only in New Jersey but the entire country," he wrote. "The reason it is 'green' is because it utilizes 'warm-mix' asphalt as opposed to 'hot-mix' asphalt.
"Asphalt is typically mixed at temperatures of approximately 325 degrees in order to make it flexible and increase the viscosity in order to work with it and pave it onto roads, parking lots, driveways, etc," he added. "By heating to temperatures at 325 or above, however, toxins and noxious odors from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) vaporize and have significant detrimental impacts on the environment.
"When most people think of asphalt manufacturing and paving, they typically associate pollution from the VOCs, or blue-smoke that is often seen when workers are paving the roads in towns or on county or state highways," he continued.
Steck testified that the area is undeveloped but will soon be developed, and an asphalt plant would deter future development.
"I think you can expect additional development in this corridor over time," he said. "There is a lot of space I would call underdeveloped.
"Most of the properties are developed with relatively small properties," he added. "The point that I'm making is by introducing a use that is not permitted and one that would be highly visible, not just by the road frontage but from the perimeter properties, it will affect what people do in the remainder of the zone.
"It is underdeveloped now, and what you do in this property will affect the remaining integrity of the road," he continued.
To illustrate his point, Steck said that if the plant is built, any prospective office building, which is a permitted use in the zone, would not find the area attractive.
"If you have an underdeveloped property next to this, and let's say someone wants to propose an office building, they're going to make a decision based on what they see across the property line," he said. "And if what they see across the property line happens to be an asphalt plant of 75 feet in height, it's going to be in their face.
"There is no way you're going to effectively buffer an asphalt plant of this size," he added.
Another point refuted by the opposition was that the applicant is cosmetically making it more appealing from the view of Shafto Road. They plan to do so by enclosing the silos in buildings.
"My point again is all of the visual impact has been from Shafto Road," he said. "My opinion is you have to look at this property from a 360-degree angle."
The board has been hearing the application since last year. Homeowners in the area near the site of the proposed plant are also opposed to the application.
Experts for the applicant previously testified that warm-mix asphalt is a new technology that does not produce the odor or visible smoke and vapors associated with an asphalt plant.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Planner for opponent says plant would deter future development
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Testimony on a proposed asphalt plant ran overtime at the Oct. 1 meeting of the Tinton Falls Zoning Board, which carried the hearing to the next meeting on Oct. 15.
After nearly two hours of testimony, the Zoning Board meeting had already run 20 minutes over the 10:15 p.m. time limit for meetings.
The Zoning Board has been hearing an application by FLM Associates, which is seeking approval to construct an asphalt manufacturing plant at 3212 Shafto Road, where the plant is not a permitted use.
The property is located in the MFG zone where permitted uses include offices, research facilities, hospitals, veterinarian hospitals without outdoor kennels, libraries and parks.
John Tatulli, of Tucci & Tatulli, West Long Branch, represents FLM Associates, which is seeking a use variance and site plan approval for the proposed warm-mix asphalt plant.
The application is being opposed by Stavola Contracting Co., Tinton Falls, which is being represented by attorney Ron Gasiorowski, Red Bank.
Gasiorowski called on Peter Steck, community planning consultant, to testify against the application at the meeting.
Steck cited the recent land use ordinance approved by the Borough Council in May, which he said does not allow the operation, adding that the previous ordinance also barred this use in the zone.
"Neither ordinance permitted asphalt plants," he said.
Asphalt plants are permitted in another zone in the borough, but zoning ordinances require that they be located on a site of at least 10 acres. The site of the plant proposed on Shafto Road would be 4.7 acres.
"This property is 4.78 acres, irregular in shape with about 209 feet of road frontage," Steck said. "It is now vacant and wooded."
Plans also call for the plant to use warm asphalt, which Steck says will not differentiate the plant enough for approval.
"There is no difference in a sense when the gases leave the flumes, because they have to meet the same DEP standard," he said. "I do not think it is relevant."
"Despite all of this rhetoric about warm mix, this is regulated whether it is hot or warm," Gasiorowski added.
Tatulli reviewed a few points in an email this week, including that the plant will create jobs and be good for the local economy.
Tatulli said the asphalt plant would serve as an economic stimulus as well as create additional jobs.
"In addition, this project is being considered by the state Economic Development Authority (EDA) for loan support because the EDA recognizes the economic stimulus and tax implications a manufacturing project like this will have in light of the fact that most manufacturers are leaving our state," he said.
"Additionally, it will give a boost to the ratables for the municipality and surrounding area, and also create 10-15 additional jobs that will be required to operate the asphalt facility, as well as the construction workers, engineers and others workers necessary that will be responsible for actually constructing the facility," he added.
"The plant would also utilize solar panels and other energy-efficient and state-of-the-art building designs," he continued.
He explained the advantages of the warmmix asphalt the plant will produce over hotmix.
"This project would develop the first strictly 'green' asphalt plant not only in New Jersey but the entire country," he wrote. "The reason it is 'green' is because it utilizes 'warm-mix' asphalt as opposed to 'hot-mix' asphalt.
"Asphalt is typically mixed at temperatures of approximately 325 degrees in order to make it flexible and increase the viscosity in order to work with it and pave it onto roads, parking lots, driveways, etc," he added. "By heating to temperatures at 325 or above, however, toxins and noxious odors from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) vaporize and have significant detrimental impacts on the environment.
"When most people think of asphalt manufacturing and paving, they typically associate pollution from the VOCs, or blue-smoke that is often seen when workers are paving the roads in towns or on county or state highways," he continued.
Steck testified that the area is undeveloped but will soon be developed, and an asphalt plant would deter future development.
"I think you can expect additional development in this corridor over time," he said. "There is a lot of space I would call underdeveloped.
"Most of the properties are developed with relatively small properties," he added. "The point that I'm making is by introducing a use that is not permitted and one that would be highly visible, not just by the road frontage but from the perimeter properties, it will affect what people do in the remainder of the zone.
"It is underdeveloped now, and what you do in this property will affect the remaining integrity of the road," he continued.
To illustrate his point, Steck said that if the plant is built, any prospective office building, which is a permitted use in the zone, would not find the area attractive.
"If you have an underdeveloped property next to this, and let's say someone wants to propose an office building, they're going to make a decision based on what they see across the property line," he said. "And if what they see across the property line happens to be an asphalt plant of 75 feet in height, it's going to be in their face.
"There is no way you're going to effectively buffer an asphalt plant of this size," he added.
Another point refuted by the opposition was that the applicant is cosmetically making it more appealing from the view of Shafto Road. They plan to do so by enclosing the silos in buildings.
"My point again is all of the visual impact has been from Shafto Road," he said. "My opinion is you have to look at this property from a 360-degree angle."
The board has been hearing the application since last year. Homeowners in the area near the site of the proposed plant are also opposed to the application.
Experts for the applicant previously testified that warm-mix asphalt is a new technology that does not produce the odor or visible smoke and vapors associated with an asphalt plant.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Commercial uses limited in beachfront zone
Commercial uses limited in beachfront zone
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch City Council has approved an ordinance aimed at preserving the residential character of one of its beachfront neighborhoods.
The council voted 4-0 at the Sept. 22 meeting to approve for final consideration an amendment to the RC-1 beachfront mixed zone to prohibit freestanding commercial properties within the zone. Councilman Anthony Giordano was absent for the vote.
At the public hearing for the ordinance, which was also held at the council meeting, City Attorney James Aaron explained what the ordinance would do.
"This solves the problem in the beachfront mixed zone so that ... the establishment of any new stand-alone commercial/retail/food will be prohibited 'adjacent to and abutting an existing commercial stand alone use,'" Aaron said. "No more stand-alone by itself."
"In other words you have to be continuous with something that is there already," resident Harold Bobrow asked.
Aaron explained that stand-alone properties would mostly be prohibited.
"So if you want to build a new structure, it is prohibited unless it is adjacent to something that is already there," he said. "So the stand-alone structures on their own would be prohibited."
"So you can't put something in the middle of a block that is residential." Bobrow added.
A n - other issue in the zone is vacant lots and what can be built on them. That issue, Aaron said, is up to the Zoning Board of Adjust-
ment."
You can't take a vacant lot, but if there is something there, you can add onto it," Aaron said. "It depends on the interpretation of the Zoning Board whether or not the use that was previously there was abandoned or not."
Mayor Adam Schneider said last month that the city had not changed a zoning ordinance in response to an individual property and now that there is no application or litigation in the zone the city may move forward.
"We have never changed a zoning ordinance to affect a specific application," he said. "There is nothing hanging any more in the zone. We want it to be a mixed use," he added.
The zone is bordered to the north by the line for Monmouth Beach, to the south by Seaview Avenue, to the east by Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park, and to the west mostly by Ocean Boulevard, with portions jutting out farther west.
Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. said the administration supports the Planning Board on this zoning change.
"The Planning Board did not want to have freestanding commercial buildings there," Woolley said. "They felt it was less than desirable to have them in the zone.
"They felt it should be a mixed zone."
Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner explained that commercial buildings would not be mixed in with the residential buildings, which would create what he called a checkerboard of commercial and residential properties.
Turner said that any potential building that is not a permitted use may apply for a use variance to the Zoning Board unless the property is located within one of the city's six redevelopment zones, where variances are not available. The RC-1 zone is not within a redevelopment zone.
The current commercial properties in the zone can be grandfathered into the new regulations and new development can also happen.
Turner said that current commercial uses in the zone can be sold and a new use can be implemented on the footprint.
"Commercial areas can still develop," Turner said. "It will place a status quo in the areas that are commercial and in the areas that are residential.
"The zone is not supposed to go all in one way or the other," he added.
Turner also said that it is possible to have a residential use on the levels above a commercial use and vice versa.
"We are always reviewing zoning and planning," he said. "We are looking at what the master plan calls for."
Beachfront South resident Diana Multare said she was pleased with ordinance amendment.
"All I can say is it is about time," she said. "Remember we had a lot of discussion about this not too long ago.
"It has certainly been a long, long time, so thank goodness," she added.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch City Council has approved an ordinance aimed at preserving the residential character of one of its beachfront neighborhoods.
The council voted 4-0 at the Sept. 22 meeting to approve for final consideration an amendment to the RC-1 beachfront mixed zone to prohibit freestanding commercial properties within the zone. Councilman Anthony Giordano was absent for the vote.
At the public hearing for the ordinance, which was also held at the council meeting, City Attorney James Aaron explained what the ordinance would do.
"This solves the problem in the beachfront mixed zone so that ... the establishment of any new stand-alone commercial/retail/food will be prohibited 'adjacent to and abutting an existing commercial stand alone use,'" Aaron said. "No more stand-alone by itself."
"In other words you have to be continuous with something that is there already," resident Harold Bobrow asked.
Aaron explained that stand-alone properties would mostly be prohibited.
"So if you want to build a new structure, it is prohibited unless it is adjacent to something that is already there," he said. "So the stand-alone structures on their own would be prohibited."
"So you can't put something in the middle of a block that is residential." Bobrow added.
A n - other issue in the zone is vacant lots and what can be built on them. That issue, Aaron said, is up to the Zoning Board of Adjust-
ment."
You can't take a vacant lot, but if there is something there, you can add onto it," Aaron said. "It depends on the interpretation of the Zoning Board whether or not the use that was previously there was abandoned or not."
Mayor Adam Schneider said last month that the city had not changed a zoning ordinance in response to an individual property and now that there is no application or litigation in the zone the city may move forward.
"We have never changed a zoning ordinance to affect a specific application," he said. "There is nothing hanging any more in the zone. We want it to be a mixed use," he added.
The zone is bordered to the north by the line for Monmouth Beach, to the south by Seaview Avenue, to the east by Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park, and to the west mostly by Ocean Boulevard, with portions jutting out farther west.
Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. said the administration supports the Planning Board on this zoning change.
"The Planning Board did not want to have freestanding commercial buildings there," Woolley said. "They felt it was less than desirable to have them in the zone.
"They felt it should be a mixed zone."
Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner explained that commercial buildings would not be mixed in with the residential buildings, which would create what he called a checkerboard of commercial and residential properties.
Turner said that any potential building that is not a permitted use may apply for a use variance to the Zoning Board unless the property is located within one of the city's six redevelopment zones, where variances are not available. The RC-1 zone is not within a redevelopment zone.
The current commercial properties in the zone can be grandfathered into the new regulations and new development can also happen.
Turner said that current commercial uses in the zone can be sold and a new use can be implemented on the footprint.
"Commercial areas can still develop," Turner said. "It will place a status quo in the areas that are commercial and in the areas that are residential.
"The zone is not supposed to go all in one way or the other," he added.
Turner also said that it is possible to have a residential use on the levels above a commercial use and vice versa.
"We are always reviewing zoning and planning," he said. "We are looking at what the master plan calls for."
Beachfront South resident Diana Multare said she was pleased with ordinance amendment.
"All I can say is it is about time," she said. "Remember we had a lot of discussion about this not too long ago.
"It has certainly been a long, long time, so thank goodness," she added.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
Students learn their way around TV studio
Students learn their way around TV studio
Long Branch program gives students on- and off-camera time
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
ERIC SUCAR staff Students Anna Kelly (l-r), Hannah Elliott and Conor Mullan answer questions about the television studio during their class at Long Branch Middle School on Oct. 1. ERIC SUCAR staff Students Anna Kelly (l-r), Hannah Elliott and Conor Mullan answer questions about the television studio during their class at Long Branch Middle School on Oct. 1. LONG BRANCH — State-of-the-art equipment and real-life experience is introducing Long Branch students to the workings of a TV studio, including the news anchor spot.
Students at Long Branch Middle School and High School benefit from TV studios and equipment that are less than three years old.
"We have excellent equipment," Long Branch communications officer Theresa Falcone said. "It's amazing for a middle school to have this kind of set-up."
Video cams, microphones, a switchboard, new computers and a green screen are some of the high-tech equipment students work with.
Faculty member Delanyard Robinson II, who runs the TV studio at the high school, said that the program is looking into more projects than just newscasts.
"We are working on little vignettes," Robinson said during a taping of a newscast. "We are trying to get students involved in contests.
ERIC SUCAR staff Students work in the production room of the television studio at Long Branch High School after a rehearsal for the morning announcements on Oct. 1. ERIC SUCAR staff Students work in the production room of the television studio at Long Branch High School after a rehearsal for the morning announcements on Oct. 1. "We have students that put together little stories," he added. "Some want to make a music video, and of course we just document events that come up."
Robinson is in his second year at the high school and said nearly 100 students are enrolled in his six different classes.
"I would probably have even more [students] if there was more time," he said.
Robinson said that the challenge in running such a program is including everyone's specific talents and skills.
"The biggest challenge is trying to meet everybody's needs," he said. "The goal is to tap into everybody's talents.
"They are all basically just getting a foundation as far as editing and using the camera," he added.
"The goal is once they start working on individual news packages that they would share the responsibilities," he continued. "Everybody has a role."
Robinson also said that he is looking into ways to get students involved who aren't enrolled in his classes.
"I am exploring ways for students who are not even enrolled in the class to be involved," he said.
Robinson mentioned that students running for student government can tape their speeches, and students also can use the studio for projects in other classes.
Robinson credited having a program in place at the middle school as being a benefit for the high school students.
"I find that they're really just prepared more with computer skills," he said. "It's natural for them to figure things out.
"Now they have the form and structure to get together a news story or video," he added.
For students the studio is a learning environment, but also an environment where they can enjoy themselves.
"It is a fun environment," 11th-grader Julio Arevalio said. "It is a class where you learn a lot. I learned how to edit movies and how to use the portable camera."
Arevalio, who is in his first year working with the cameras, said that anyone who wants to work in front of the camera may do so.
He also said that while the TV studio class has been a fun experience, it is not something he envisions as a career.
"I'm just doing it for fun now," he said.
While the high school program is in its second year, the middle school is entering its third year with the program.
Kristen Catrambone is in her first year teaching the program, and the program has added a media history class to the curriculum.
"What we are trying to do this year is basically create a media history along with the TV production," she said. "We started off with cave drawings, the printing press and now we are studying the telegraph.
"They need to know where the camera comes from," she added.
One of Catrambone's eighth-grade students agreed that it is important to learn about the history of technology.
"What I like about this class is to see how technology evolved as we evolved," Conor Mullan said. "I wanted to learn why we have cameras."
Catrambone said that the students will be working more with the cameras and equipment within a week or two.
"We are going to make our own little film using these brand-new MAC computers," she said. "And hopefully we will do one or two news broadcasts in the studio.
"They are going to start learning how the buttons work and we will eventually broadcast a news show," she added.
Another project Catrambone is planning is to try to emulate a late-night talk show.
"We are going to try to do a late-night show in the morning," she said. "We are studying Johnny Carson."
Catrambone said a change from previous classes is that the teacher did a lot of the writing and editing while the students had more of a role in front of the camera.
"This year we really want them to get into editing on their own with me kind of coaching them," she said.
"My thing is instead of me editing it and making them TV personalities, they need to edit it, they need to write it," she added.
Catrambone teaches sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders in her elective classes and she is giving the older classes a different role than the younger ones.
"Seventh- and eighth-graders are the news crew, but sixth-graders will do a YouTube news corner," she said. "The sixth-graders will pick a clip and critique."
Robinson and Catrambone agreed that the main goal is for the students to get real work experience.
"The goal is to get their foot in the door in terms of a career in film and media," Robinson said. "Basically the idea is to give the students as much real work experience as possible."
"We are not NBC here; we're trying to get them ready for NBC," Catrambone said. "They have to learn how to mess up a little, it's OK."
"We are not NBC here; we're trying to get them ready for NBC," Catrambone said. "They have to learn how to mess up a little, it's OK."
One of Catrambone's more experienced students said she has enjoyed her time working in the TV studio.
"I did the news last year and I thought it was a really cool experience to try something new," Hannah Elliott said. "I wanted to be in the class so I could continue to do that."
Elliott described her role last year. "Sometimes I was doing the weather, while other times I'd be behind the desk. We'd help behind the scenes with the teleprompter and things like that."
One of the ideas that has been bounced around in Long Branch is to have some of the high school students film and broadcast the City Council meetings for extra credit. While Robinson said he has not heard that idea, he said he is in favor of it.
"That hasn't been brought up to me, but I'm sure if it's something our superintendent wants to explore," he said, "I could see something like that happening."
Long Branch program gives students on- and off-camera time
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
ERIC SUCAR staff Students Anna Kelly (l-r), Hannah Elliott and Conor Mullan answer questions about the television studio during their class at Long Branch Middle School on Oct. 1. ERIC SUCAR staff Students Anna Kelly (l-r), Hannah Elliott and Conor Mullan answer questions about the television studio during their class at Long Branch Middle School on Oct. 1. LONG BRANCH — State-of-the-art equipment and real-life experience is introducing Long Branch students to the workings of a TV studio, including the news anchor spot.
Students at Long Branch Middle School and High School benefit from TV studios and equipment that are less than three years old.
"We have excellent equipment," Long Branch communications officer Theresa Falcone said. "It's amazing for a middle school to have this kind of set-up."
Video cams, microphones, a switchboard, new computers and a green screen are some of the high-tech equipment students work with.
Faculty member Delanyard Robinson II, who runs the TV studio at the high school, said that the program is looking into more projects than just newscasts.
"We are working on little vignettes," Robinson said during a taping of a newscast. "We are trying to get students involved in contests.
ERIC SUCAR staff Students work in the production room of the television studio at Long Branch High School after a rehearsal for the morning announcements on Oct. 1. ERIC SUCAR staff Students work in the production room of the television studio at Long Branch High School after a rehearsal for the morning announcements on Oct. 1. "We have students that put together little stories," he added. "Some want to make a music video, and of course we just document events that come up."
Robinson is in his second year at the high school and said nearly 100 students are enrolled in his six different classes.
"I would probably have even more [students] if there was more time," he said.
Robinson said that the challenge in running such a program is including everyone's specific talents and skills.
"The biggest challenge is trying to meet everybody's needs," he said. "The goal is to tap into everybody's talents.
"They are all basically just getting a foundation as far as editing and using the camera," he added.
"The goal is once they start working on individual news packages that they would share the responsibilities," he continued. "Everybody has a role."
Robinson also said that he is looking into ways to get students involved who aren't enrolled in his classes.
"I am exploring ways for students who are not even enrolled in the class to be involved," he said.
Robinson mentioned that students running for student government can tape their speeches, and students also can use the studio for projects in other classes.
Robinson credited having a program in place at the middle school as being a benefit for the high school students.
"I find that they're really just prepared more with computer skills," he said. "It's natural for them to figure things out.
"Now they have the form and structure to get together a news story or video," he added.
For students the studio is a learning environment, but also an environment where they can enjoy themselves.
"It is a fun environment," 11th-grader Julio Arevalio said. "It is a class where you learn a lot. I learned how to edit movies and how to use the portable camera."
Arevalio, who is in his first year working with the cameras, said that anyone who wants to work in front of the camera may do so.
He also said that while the TV studio class has been a fun experience, it is not something he envisions as a career.
"I'm just doing it for fun now," he said.
While the high school program is in its second year, the middle school is entering its third year with the program.
Kristen Catrambone is in her first year teaching the program, and the program has added a media history class to the curriculum.
"What we are trying to do this year is basically create a media history along with the TV production," she said. "We started off with cave drawings, the printing press and now we are studying the telegraph.
"They need to know where the camera comes from," she added.
One of Catrambone's eighth-grade students agreed that it is important to learn about the history of technology.
"What I like about this class is to see how technology evolved as we evolved," Conor Mullan said. "I wanted to learn why we have cameras."
Catrambone said that the students will be working more with the cameras and equipment within a week or two.
"We are going to make our own little film using these brand-new MAC computers," she said. "And hopefully we will do one or two news broadcasts in the studio.
"They are going to start learning how the buttons work and we will eventually broadcast a news show," she added.
Another project Catrambone is planning is to try to emulate a late-night talk show.
"We are going to try to do a late-night show in the morning," she said. "We are studying Johnny Carson."
Catrambone said a change from previous classes is that the teacher did a lot of the writing and editing while the students had more of a role in front of the camera.
"This year we really want them to get into editing on their own with me kind of coaching them," she said.
"My thing is instead of me editing it and making them TV personalities, they need to edit it, they need to write it," she added.
Catrambone teaches sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders in her elective classes and she is giving the older classes a different role than the younger ones.
"Seventh- and eighth-graders are the news crew, but sixth-graders will do a YouTube news corner," she said. "The sixth-graders will pick a clip and critique."
Robinson and Catrambone agreed that the main goal is for the students to get real work experience.
"The goal is to get their foot in the door in terms of a career in film and media," Robinson said. "Basically the idea is to give the students as much real work experience as possible."
"We are not NBC here; we're trying to get them ready for NBC," Catrambone said. "They have to learn how to mess up a little, it's OK."
"We are not NBC here; we're trying to get them ready for NBC," Catrambone said. "They have to learn how to mess up a little, it's OK."
One of Catrambone's more experienced students said she has enjoyed her time working in the TV studio.
"I did the news last year and I thought it was a really cool experience to try something new," Hannah Elliott said. "I wanted to be in the class so I could continue to do that."
Elliott described her role last year. "Sometimes I was doing the weather, while other times I'd be behind the desk. We'd help behind the scenes with the teleprompter and things like that."
One of the ideas that has been bounced around in Long Branch is to have some of the high school students film and broadcast the City Council meetings for extra credit. While Robinson said he has not heard that idea, he said he is in favor of it.
"That hasn't been brought up to me, but I'm sure if it's something our superintendent wants to explore," he said, "I could see something like that happening."
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Monmouth Regional district charged with discrimination
Monmouth Regional district charged with discrimination
Former superintendent also named in suits brought by three female employees
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Lawsuits filed on behalf of three female employees of Monmouth Regional High School charge the regional school district and several administrators with discrimination based on age, sex and race.
The suits were filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton by Mahwah-based lawyer Lydia Cotz on behalf of Monmouth Regional employees Diana Davis, Patricia Domanich and Tamara White.
Davis' suit was filed in February and is separate from the legal action filed on behalf of Domanich and White, which was filed in August. Cotz said last week that she may file a motion to consolidate the two lawsuits.
The suit filed on behalf of Davis, 56, who is African American, names former Monmouth Regional School District Superintendent James Cleary, who retired in June, and the school district as defendants.
The suit brought for Domanich names Cleary, MRHS Vice Principal Scott Larkin, MRHS Business Administrator Maria Parry and the school district as defendants.
The legal action in which White is the plaintiff names Cleary, the school district and Anthony D'Orio, currently the MRHS athletic director as defendants.
All three are currently employed at Monmouth Regional High School.
Cotz weighed in on the legal actions in an email last week.
"Superintendent Cleary's intentional harassment and conduct toward these women resulted in a gender-based hostile working environment," she said. "His motive was to make life unpleasant for them because they are women.
"All three women complained of his behavior to no avail and the district took no steps to stop it," she added.
Cotz said she is confident that evidence will be presented that will place blame on Cleary.
"The evidence will show that the incidents the plaintiffs complained about were pervasive and not just isolated," she said. "According to others that have also come forward, Cleary's sexist behavior was well known.
"These lawsuits were brought on behalf of these women because they believe that Superintendent Cleary has subjected them to an unbearable and hostile workplace; their recourse was to see that justice was done," she added.
Cotz also addressed the reason the suits are being brought forward now.
"The lawsuit is being brought now because the plaintiffs strongly believe that their rights have been violated within the workplace," she said.
Manasquan-based attorney Peter Spaeth, who is representing all of the defendants, did not return calls seeking comment.
According to the complaint, Davis was hired in 2002 to supervise the Social Studies Department and the media center. She remains as supervisor of the two departments, as well as the ESL Department.
"Plaintiff has been subjected to discrimination by defendants on the basis of her race and/or her gender and/or her age over the past several years, and has been retaliated against by defendants for voicing her complaints about this discrimination," the suit claims.
The complaint also states that when Davis took over the third department in 2005, she did not receive additional compensation for the extra duties, which was contrary to the common practice of the district.
The suit claims that a younger, Caucasian male was given compensation for taking over an additional department.
In the complaint, Davis claims that she asked for the additional compensation in 2007 but was denied and was told that someone younger could replace her. She was then given a one-time stipend, the suit states.
She was then removed as supervisor of the media center in 2007 following her frequent demands for additional pay.
Davis is seeking punitive and compensatory damages.
The suit filed on behalf of Domanich claims discrimination based on age and gender.
Domanich has been employed at the school as a truant officer since 1993 and is claiming that the defendants have created a work environment that is hostile to women.
"Female employees who voice opinions, assert their rights as employees or as citizens, who disagree within proper channels about official policies and directives, or express concerns that policies, laws and directives are not being followed and obeyed are routinely demeaned, harassed and driven from employment," the suit claims.
Most of Domanich's complaints stem from an unresolved issue with a subordinate that she claims the defendants worsened in 2007.
The complaint filed on behalf of White, who was hired in 1995 as a social studies teacher and varsity cheerleading coach, describes sexual harassment that was tolerated by the administration from the time she was hired.
According to the suit, White complained throughout her tenure and in 2005 was terminated as cheerleader coach in an alleged retaliation for the complaints.
She reinterviewed for the position in 2006 but was ultimately turned down for someone with less experience, the suit states.
White also claims harassment and discrimination by the high school administration.
"Female employees are frequently and routinely harassed with petty administrative issues that were tolerated, or at least overlooked with the younger staff," the suit claims.
Charles Ford was named to succeed Cleary, and Cotz said she is hopeful that the new administration will adhere to the school district's policy barring discrimination against employees.
"The new superintendent and the BOE should be aware of the district's workplace anti-discrimination policy and seek to enforce it at all costs," she said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Former superintendent also named in suits brought by three female employees
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Lawsuits filed on behalf of three female employees of Monmouth Regional High School charge the regional school district and several administrators with discrimination based on age, sex and race.
The suits were filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton by Mahwah-based lawyer Lydia Cotz on behalf of Monmouth Regional employees Diana Davis, Patricia Domanich and Tamara White.
Davis' suit was filed in February and is separate from the legal action filed on behalf of Domanich and White, which was filed in August. Cotz said last week that she may file a motion to consolidate the two lawsuits.
The suit filed on behalf of Davis, 56, who is African American, names former Monmouth Regional School District Superintendent James Cleary, who retired in June, and the school district as defendants.
The suit brought for Domanich names Cleary, MRHS Vice Principal Scott Larkin, MRHS Business Administrator Maria Parry and the school district as defendants.
The legal action in which White is the plaintiff names Cleary, the school district and Anthony D'Orio, currently the MRHS athletic director as defendants.
All three are currently employed at Monmouth Regional High School.
Cotz weighed in on the legal actions in an email last week.
"Superintendent Cleary's intentional harassment and conduct toward these women resulted in a gender-based hostile working environment," she said. "His motive was to make life unpleasant for them because they are women.
"All three women complained of his behavior to no avail and the district took no steps to stop it," she added.
Cotz said she is confident that evidence will be presented that will place blame on Cleary.
"The evidence will show that the incidents the plaintiffs complained about were pervasive and not just isolated," she said. "According to others that have also come forward, Cleary's sexist behavior was well known.
"These lawsuits were brought on behalf of these women because they believe that Superintendent Cleary has subjected them to an unbearable and hostile workplace; their recourse was to see that justice was done," she added.
Cotz also addressed the reason the suits are being brought forward now.
"The lawsuit is being brought now because the plaintiffs strongly believe that their rights have been violated within the workplace," she said.
Manasquan-based attorney Peter Spaeth, who is representing all of the defendants, did not return calls seeking comment.
According to the complaint, Davis was hired in 2002 to supervise the Social Studies Department and the media center. She remains as supervisor of the two departments, as well as the ESL Department.
"Plaintiff has been subjected to discrimination by defendants on the basis of her race and/or her gender and/or her age over the past several years, and has been retaliated against by defendants for voicing her complaints about this discrimination," the suit claims.
The complaint also states that when Davis took over the third department in 2005, she did not receive additional compensation for the extra duties, which was contrary to the common practice of the district.
The suit claims that a younger, Caucasian male was given compensation for taking over an additional department.
In the complaint, Davis claims that she asked for the additional compensation in 2007 but was denied and was told that someone younger could replace her. She was then given a one-time stipend, the suit states.
She was then removed as supervisor of the media center in 2007 following her frequent demands for additional pay.
Davis is seeking punitive and compensatory damages.
The suit filed on behalf of Domanich claims discrimination based on age and gender.
Domanich has been employed at the school as a truant officer since 1993 and is claiming that the defendants have created a work environment that is hostile to women.
"Female employees who voice opinions, assert their rights as employees or as citizens, who disagree within proper channels about official policies and directives, or express concerns that policies, laws and directives are not being followed and obeyed are routinely demeaned, harassed and driven from employment," the suit claims.
Most of Domanich's complaints stem from an unresolved issue with a subordinate that she claims the defendants worsened in 2007.
The complaint filed on behalf of White, who was hired in 1995 as a social studies teacher and varsity cheerleading coach, describes sexual harassment that was tolerated by the administration from the time she was hired.
According to the suit, White complained throughout her tenure and in 2005 was terminated as cheerleader coach in an alleged retaliation for the complaints.
She reinterviewed for the position in 2006 but was ultimately turned down for someone with less experience, the suit states.
White also claims harassment and discrimination by the high school administration.
"Female employees are frequently and routinely harassed with petty administrative issues that were tolerated, or at least overlooked with the younger staff," the suit claims.
Charles Ford was named to succeed Cleary, and Cotz said she is hopeful that the new administration will adhere to the school district's policy barring discrimination against employees.
"The new superintendent and the BOE should be aware of the district's workplace anti-discrimination policy and seek to enforce it at all costs," she said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)