Historic preservation comm. members to be named
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch officials expect to finally name the members to the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission in the coming weeks.
The topic came up at both the workshop and executive sessions during the Feb. 23 City Council meeting. The ordinance creating the commission was adopted in May.
“What we are doing in executive session is the culmination of the process and all the revisions to the ordinance,” Councilman Brian Unger said. “We are ready to move forward and, hopefully, within the next couple of weeks we will have all the members agreed upon.”
Councilman David Brown referred to Unger as “the architect” of the commission and agreed that it was time to appoint members to the commission.
“I think we are at the stage for appointments,” Brown said. “All the work is in; it’s a good bill.”
The ordinance adopted in May aims to protect historical structures in the city by creating a Historic Preservation Advisory Commission that would review the potential effect of development and permit applications on designated historical sites.
The ordinance gives the council authority to appoint a commission with three classes of members.
According to the ordinance, a Class A member is a person “knowledgeable in building design and construction or architectural history and who may reside outside of the municipality.”
A Class B member is a person “who is knowledgeable of, or with a demonstrated interest in, local history and who may reside outside of the municipality.”
Class C members “shall be citizens of the municipality who shall hold no other municipal office, position or employment, except for membership on the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment.”
The ordinance originally called for a seven-member commission with two alternates, but at the Feb. 9 meeting the council approved an amendment to the ordinance eliminating the alternates, citing a lack of necessity.
To discuss recommendations to fill the seats on the commission, the council must do so in executive session behind closed doors, but not all council members had names in mind just yet.
“The one thing we would need is résumés from people,” Councilwoman Mary Jane Celli said. “That would give people an idea of what we are looking for.”
Brown said that he had a name in mind but would also like to see the résumés.
“That has been our standard policy,” he said.
City Attorney James Aaron explained that if the council has specific people in mind, they could have them submit résumés as well.
“If you reach consensus this evening, it will be on for the next public meeting,” he said. “If you are going to leave the topic open, then in executive session you can discuss those names that you already have.
“If there is an agreement, then you can ask them directly for a résumé, and the public is invited to submit résumés to the clerk’s office,” he said.
The commission would review the potential effect of development and permit applications on designated historical sites and work with and advise the Planning and Zoning boards and individual property owners.
The ordinance will regulate only designated sites that require a permit and application for development.
The ordinance, which has the endorsement of the local historical society, defines the goals of the advisory committee.
“Maintaining, preserving, and rehabilitating these visual links to the past is an important function of government, not only to provide a sense of stability and continuity for future generations, but to provide impetus for the revitalization of the city’s economic base and for the resulting increase in property values,” the ordinance reads.
The ordinance lists specific goals, which include safeguarding the heritage of Long Branch, encouraging the continued use of historical landmarks, and maintaining and developing a “harmonious setting” for the historical and architecturally significant buildings.
Other goals listed are: to stabilize and improve property values, to promote appreciation of historical landmarks, to encourage the beautification of and reinvestment in historical sites, and to discourage demolition of historical resources.
The responsibilities of the commission include preparing and maintaining preservation guidelines, reviewing applications that affect the historical properties, recommendations on design, and preparing an inventory of historical sites and landmarks.
The ordinance also states that new construction on or near a historical site should not necessarily duplicate the exact style of the site but should not detract from the historical site.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Planning Bd. approves 5 homes in BF North II
Planning Bd. approves 5 homes in BF North II
Resident objects to lack of notification
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — A week after meeting with the City Council, the developer for the Beachfront North II zone received the first of several anticipated Planning Board approvals last week.
David Fisher, vice president of Matzel & Mumford, a K. Hovnanian company, was before the Planning Board on Feb. 16 seeking approval for a minor subdivision that would reconfigure three existing lots into five lots. The application was unanimously approved.
The properties are located on Seaview Avenue, across from Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park, in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue neighborhood known as MTOTSA.
“The proposed lots conform to the city’s zoning regulations and the design guidelines for Beachfront North,” Robert Curley, of Smith, Smith, & Curley, Shrewsbury, said.
Fisher gave the board an overview of long-term plans for the zone, explaining that the developer owns 19 properties in MTOTSA, 10 of which are scattered individual lots and would not require board approval to build on those lots.
“We could apply for building permits based on the conditions out there today without Planning Board approval,” Fisher said.
However, other applications will require approvals, he said.
“What does require Planning Board approval is a minor site plan and subdivision approval for three townhouses that are proposed along Ocean Boulevard,” he said. “That will be the subject of a later application.
“Tonight we are here for the three lots that will be modified to include two additional lots,” he added.
Fisher said expansion of the lots is in keeping with terms of a settlement between property owners in MTOTSA, the developer and the city.
“There were recently buildings on those, and as part of our settlement we demolished all of [the] homes,” he said.
The city also approved dividing up an abandoned right of way, he continued.
“It simply created a better perpendicular lot line along Seaview Avenue that benefited both our lot and the property next to us.”
Fisher described the five homes that are to be constructed.
“We have five lots, with the total area about 0.46 acres,” he said. “Each lot is about 4,000 square feet and … about 41 feet wide, except for the last one, which is about 49 feet wide.
“They are approximately 100 feet deep, with 10-foot-deep front yards, and the houses are typically 50 to 55 feet deep,” he added. “That is essentially a summary of what we are proposing to create.”
Fisher also explained that the homes would utilize common driveways in the rear with parking for two cars each.
He said the developer will seek any further approvals necessary to construct the homes.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, MTOTSA resident Denise Hoagland, who did not sign the settlement with the city, questioned whether the residents should have been notified of the application.
Planning Board Attorney Martin Arbus said that for the minor subdivision application, notification is not required, but it would be required for future applications.
“The other application will require notice because it is a site plan application,” he said. “[The application before the board] is a minor subdivision without any variances, so notice does not have to be given.”
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA Alliance was formalized in court Sept. 15. Signed by all but six property owners in MTOTSA, the agreement required the property owners to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages. In return, the city agreed not to use its power of eminent domain to take properties in MTOTSA.
As part of the 14-point settlement, the city also agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees the alliance accrued in fighting the taking of their homes and to have the developer demolish several vacant, boardedup houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the city agreed to pave the roads and fix lighting conditions in the area within two years, and allowed the property owners to improve their properties, which would make them eligible for five-year tax abatements.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Resident objects to lack of notification
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — A week after meeting with the City Council, the developer for the Beachfront North II zone received the first of several anticipated Planning Board approvals last week.
David Fisher, vice president of Matzel & Mumford, a K. Hovnanian company, was before the Planning Board on Feb. 16 seeking approval for a minor subdivision that would reconfigure three existing lots into five lots. The application was unanimously approved.
The properties are located on Seaview Avenue, across from Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park, in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue neighborhood known as MTOTSA.
“The proposed lots conform to the city’s zoning regulations and the design guidelines for Beachfront North,” Robert Curley, of Smith, Smith, & Curley, Shrewsbury, said.
Fisher gave the board an overview of long-term plans for the zone, explaining that the developer owns 19 properties in MTOTSA, 10 of which are scattered individual lots and would not require board approval to build on those lots.
“We could apply for building permits based on the conditions out there today without Planning Board approval,” Fisher said.
However, other applications will require approvals, he said.
“What does require Planning Board approval is a minor site plan and subdivision approval for three townhouses that are proposed along Ocean Boulevard,” he said. “That will be the subject of a later application.
“Tonight we are here for the three lots that will be modified to include two additional lots,” he added.
Fisher said expansion of the lots is in keeping with terms of a settlement between property owners in MTOTSA, the developer and the city.
“There were recently buildings on those, and as part of our settlement we demolished all of [the] homes,” he said.
The city also approved dividing up an abandoned right of way, he continued.
“It simply created a better perpendicular lot line along Seaview Avenue that benefited both our lot and the property next to us.”
Fisher described the five homes that are to be constructed.
“We have five lots, with the total area about 0.46 acres,” he said. “Each lot is about 4,000 square feet and … about 41 feet wide, except for the last one, which is about 49 feet wide.
“They are approximately 100 feet deep, with 10-foot-deep front yards, and the houses are typically 50 to 55 feet deep,” he added. “That is essentially a summary of what we are proposing to create.”
Fisher also explained that the homes would utilize common driveways in the rear with parking for two cars each.
He said the developer will seek any further approvals necessary to construct the homes.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, MTOTSA resident Denise Hoagland, who did not sign the settlement with the city, questioned whether the residents should have been notified of the application.
Planning Board Attorney Martin Arbus said that for the minor subdivision application, notification is not required, but it would be required for future applications.
“The other application will require notice because it is a site plan application,” he said. “[The application before the board] is a minor subdivision without any variances, so notice does not have to be given.”
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA Alliance was formalized in court Sept. 15. Signed by all but six property owners in MTOTSA, the agreement required the property owners to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages. In return, the city agreed not to use its power of eminent domain to take properties in MTOTSA.
As part of the 14-point settlement, the city also agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees the alliance accrued in fighting the taking of their homes and to have the developer demolish several vacant, boardedup houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the city agreed to pave the roads and fix lighting conditions in the area within two years, and allowed the property owners to improve their properties, which would make them eligible for five-year tax abatements.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
O'port council vexed over fort authority
O’port council vexed over fort authority
Public forum, withdrawal from reuse plan on the table
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
OCEANPORT — Borough officials last week bounced around concerns about the redevelopment of Fort Monmouth and discussed options such as holding a town hallstyle meeting or even withdrawing support for the fort reuse plan.
Their concerns center on legislation that would create the Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority (MERA), a state authority that would implement the Fort Monmouth reuse plan.
The bill, S 917, would lay out the guidelines by which the region would rebuild for the next 25 years following the Army’s departure from the fort property in 2011.
Borough Council President Joseph Irace suggested at the Feb. 18 workshop meeting that the council organize a town hall meeting and invite officials to explain how the bill would impact Oceanport.
“We’d like to have a public meeting with anyone from the state that wants to come and explain why this is a good bill,” he said. “We’d like to invite the sponsors from the Senate, who are Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-20th District) from Union County and Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-12th District) from Monmouth. We’d also like to invite the three sponsors from the Assembly. I’d like to have all three of them come down and explain why the bill is good.
“And Otis Jones, director of urban development for the EDA [Economic DevelopmentAuthority]— have him come in and explain to us why this is a good bill for Oceanport and Monmouth County.”
When introduced, the MERA bill raised concerns in the fort’s three host communities of Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls. The most prominent concern is that the state would have more power over the authority, and therefore the future of the fort, than the three municipalities and the county.
Of the board’s 13 members, nine would have voting powers: five members appointed by the governor, one member appointed by the Monmouth County Freeholders, and the mayors of the three host communities.
The final two voting gubernatorial appointments would be the chief executive officer of the EDA, as well as another member of the executive branch.
1-800-FLOWERS.COM
The four nonvoting members of the authority would be the commissioners of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Transportation. The governor would also appoint the chairperson of MERA.
A meeting arranged by Beck between the host municipalities and the county resulted in drafting some 14 amendments that sought to balance control of MERA.
Among the changes is the requirement for a supermajority vote of the 13-person authority for any significant changes to the Fort Monmouth reuse plan. Another amendment requires approval by local zoning and planning boards of any development that takes place on portions of the fort property that fall within their borders.
At the Oceanport workshop meeting, Irace said it is important to get Beck involved in the public forum, along with representatives from Tinton Falls and Eatontown.
“I’d touch base with their administrators and tell them what we want to do,” Councilman Jay Briscione said.
Irace explained his main objections to the bill in an interview.
“The first one is the vote totals,” he said. “Currently the state has five votes, each of the municipalities has one vote and the county has a vote. In any kind of formula we lose out 5-4 in the vote totals.”
In order to get measures passed, there must be a supermajority of seven of the nine votes, but Irace doesn’t that as beneficial to Oceanport.
“That does little for Oceanport because the state can use its leverage to play one municipality against another,” he said.
Irace said another concern is the EDA’s oversight of the redevelopment.
“I have a major issue with the [EDA] being the master developer,” he said. “As far as I can tell, they have no experience of being a master developer of anything.”
Irace also took issue with the revenuesharing aspects of the bill, which allow MERA to collect a portion of the sales tax raised through sales generated on the fort property for revenue sharing for the region.
“Oceanport is the smallest municipality of the three and has the most to lose,” he said. “There are no specifics on how this money is going to be billed out.”
Language in the MERA bill regarding eminent domain also sounds an alarm.
“The use of eminent domain is permitted in the bill both inside the fort district and, what scares us more, outside of the fort district,” he said.
Irace’s final complaint is that Oceanport is responsible for a greater share of affordable housing than the other towns.
“Since Oceanport does have the lion’s share of housing do we get all the affordable housing?” he asked.
“Our concern is the current 6,000 residents of Oceanport,” he said. “It takes Oceanport’s future out of the hands of Oceanport and puts it in the state of New Jersey.”
Councilwoman Ellyn Kahle suggested the council hold a public forum at nearby Shore Regional High School and questioned Borough Attorney John O. Bennett III about whether it would be feasible for Oceanport to secede from the redevelopment of Fort Monmouth.
Bennett explained such an action would be very complicated and pointed out that the impact of the fort reuse could be beneficial.
Briscione agreed that the borough does not know what the future economic impact of the development of the fort property will be.
“We still don’t know if the costs associated with a buildout are going to be positive or negative on the taxpayers,” he said. “That has been our bone of contention — we don’t know yet.”
Bennett suggested that the development might end up being positive for Oceanport.
“If, in fact, the economic engine that we would like to see [at the fort property] happens, then you would probably want that to be a part of Oceanport,” he said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Public forum, withdrawal from reuse plan on the table
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
OCEANPORT — Borough officials last week bounced around concerns about the redevelopment of Fort Monmouth and discussed options such as holding a town hallstyle meeting or even withdrawing support for the fort reuse plan.
Their concerns center on legislation that would create the Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority (MERA), a state authority that would implement the Fort Monmouth reuse plan.
The bill, S 917, would lay out the guidelines by which the region would rebuild for the next 25 years following the Army’s departure from the fort property in 2011.
Borough Council President Joseph Irace suggested at the Feb. 18 workshop meeting that the council organize a town hall meeting and invite officials to explain how the bill would impact Oceanport.
“We’d like to have a public meeting with anyone from the state that wants to come and explain why this is a good bill,” he said. “We’d like to invite the sponsors from the Senate, who are Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-20th District) from Union County and Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-12th District) from Monmouth. We’d also like to invite the three sponsors from the Assembly. I’d like to have all three of them come down and explain why the bill is good.
“And Otis Jones, director of urban development for the EDA [Economic DevelopmentAuthority]— have him come in and explain to us why this is a good bill for Oceanport and Monmouth County.”
When introduced, the MERA bill raised concerns in the fort’s three host communities of Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls. The most prominent concern is that the state would have more power over the authority, and therefore the future of the fort, than the three municipalities and the county.
Of the board’s 13 members, nine would have voting powers: five members appointed by the governor, one member appointed by the Monmouth County Freeholders, and the mayors of the three host communities.
The final two voting gubernatorial appointments would be the chief executive officer of the EDA, as well as another member of the executive branch.
1-800-FLOWERS.COM
The four nonvoting members of the authority would be the commissioners of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Transportation. The governor would also appoint the chairperson of MERA.
A meeting arranged by Beck between the host municipalities and the county resulted in drafting some 14 amendments that sought to balance control of MERA.
Among the changes is the requirement for a supermajority vote of the 13-person authority for any significant changes to the Fort Monmouth reuse plan. Another amendment requires approval by local zoning and planning boards of any development that takes place on portions of the fort property that fall within their borders.
At the Oceanport workshop meeting, Irace said it is important to get Beck involved in the public forum, along with representatives from Tinton Falls and Eatontown.
“I’d touch base with their administrators and tell them what we want to do,” Councilman Jay Briscione said.
Irace explained his main objections to the bill in an interview.
“The first one is the vote totals,” he said. “Currently the state has five votes, each of the municipalities has one vote and the county has a vote. In any kind of formula we lose out 5-4 in the vote totals.”
In order to get measures passed, there must be a supermajority of seven of the nine votes, but Irace doesn’t that as beneficial to Oceanport.
“That does little for Oceanport because the state can use its leverage to play one municipality against another,” he said.
Irace said another concern is the EDA’s oversight of the redevelopment.
“I have a major issue with the [EDA] being the master developer,” he said. “As far as I can tell, they have no experience of being a master developer of anything.”
Irace also took issue with the revenuesharing aspects of the bill, which allow MERA to collect a portion of the sales tax raised through sales generated on the fort property for revenue sharing for the region.
“Oceanport is the smallest municipality of the three and has the most to lose,” he said. “There are no specifics on how this money is going to be billed out.”
Language in the MERA bill regarding eminent domain also sounds an alarm.
“The use of eminent domain is permitted in the bill both inside the fort district and, what scares us more, outside of the fort district,” he said.
Irace’s final complaint is that Oceanport is responsible for a greater share of affordable housing than the other towns.
“Since Oceanport does have the lion’s share of housing do we get all the affordable housing?” he asked.
“Our concern is the current 6,000 residents of Oceanport,” he said. “It takes Oceanport’s future out of the hands of Oceanport and puts it in the state of New Jersey.”
Councilwoman Ellyn Kahle suggested the council hold a public forum at nearby Shore Regional High School and questioned Borough Attorney John O. Bennett III about whether it would be feasible for Oceanport to secede from the redevelopment of Fort Monmouth.
Bennett explained such an action would be very complicated and pointed out that the impact of the fort reuse could be beneficial.
Briscione agreed that the borough does not know what the future economic impact of the development of the fort property will be.
“We still don’t know if the costs associated with a buildout are going to be positive or negative on the taxpayers,” he said. “That has been our bone of contention — we don’t know yet.”
Bennett suggested that the development might end up being positive for Oceanport.
“If, in fact, the economic engine that we would like to see [at the fort property] happens, then you would probably want that to be a part of Oceanport,” he said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Pallone pushes bill while 9/11 advocate waits
Pallone pushes bill while 9/11 advocate waits
Foundation wants permanent health benefits for responders
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th District) said last week he continues to work toward a bill providing health care benefits for 9/11 responders while advocates keep up the pressure to make those benefits permanent.
Pallone said last week that he is still working on getting the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act (HR-847) marked up, or moved out of committee, but is still short of the needed votes for the measure, which he said the White House does not support.
“I think I’m getting closer,” said Pallone, who is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health. “I’m trying to see if I can get the votes to keep the entitlement status, to keep the community program.”
According to Pallone, the bill is being held up because it makes the benefits an entitlement that must be funded permanently as opposed to the current practice of annually renewing them.
“We have to identify a way to pay for this,” he added. “There probably has to be some new tax of some sort. I’m trying to do these things as quickly as possible.”
Pallone said the White House does not support the bill but does support funding the program on a year-to-year basis.
“Every year, we seek funding through the appropriations process,” he said. “What the bill says is that the funding is mandatory.
“What the president is saying is that they don’t support mandatory spending,” he added. “They just want to continue supporting the funding every year.”
Some two weeks after organizing a rally in front of Pallone’s Long Branch office, John Feal said he is optimistic that the 9/11 health care bill will be marked up sooner rather than later. The founder of the FealGood Foundation, which advocates for 9/11 responders and those who worked or lived near the World Trade Center, said he is optimistic that the bill will make it out of committee to a floor vote in Congress in the coming month.
“I’ll tell you why I feel that way,” he said last week, “because November is coming quick, and every Democrat is worried about who is going to take their seat. I guarantee you someone is going to step up to the plate to make sure this bill gets done.”
According to its website, the foundation’s mission is to raise awareness and educate the public about the catastrophic health effects experienced by 9/11 first responders and to “relieve these great heroes of the financial burdens placed on them.”
Feal is urging Pallone to move the bill and has been critical of his seeming inability to get the bill to the floor of the Congress, claiming there is widespread support for the mark-up.
“This bill is going to get marked up,” he added. “I no longer have to speak to Congressman Pallone, because it’s out of his hands. The rest of the New York and New Jersey delegations want this bill marked up.”
The outspoken advocate said the bill has become a political issue, and he doesn’t think it should be.
“9/11 illnesses have no political party,” he said. “I worked with both sides of the aisle and I will continue to do so.
“We are eight and a half years later and no federal legislation; that’s a joke.”
Pallone said there is some support for making the program permanent but not the funding, which he does not support.
“If the money isn’t permanent, then it is not that different,” he said. “You could authorize the program, but someone would argue how significant that is if you can’t guarantee the money.
“Right now the program itself is on an ad hoc basis. I’m still going to try to get the entitlement status.
“I’d like to pass the bill with the entitlement status and not without it. These are the kinds of amendments that would weaken it.”
Feal, however, said the bill isn’t perfect but it should be passed now and changed later.
“There needs to be more illnesses added to the bill, and the area that the bill affects needs to be expanded,” he said.
“Those are amendments that can be made to the bill afterwards. Right now we just need to get the support.”
Feal gave some examples of how the bill could be improved.
“I’d like to see all cancers added to the bill,” he said. “I know 20-some-odd people with thyroid cancer, and if it came out today, then it wouldn’t be covered by the bill. Right now we have to get the bill through the house.”
Pallone said there are many diseases listed in the proposed bill and there is a way to add more.
“There is a list, and most of them are respiratory and cancers. And there is also a process where something new develops that wasn’t already identified, and that can be added as well,” he said. “I’m pretty sure various psychological disorders are covered.”
Feal also reacted to recent news that the proposed budget for 2011 allocates approximately $150 million for 9/11 responder health benefits, more than double the 2010 budget of some $70 million.
“What they did when they doubled our funding for 2011 was basically a PR stunt,” he said. “There is no long-term solution.
“What’s going to happen in 2012? We work every year on the budget, but with the bill there is no budget.”
Feal said the entitlement bill would be active for only the next 30 years.
“No 9/11 responder is going to be alive in 30 years,” he said.
Feal, a 9/11 responder who was injured and lost part of his foot as a result of working at ground zero, admitted to feeling a wide range of emotions.
“I’m optimistic — as an advocate, I have to be optimistic,” he said. “I’m angry, I’m sad, and I feel betrayed, but I’m not going to come out of character so they can demonize me. They call me a hero, and I’m not about to lose that.”
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Foundation wants permanent health benefits for responders
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th District) said last week he continues to work toward a bill providing health care benefits for 9/11 responders while advocates keep up the pressure to make those benefits permanent.
Pallone said last week that he is still working on getting the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act (HR-847) marked up, or moved out of committee, but is still short of the needed votes for the measure, which he said the White House does not support.
“I think I’m getting closer,” said Pallone, who is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health. “I’m trying to see if I can get the votes to keep the entitlement status, to keep the community program.”
According to Pallone, the bill is being held up because it makes the benefits an entitlement that must be funded permanently as opposed to the current practice of annually renewing them.
“We have to identify a way to pay for this,” he added. “There probably has to be some new tax of some sort. I’m trying to do these things as quickly as possible.”
Pallone said the White House does not support the bill but does support funding the program on a year-to-year basis.
“Every year, we seek funding through the appropriations process,” he said. “What the bill says is that the funding is mandatory.
“What the president is saying is that they don’t support mandatory spending,” he added. “They just want to continue supporting the funding every year.”
Some two weeks after organizing a rally in front of Pallone’s Long Branch office, John Feal said he is optimistic that the 9/11 health care bill will be marked up sooner rather than later. The founder of the FealGood Foundation, which advocates for 9/11 responders and those who worked or lived near the World Trade Center, said he is optimistic that the bill will make it out of committee to a floor vote in Congress in the coming month.
“I’ll tell you why I feel that way,” he said last week, “because November is coming quick, and every Democrat is worried about who is going to take their seat. I guarantee you someone is going to step up to the plate to make sure this bill gets done.”
According to its website, the foundation’s mission is to raise awareness and educate the public about the catastrophic health effects experienced by 9/11 first responders and to “relieve these great heroes of the financial burdens placed on them.”
Feal is urging Pallone to move the bill and has been critical of his seeming inability to get the bill to the floor of the Congress, claiming there is widespread support for the mark-up.
“This bill is going to get marked up,” he added. “I no longer have to speak to Congressman Pallone, because it’s out of his hands. The rest of the New York and New Jersey delegations want this bill marked up.”
The outspoken advocate said the bill has become a political issue, and he doesn’t think it should be.
“9/11 illnesses have no political party,” he said. “I worked with both sides of the aisle and I will continue to do so.
“We are eight and a half years later and no federal legislation; that’s a joke.”
Pallone said there is some support for making the program permanent but not the funding, which he does not support.
“If the money isn’t permanent, then it is not that different,” he said. “You could authorize the program, but someone would argue how significant that is if you can’t guarantee the money.
“Right now the program itself is on an ad hoc basis. I’m still going to try to get the entitlement status.
“I’d like to pass the bill with the entitlement status and not without it. These are the kinds of amendments that would weaken it.”
Feal, however, said the bill isn’t perfect but it should be passed now and changed later.
“There needs to be more illnesses added to the bill, and the area that the bill affects needs to be expanded,” he said.
“Those are amendments that can be made to the bill afterwards. Right now we just need to get the support.”
Feal gave some examples of how the bill could be improved.
“I’d like to see all cancers added to the bill,” he said. “I know 20-some-odd people with thyroid cancer, and if it came out today, then it wouldn’t be covered by the bill. Right now we have to get the bill through the house.”
Pallone said there are many diseases listed in the proposed bill and there is a way to add more.
“There is a list, and most of them are respiratory and cancers. And there is also a process where something new develops that wasn’t already identified, and that can be added as well,” he said. “I’m pretty sure various psychological disorders are covered.”
Feal also reacted to recent news that the proposed budget for 2011 allocates approximately $150 million for 9/11 responder health benefits, more than double the 2010 budget of some $70 million.
“What they did when they doubled our funding for 2011 was basically a PR stunt,” he said. “There is no long-term solution.
“What’s going to happen in 2012? We work every year on the budget, but with the bill there is no budget.”
Feal said the entitlement bill would be active for only the next 30 years.
“No 9/11 responder is going to be alive in 30 years,” he said.
Feal, a 9/11 responder who was injured and lost part of his foot as a result of working at ground zero, admitted to feeling a wide range of emotions.
“I’m optimistic — as an advocate, I have to be optimistic,” he said. “I’m angry, I’m sad, and I feel betrayed, but I’m not going to come out of character so they can demonize me. They call me a hero, and I’m not about to lose that.”
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
L.B. master plan adds transit village
L.B. master plan adds transit village
Medical-residential zone, second community center in revised plan
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch’s master plan is a work in progress, and a revised master plan that creates a new district and expands on the concept of a transit village was presented to the Long Branch Planning Board last week.
Zoning Officer Michelle Bernich, Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner and engineer David Maski presented the board with a list of revisions that have been made to the rough draft that was made public in December.
The trio held a public hearing for the master plan at the Jan. 19 meeting, and along with the list of revisions, they presented the board with a summary of public comment.
“We did an overview of the master plan at the last meeting,” Maski told the Planning Board at the Feb. 16 meeting. “We did a presentation and took questions from the audience.
“Since then we have summarized the various revisions that were made,” he added. “The questions either already have been addressed in the master plan or they will be addressed in post-master-plan initiatives.”
Some of the revisions include: the addition of a beach management plan, the creation of a Broadway-Medical Residential Transition district, and an additional community center.
Maski explained the purpose of presenting the revised plan to the board and what the next steps would be in adopting the plan.
“The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to get any additional comments, questions, concerns that any of the board members may have before we move on to the final draft,” he said.
Maski said the group will have an informal workshop with the City Council on Feb. 23 and be back before the Planning Board on March 16, when the board could take action to adopt the master plan.
The board members had no comments or questions about the master plan, and Turner explained that they feel comfortable with the plan because of public reaction.
“The master plan document was posted on the city’s website, and I believe we have received 850 hits,” Turner said. “As of tonight, since that time, there have been zero questions of us by phone or by email from anyone in the public.”
Maski admitted that there was some confusion with some of the recommendations in the master plan, particularly the recommendation to develop the area around the train station.
“There was some confusion on what ‘transit village’ actually meant,” he said. “In essence it is to reconnect that neighborhood that was split by the rail yard,” he added. “It was really to correct what used to be a more vibrant neighborhood than it is today.”
Turner followed, saying the transit village would work and that there might be a large stakeholder pushing for it.
“The hospital [Monmouth Medical Center], as a major stakeholder, is very interested in this because they are looking for additional facilities for offices and also for housing for nurses and interns,” he said. “They have contacted the city to look at doing something in that area also.”
The only member of the public to speak at the meeting was Beachfront South resident Diana Multare, who has been critical of the transit village concept but was intrigued by the idea of the hospital using the area.
“I still have some reservations about transit villages, but Mr. Turner’s comments are intriguing to me,” she said. “It makes a lot of sense if the hospital staff is interested in something like that.”
Multare, however, disagreed with the idea that there is a disconnect between the neighborhoods around the station.
“I would disagree with the idea that the train station has made significant alterations in the concept of neighborhood,” she said. “I frankly don’t see a major disconnect between west of the railroad station and east of the railroad station.”
After the meeting, Turner said he disagreedwithMultare’s assessment, saying that the biggest complaint from the time the rail yard was constructed in the 1970s was that there was no interconnect between the neighborhood and that it is hard to move around the area,
Turner also said that once the master plan is adopted, it is possible for the city to seek funding to look toward creating an interconnect to alleviate some of the problems.
Another frequent complaint that Turner addressed during the meeting is the living conditions around the train station due to a high volume of foot traffic and noise.
“The planners are attempting with transit village to take an area that isn’t desirable and make it as desirable as they can,” he said.
The master plan includes a comprehensive look at the city’s demographics and plans for community facilities, historical preservation, open space and recreation, as well as affordable housing and age-restricted housing.
Some of the recommendations included are the development of a riverwalk along the riverfront, moving City Hall east on Broadway, a new pier and ferry terminal, and permitting home offices in residential zones.
Other topics addressed include the coastal evacuation plan, parking facilities, and a proposed shuttle service. The complete draft plan can be viewed on the city’s website, www.visitlongbranch.com; click on master plan.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Medical-residential zone, second community center in revised plan
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch’s master plan is a work in progress, and a revised master plan that creates a new district and expands on the concept of a transit village was presented to the Long Branch Planning Board last week.
Zoning Officer Michelle Bernich, Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner and engineer David Maski presented the board with a list of revisions that have been made to the rough draft that was made public in December.
The trio held a public hearing for the master plan at the Jan. 19 meeting, and along with the list of revisions, they presented the board with a summary of public comment.
“We did an overview of the master plan at the last meeting,” Maski told the Planning Board at the Feb. 16 meeting. “We did a presentation and took questions from the audience.
“Since then we have summarized the various revisions that were made,” he added. “The questions either already have been addressed in the master plan or they will be addressed in post-master-plan initiatives.”
Some of the revisions include: the addition of a beach management plan, the creation of a Broadway-Medical Residential Transition district, and an additional community center.
Maski explained the purpose of presenting the revised plan to the board and what the next steps would be in adopting the plan.
“The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to get any additional comments, questions, concerns that any of the board members may have before we move on to the final draft,” he said.
Maski said the group will have an informal workshop with the City Council on Feb. 23 and be back before the Planning Board on March 16, when the board could take action to adopt the master plan.
The board members had no comments or questions about the master plan, and Turner explained that they feel comfortable with the plan because of public reaction.
“The master plan document was posted on the city’s website, and I believe we have received 850 hits,” Turner said. “As of tonight, since that time, there have been zero questions of us by phone or by email from anyone in the public.”
Maski admitted that there was some confusion with some of the recommendations in the master plan, particularly the recommendation to develop the area around the train station.
“There was some confusion on what ‘transit village’ actually meant,” he said. “In essence it is to reconnect that neighborhood that was split by the rail yard,” he added. “It was really to correct what used to be a more vibrant neighborhood than it is today.”
Turner followed, saying the transit village would work and that there might be a large stakeholder pushing for it.
“The hospital [Monmouth Medical Center], as a major stakeholder, is very interested in this because they are looking for additional facilities for offices and also for housing for nurses and interns,” he said. “They have contacted the city to look at doing something in that area also.”
The only member of the public to speak at the meeting was Beachfront South resident Diana Multare, who has been critical of the transit village concept but was intrigued by the idea of the hospital using the area.
“I still have some reservations about transit villages, but Mr. Turner’s comments are intriguing to me,” she said. “It makes a lot of sense if the hospital staff is interested in something like that.”
Multare, however, disagreed with the idea that there is a disconnect between the neighborhoods around the station.
“I would disagree with the idea that the train station has made significant alterations in the concept of neighborhood,” she said. “I frankly don’t see a major disconnect between west of the railroad station and east of the railroad station.”
After the meeting, Turner said he disagreedwithMultare’s assessment, saying that the biggest complaint from the time the rail yard was constructed in the 1970s was that there was no interconnect between the neighborhood and that it is hard to move around the area,
Turner also said that once the master plan is adopted, it is possible for the city to seek funding to look toward creating an interconnect to alleviate some of the problems.
Another frequent complaint that Turner addressed during the meeting is the living conditions around the train station due to a high volume of foot traffic and noise.
“The planners are attempting with transit village to take an area that isn’t desirable and make it as desirable as they can,” he said.
The master plan includes a comprehensive look at the city’s demographics and plans for community facilities, historical preservation, open space and recreation, as well as affordable housing and age-restricted housing.
Some of the recommendations included are the development of a riverwalk along the riverfront, moving City Hall east on Broadway, a new pier and ferry terminal, and permitting home offices in residential zones.
Other topics addressed include the coastal evacuation plan, parking facilities, and a proposed shuttle service. The complete draft plan can be viewed on the city’s website, www.visitlongbranch.com; click on master plan.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Developer unveils plans for Beachfront No. II
Developer unveils plans for Beachfront No. II
Single-family, town homes to be constructed
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The developer of Beachfront North Phase II in Long Branch unveiled plans last week for development of the MTOTSA neighborhood that call for single-family homes and townhomes to be interspersed among the existing homes residents fought so hard to hold onto.
After years of hard-won battles over the city’s attempt to use eminent domain to level the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue beachfront neighborhood in favor of luxury condos, the development plan looks much like the infill the city originally touted.
David Fisher, vice president of Matzel & Mumford, a K. Hovnanian company, told the City Council the plan is to develop 17 single-family homes that will market for up to $1 million, and three townhouses on vacant parcels in Beachfront North Phase II, which includes MTOTSA.
“They are all single-family except that we are building three townhouses along Ocean Boulevard,” he said. “We are hoping the [Planning] board will review and approve that subdivision at the next meeting.”
Made public just five months after the MTOTSA Alliance reached an agreement with the city to preserve their homes, the plans were presented at the Feb. 9 City Council workshop meeting, where City Attorney James Aaron explained why the developers were appearing in front of the council.
“We’ve been told that MM-Beachfront II will be proceeding to the Planning Board for the first of its applications for its development,” Aaron said. “It has been historically [the council’s] policy that the developer would come to you to let you understand what is being proposed to the Planning Board.
“Then you would give conceptual approval, although no resolution is necessary,” he added. “You would know what is going to the Planning Board meets the design guidelines and the stipulations of the settlement.”
Fisher said the plans conform to the negotiated settlement. Part of the agreement was that the developer would demolish the vacant properties that had been acquired in the neighborhood, and Fisher said there were very few problems encountered in doing so.
“Once the consent order was signed, we agreed to demolish the structures that we owned in a fairly compact time frame, and that work has been completed,” he said. “We did it ahead of schedule and we didn’t find too many complications with respect to the structures that were out there.
“Some were very [close] to the [remaining] buildings, so we had to do some actual handwork to demolition them,” Fisher said. “Those lots have been stabilized for the winter and are ready for preparation for construction.”
To accommodate the development, the city had to split up a vacated right of way, and once that was completed, the developer was able to conceptualize a plan and move forward. The next step is to apply to the
Fisher said most of the construction will not need further approval, but a few parcels do.
“Many of these lots don’t require Planning Board approval, meaning they are single lots and we would propose to simply build a new home on the existing property,” he said. “That is the case with about nine or 10 of the homes.
“In two instances we have a double lot to be consolidated into one,” he added. “That can be done simply by a deed that gets recorded. In two other instances we need to apply to the board for a minor subdivision.”
Fisher was asked how construction would proceed.
“We will probably build them on spec, but my guess is that we may advance one or two of the foundations and move forward,” he said. “We have some tight constraints in terms of zoning, so it’s not like we can customize these.”
He said pricing and how to market the properties are questions still being decided.
“It is pretty preliminary at this point, but I would guess that the smaller homes would start somewhere in the $600,000s and the bigger homes would get well over $1 million.”
Fisher is expecting to be at the Feb. 16 Planning Board meeting for approval of one subdivision and expects to have to wait until April for a final approval to begin construction.
“The other approval we will need is a minor subdivision and site plan for the two townhouse units, and we expect it will not be until the April meeting,” he said. “With those two Planning Board approvals, the balance will be submissions to the city and their building department at which time there will be a zoning and engineering review on a lotby lot basis.
“Initially we will probably build three homes,” he added. “We could be starting that first model around May.”
After the meeting Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider gave an overview on the process.
“[The demolition] went ahead of schedule,” he said. “We had genuine concerns about that, as did the residents, and that was one of the huge sticking points, and there were all sorts of things that both sides were anticipating could go wrong because demolition is not necessarily easy.
“With a few exceptions it went smoothly. The next step was … they told us what they are going to build, and let’s see how quickly that proceeds.
“I have a feeling it will [go] quickly to a point and then will be market-driven,” Schneider said.
“The drawings we saw look very attractive,” he said. “I’d like to see them get built in a timely fashion. I don’t think there is anything they are doing that wouldn’t be virtually automatic approval.”
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA Alliance was formalized in court Sept. 15. Signed by all but six property owners in MTOTSA, the agreement required the property owners to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages. In return, the city agreed not to use its power of eminent domain to take properties in MTOTSA.
As part of the 14-point settlement with the MTOTSA property owners, the city also agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees the alliance accrued and to have the developer demolish several vacant, boarded-up houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the city agreed to pave the roads and fix lighting conditions in the area within two years, and the property owners are eligible for five-year tax abatements if they improve their properties.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Single-family, town homes to be constructed
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The developer of Beachfront North Phase II in Long Branch unveiled plans last week for development of the MTOTSA neighborhood that call for single-family homes and townhomes to be interspersed among the existing homes residents fought so hard to hold onto.
After years of hard-won battles over the city’s attempt to use eminent domain to level the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue beachfront neighborhood in favor of luxury condos, the development plan looks much like the infill the city originally touted.
David Fisher, vice president of Matzel & Mumford, a K. Hovnanian company, told the City Council the plan is to develop 17 single-family homes that will market for up to $1 million, and three townhouses on vacant parcels in Beachfront North Phase II, which includes MTOTSA.
“They are all single-family except that we are building three townhouses along Ocean Boulevard,” he said. “We are hoping the [Planning] board will review and approve that subdivision at the next meeting.”
Made public just five months after the MTOTSA Alliance reached an agreement with the city to preserve their homes, the plans were presented at the Feb. 9 City Council workshop meeting, where City Attorney James Aaron explained why the developers were appearing in front of the council.
“We’ve been told that MM-Beachfront II will be proceeding to the Planning Board for the first of its applications for its development,” Aaron said. “It has been historically [the council’s] policy that the developer would come to you to let you understand what is being proposed to the Planning Board.
“Then you would give conceptual approval, although no resolution is necessary,” he added. “You would know what is going to the Planning Board meets the design guidelines and the stipulations of the settlement.”
Fisher said the plans conform to the negotiated settlement. Part of the agreement was that the developer would demolish the vacant properties that had been acquired in the neighborhood, and Fisher said there were very few problems encountered in doing so.
“Once the consent order was signed, we agreed to demolish the structures that we owned in a fairly compact time frame, and that work has been completed,” he said. “We did it ahead of schedule and we didn’t find too many complications with respect to the structures that were out there.
“Some were very [close] to the [remaining] buildings, so we had to do some actual handwork to demolition them,” Fisher said. “Those lots have been stabilized for the winter and are ready for preparation for construction.”
To accommodate the development, the city had to split up a vacated right of way, and once that was completed, the developer was able to conceptualize a plan and move forward. The next step is to apply to the
Fisher said most of the construction will not need further approval, but a few parcels do.
“Many of these lots don’t require Planning Board approval, meaning they are single lots and we would propose to simply build a new home on the existing property,” he said. “That is the case with about nine or 10 of the homes.
“In two instances we have a double lot to be consolidated into one,” he added. “That can be done simply by a deed that gets recorded. In two other instances we need to apply to the board for a minor subdivision.”
Fisher was asked how construction would proceed.
“We will probably build them on spec, but my guess is that we may advance one or two of the foundations and move forward,” he said. “We have some tight constraints in terms of zoning, so it’s not like we can customize these.”
He said pricing and how to market the properties are questions still being decided.
“It is pretty preliminary at this point, but I would guess that the smaller homes would start somewhere in the $600,000s and the bigger homes would get well over $1 million.”
Fisher is expecting to be at the Feb. 16 Planning Board meeting for approval of one subdivision and expects to have to wait until April for a final approval to begin construction.
“The other approval we will need is a minor subdivision and site plan for the two townhouse units, and we expect it will not be until the April meeting,” he said. “With those two Planning Board approvals, the balance will be submissions to the city and their building department at which time there will be a zoning and engineering review on a lotby lot basis.
“Initially we will probably build three homes,” he added. “We could be starting that first model around May.”
After the meeting Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider gave an overview on the process.
“[The demolition] went ahead of schedule,” he said. “We had genuine concerns about that, as did the residents, and that was one of the huge sticking points, and there were all sorts of things that both sides were anticipating could go wrong because demolition is not necessarily easy.
“With a few exceptions it went smoothly. The next step was … they told us what they are going to build, and let’s see how quickly that proceeds.
“I have a feeling it will [go] quickly to a point and then will be market-driven,” Schneider said.
“The drawings we saw look very attractive,” he said. “I’d like to see them get built in a timely fashion. I don’t think there is anything they are doing that wouldn’t be virtually automatic approval.”
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA Alliance was formalized in court Sept. 15. Signed by all but six property owners in MTOTSA, the agreement required the property owners to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages. In return, the city agreed not to use its power of eminent domain to take properties in MTOTSA.
As part of the 14-point settlement with the MTOTSA property owners, the city also agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees the alliance accrued and to have the developer demolish several vacant, boarded-up houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the city agreed to pave the roads and fix lighting conditions in the area within two years, and the property owners are eligible for five-year tax abatements if they improve their properties.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
The Arc hosts Job Shadow Day for students
The Arc hosts Job Shadow Day for students
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch hosted a group of high school students for a day of exploring career options last week.
Above: Monmouth Regional High School students tour the Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch during a Job Shadow Day at the facility on Feb. 9. Below: Monmouth Regional student Hassan Mehdaoui (center) watches Robert Smith (l-r), Diana Donato and David Weynberg work at their stations at the center, which is operated by The Arc of Monmouth. PHOTOS BY ERIC SUCAR staff Above: Monmouth Regional High School students tour the Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch during a Job Shadow Day at the facility on Feb. 9. Below: Monmouth Regional student Hassan Mehdaoui (center) watches Robert Smith (l-r), Diana Donato and David Weynberg work at their stations at the center, which is operated by The Arc of Monmouth. PHOTOS BY ERIC SUCAR staff Twelve students from Monmouth Regional High School were able to shadow employees working at The Arc of Monmouth County’s WOC on Feb. 9.
“Job Shadow Day is a yearround effort to introduce young people to the world of work,” a press release from the Tinton-Fallsbased Arc stated.
Camile Celentano, human resources director at The Arc, explained how job shadowing benefits the students and the agency.
“The Arc feels that it is important to inform high school students about career opportunities in this field and become more familiar with our agency,” said
In addition to shadowing employees who work at the WOC, the students assisted clients who work at the center, helping them with their job tasks, and observed groups at work.
“Students were welcomed by Linda Porter, director of the WOC, and given an overview of The Arc,” Celentano said. “A tour of the facility followed, and then students connected with the employees they were to shadow.”
Prior to the day of their visit, students were given the opportunity to select which position they wanted to shadow. Students also shared break times and lunch with employees and trainees, and ended the day with a question-and-answer session and refreshments.
Celentano listed some of the jobs the students observed.
“Students shadowed counselors, production coaches, the administrative assistant, the [information technology] manager, and the facilities manager,” she said.
Celentano also explained some of the jobs that are done at the WOC on a daily basis.
“The over 165 trainees with disabilities at the WOC perform jobs for many businesses throughout the state, such as packaging, processing and assembly, among others, and earn a paycheck for the work,” she said.
Celentano said Job Shadow Day is not the only event the WOC provides for young students.
“The Arc offers high school students volunteer opportunities through our recreation department, fundraising events and thrift shops,” she said. “We offer students service learning and internship opportunities as well.
“The Arc offers the Dorothy B. Hersh High School, a fully accredited private school that provides academic and vocational training for students with developmental disabilities,” she added.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch hosted a group of high school students for a day of exploring career options last week.
Above: Monmouth Regional High School students tour the Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch during a Job Shadow Day at the facility on Feb. 9. Below: Monmouth Regional student Hassan Mehdaoui (center) watches Robert Smith (l-r), Diana Donato and David Weynberg work at their stations at the center, which is operated by The Arc of Monmouth. PHOTOS BY ERIC SUCAR staff Above: Monmouth Regional High School students tour the Work Opportunity Center (WOC) in Long Branch during a Job Shadow Day at the facility on Feb. 9. Below: Monmouth Regional student Hassan Mehdaoui (center) watches Robert Smith (l-r), Diana Donato and David Weynberg work at their stations at the center, which is operated by The Arc of Monmouth. PHOTOS BY ERIC SUCAR staff Twelve students from Monmouth Regional High School were able to shadow employees working at The Arc of Monmouth County’s WOC on Feb. 9.
“Job Shadow Day is a yearround effort to introduce young people to the world of work,” a press release from the Tinton-Fallsbased Arc stated.
Camile Celentano, human resources director at The Arc, explained how job shadowing benefits the students and the agency.
“The Arc feels that it is important to inform high school students about career opportunities in this field and become more familiar with our agency,” said
In addition to shadowing employees who work at the WOC, the students assisted clients who work at the center, helping them with their job tasks, and observed groups at work.
“Students were welcomed by Linda Porter, director of the WOC, and given an overview of The Arc,” Celentano said. “A tour of the facility followed, and then students connected with the employees they were to shadow.”
Prior to the day of their visit, students were given the opportunity to select which position they wanted to shadow. Students also shared break times and lunch with employees and trainees, and ended the day with a question-and-answer session and refreshments.
Celentano listed some of the jobs the students observed.
“Students shadowed counselors, production coaches, the administrative assistant, the [information technology] manager, and the facilities manager,” she said.
Celentano also explained some of the jobs that are done at the WOC on a daily basis.
“The over 165 trainees with disabilities at the WOC perform jobs for many businesses throughout the state, such as packaging, processing and assembly, among others, and earn a paycheck for the work,” she said.
Celentano said Job Shadow Day is not the only event the WOC provides for young students.
“The Arc offers high school students volunteer opportunities through our recreation department, fundraising events and thrift shops,” she said. “We offer students service learning and internship opportunities as well.
“The Arc offers the Dorothy B. Hersh High School, a fully accredited private school that provides academic and vocational training for students with developmental disabilities,” she added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)