Skaters lead charge for Tinton Falls skate park
Proposed for site of former municipal complex
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Joined by a small army of skateboard enthusiasts, a Tinton Falls man made his case for the Borough Council to pursue the building of a skate park on borough property.
Resident Michael Nesci presented the council with a petition with more than 400 signatures of people who support the idea of the council using open space funds to build and operate a skate park behind Borough Hall.
“I am speaking on behalf of the Tinton Falls skateboarding community on a proposal for a skate park in Tinton Falls,” Nesci said during the June 15 council meeting.
Nesci, who was joined by about 30 supporters, gave the council some history on how difficult it’s been to skateboard in the borough.
“I’ve been part of every recreational sport imaginable, soccer, baseball, basketball, Boy Scouts and all while doing this, I’ve been skateboarding everyday,” he said. “Growing up and skateboarding here in Tinton Falls has been difficult.
“There is no designated facility for skateboarding here in Tinton Falls or the surrounding towns. Skateboarding for my friends and I resulted in us getting kicked out of virtually every spot.
“We are going to skateboard regardless of whether there is a place or not,” he added. “If there was a place, we’d be there, but since there isn’t, we are going to skate where we can.”
Nesci said there are concerns with liability issues related to a skate park.
“Speaking of a skate park leaves liability on your minds,” he said. “Luckily here in Tinton Falls we fall under the Monmouth County Joint Insurance funds, where we are covered for a skate park.
“They see a skate park as no different than any other recreational sport such as football, soccer and baseball.”
Nesci also said he would do his part in ensuring the safety of the skateboarders.
“On top of being fully covered, I am going to donate my time to teach safety lessons for the park,” he said. “I have already been selected by the Tinton Falls Neighborhood Watch to teach a program in general on safety biking and skateboarding.”
Nesci said that since the borough already owns the land for the skate park, it makes the creation of the park easier.
“Another topic is location; luckily for Tinton Falls we own a lot where the previous municipal building once stood,” he said. “It has plenty of space and there is plenty of parking, and on top of it, we own it.
“Right from the get-go we are saving money not having to purchase land,” he added.
Another benefit from the land behind Borough Hall is the constant police presence.
“Since the park is so close to the police station, it is being monitored 24/7,” Nesci said. “That is a benefit most towns do not have; they usually have their parks hidden in the corner, hidden away from the public.”
N
esci said the borough already has the
funds for the park and can also seek outside funding.
“I’ve been working with the Open Space Committee for several months now and the committee has sufficient funds for purchasing a skate park,” he said. “On top of having sufficient funds in the open space account, we are also going to apply for an open space grant provided by Monmouth County.”
Nesci’s skateboarding connections may have also saved money on the project, which Nesci projected would cost over $200,000.
“We are working with a company with Spohn Ranch from California,” he said. “I’ve spoken with a gentleman who used to live in Long Branch but now lives in California and builds skate parks for a living.“ Right from the get-go, we are saving over $50,000 working with them because they are a state contractor for New Jersey.”
Nesci said Spohn Ranch has helped with the design of the park.
“Spohn Ranch has already designed the park for us free of charge,” he said. “Spohn Ranch worked very hard trying to put together what every skateboarder in the town I’ve talked to wanted.”
Nesci said that because of the design, the park is expected to last a long time.
“It is a concrete park, precasted with stainless steel,” he said. “The [equipment] is going to last for many years.”
Nesci expects a wide range of ages to utilize the park.
“All ages, you go there at 10 in the morning, you are going to see guys my age and older,” he said. “When school gets out, all the kids flood in.”
Nesci said the next closest skate park is in Long Branch, which has been successful.
“If you go past Long Branch on the hottest day of the summer, you see kids at the park,” he said. “If you go by during the winter at 30 degrees, you’ll see kids at the skate park.”
Nesci said that the materials that would be used in Tinton Falls would be better than what was used for the Long Branch park.
“With the concrete design the maintenance is at a minimum because concrete lasts a lot longer than the plastic that they use at the skate park in Long Branch,” he said. “There is more maintenance for those with cracking and chipping.
“It is precasted in California and brought over, so the way they pour it is going to last a lot longer.”
Nesci said that litter is a problem, but he expects the skateboard community to keep the park clean.
“You go to Long Branch you see garbage cans and you still see garbage on the ground,” he said. “We can coordinate and say every Wednesday we clean the park.”
Nesci said the skate park also would benefit neighboring towns.
“I can see it not just helping our community, but the surrounding communities as well,” he said.
Nesci concluded his presentation by summarizing support for the park and putting the onus on the council.
“We are fully insured, we have the money, we have the land,” he said. “We have over 1,100 supporters on Facebook and a petition as well.
“You guys can make this happen for the skateboarding community, and I want to move forward and see where we can go with this.”
The council was impressed by Nesci’s presentation.
“I think you did a terrific job, I’m very impressed,” Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama said. “You came here very well prepared with a lot information for us to know because I don’t think anybody on this dais has skateboarded on a daily basis.”
“Thank you all. It is a tremendous job you’ve done,” Councilman Gary Baldwin said.C
ouncilman Andrew Mayer, who is a member of the Open Space Committee, said that having a skate park would alleviate problems with skateboarders around the borough. The committee listed a skate park fourth on its list of priorities for open space acquistion.
“This is the proper type of place to use when skateboarding instead of using and damaging private property of the storefronts,” he said.
Mayer went on to say that the committee requested that the parking lot be separate from the park.
“The location seems like a good location,” he said. “Primarily they would like to see fencing to separate the parking area from the skate park.”
Nesci also said that the park would not include lights, would be free of charge to use and that helmets would be required by anyone using the park.
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 Tom's Ford
Saturday, July 31, 2010
L.B. looks at options for pier, ferry
L.B. looks at options for pier, ferry
Projected cost put at $91.5M
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
If Long Branch residents learned one thing at the pier and ferry charrette last week, it was that piers and ferries come in many different shapes, sizes and designs.
One of eight options for the pier design. One of eight options for the pier design. The charrette took place at City Hall on June 16, where city officials and the professionals hired to design and construct the pier and ferry gave the public a chance to view plans for the project.
Malcolm McLaren, of the McLaren Engineering Group, West Nyack, N.Y., explained the purpose of the meeting. The firm won the $1.7 million design bid
“We want to tell you what we’ve come to learn about Long Branch, and then we want to hear your opinions,” he said. “It will be a great opportunity for interaction.”
McLaren, whose firm has designed more than 50 ferry terminals, including the Battery Park Ferry Terminal in New York City, described the challenges of designing a ferry terminal specifically for Long Branch.
“We’ve done a lot of these ferry terminals, but here is what is particularly different about Long Branch,” he said. “We want to build a ferry terminal in the ocean, which is a little bit different than most.
“There aren’t many ferry terminals in the ocean; they are usually in a protected harbor,” he added.
McLaren said wind and waves make the design challenging.
“We also have to look at the prevailing winds and prevailing waves and how it moves along the shore,” he said. “The idea is we want to come up with a pier that is basically within a harbor.
“We want to build a pier, wrap it around and have a ferry come in and dock.”
Architect Rick Cook gave multiple design examples of what the pier would look like and where the buildings on the pier would be placed.
Cook also showed examples of piers around the world, including ones in Atlantic City, Chicago, Santa Barbara, England and The Netherlands.
“This is a Jersey Shore pier. It is about creating the right pier for here in Long Branch,” he said.
After McLaren’s presentation, residents were able to ask questions at different tables set up with specific topics, including environmental impact, open space, design, the ferry, and the pier and parking.
A few features that may be included on the 1,000-foot-long pier are restaurants, retail, an events center, trees, benches and a winter garden.
In what became the most visited table, city of Long Branch consultant Brian Dowling and Long Branch counsel Robert Beckelman manned the table dealing with questions about funding and cost.
Dowling broke down the different parts of the project and how much they would cost.
“The total cost we think is about $91.5 million, and that can be broken down into four components,” he said. “The landpreparing rights is $2.5 million, the core pier is $36 million, the ferry terminal itself is $20 million, and the amenities — anything from the restaurants, the retail, the winter garden — for $33 million.”
Dowling said the project already has $6.5 million in funding that is committed and controlled and another $53 million is expected from noncompetitive grants.
The remaining $38 million could be obtained a number of ways, including naming rights, private-sector contributions, and many target grants, including the Transit Security Grant Program and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
One funding option for the project is the Tiger II (Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery) grant, through which the Department of Transportation will dole out $600 million for various transportation projects.
Dowling said the original grant application was denied, but he is hopeful to receive money from this year’s grant.
“If you look at the criteria, Long Branch meets the criteria,” he said. “We are going to reapply; we are further along with the planning process.
“With the stimulus money, it’s how soon are you ready to build. We were competing with projects that were ready to go.”
Beckelman said that one way the remaining money would not be raised was through bonding.
“We are not going to be bonding for $38 million,” he said.
Dowling said the pier and ferry must be constructed together, but it would be possible to phase in the different amenities.
“The amenity program could be phased based on the demand,” he said. “The amenity program, the plan to fund that is from leasing. The city never had a plan to build a restaurant and then subsidize that operation.”
McLaren described the design that would work the best.
“We want to build some sort of breakwater and incorporate that within the pier structure itself,” he said. “The waves will then be reflected off this breakwater, and we will have a nice, still basin, and the people could get on and off the ferry.”
McLaren described a way the design would fail.
“If we put a pier out there with a leg on it, then the piles don’t really stop the waves, they just kind of rock the boats,” he said. “Nobody is going to be able to get on and off the boat.”
McLaren said that one of the goals of the design is to not make drastic changes to the shoreline.
“We also have to be very sensitive to shoreline erosion. We don’t want to build another jetty,” he said. “We don’t want to create a pier that’s going to cause too many changes to the beach itself.”
McLaren said there are options on what size ferry the city could use.
“We looked at a couple of different vessel types,” he said. “A 78-foot boat could operate safely in waves up to 5 feet, a 121- foot boat could operate safely in waves up to 7 feet, and a 141-foot boat can operate safely in waves up to 8 feet.
“I’m looking at wave frequency to determine that an 8-foot wave only occurs 15 days a year,” he added. “So, 350 days a year, the waves are less than 8 feet, and that means the vessel could operate 350 days a year.
“We’d like to use 141-foot vessel with 399-passenger capacity.”
McLaren said the ride from Long Branch into Manhattan would be a little longer than some of the neighboring ferries.
“There are existing services from Highlands that takes about 50 minutes, and Belford takes about 40 minutes,” he said. “We are anticipating about 900 passengers per day.”
McLaren said one of the big challenges for the pier and ferry project will be obtaining permits from a number of government agencies.
“We will have to go through a very expensive permitting process with the Army Corps [of Engineers] and the New Jersey DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] and all types of interested agencies,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do to make sure we satisfy the agencies.”
McLaren said he expects two-way traffic for the ferry.
“We see this as a real opportunity for [people] to leave from Long Branch and go to Manhattan but also for people to come here,” he said. “This will be a great destination. We can provide a place for real pride and create an economic engine here in Long Branch.”
Another feature of the design will be a wind turbine at the end of the pier.
“We want to showcase renewable energy; I think this is a great opportunity to do that,” McLaren said.
McLaren said that a few steps have already been completed, including a financial feasibility study, a geotechnical investigation, research on access routes, research on waves and wind, breakwater design research, meetings with government agencies, and alternative concept designs.
“We’ve done a lot of work to get to this point. We learned a lot, and we want to learn some more,” he said.
McLaren said that next, the design firm would publish a report from the charrette, price out the concepts, obtain permits, and come up with a final design.
“At some point when we raise enough money, we are going to build the darn thing,” he said. “I really think this is going to be terrific.”
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider said the pier has been an issue in the city for decades.
“For the last 20 years, it has been a clear project for this city,” he said.
Schneider said that even though there were some questions about the viability of a ferry in the ocean, Long Branch history proves that a ferry and pier is possible.
“There has been a pier and ferry service in Long Branch since 1880, so we know that it is doable, and now we have to prove that we can do it in the year 2010,” he said. “We can do all this, we hired a great team of professionals.”
The pier and ferry have been frequently criticized by residents at council meetings, but Schneider sees it as a benefit for the residents.
“Clearly the pier has sparked debate in this town. I think it is viable for this city,” he said. “I think ferry service enhances the city tremendously.
“You can get on a ferry and get to Manhattan in under an hour. That enhances everybody’s property value. It also means that people that already are in Manhattan can come down to Long Branch for a long weekend or the day.
“It makes us so much more economically viable, and that’s always been and always will be the goal,” he added.
Councilman Brian Unger said the project looks impressive.
“I think it is very exciting, I think the critical thing is getting the financing in place so it doesn’t fall on the taxpayers,” he said. “I thought they were pretty accurate.
“I think it is doable; they need a really deep vessel that can handle ocean waves.”
If the pier is constructed, it would be the sixth pier to be built in Long Branch since 1828. The last pier was destroyed in a 1987 fire.
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 Tom's Ford
Projected cost put at $91.5M
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
If Long Branch residents learned one thing at the pier and ferry charrette last week, it was that piers and ferries come in many different shapes, sizes and designs.
One of eight options for the pier design. One of eight options for the pier design. The charrette took place at City Hall on June 16, where city officials and the professionals hired to design and construct the pier and ferry gave the public a chance to view plans for the project.
Malcolm McLaren, of the McLaren Engineering Group, West Nyack, N.Y., explained the purpose of the meeting. The firm won the $1.7 million design bid
“We want to tell you what we’ve come to learn about Long Branch, and then we want to hear your opinions,” he said. “It will be a great opportunity for interaction.”
McLaren, whose firm has designed more than 50 ferry terminals, including the Battery Park Ferry Terminal in New York City, described the challenges of designing a ferry terminal specifically for Long Branch.
“We’ve done a lot of these ferry terminals, but here is what is particularly different about Long Branch,” he said. “We want to build a ferry terminal in the ocean, which is a little bit different than most.
“There aren’t many ferry terminals in the ocean; they are usually in a protected harbor,” he added.
McLaren said wind and waves make the design challenging.
“We also have to look at the prevailing winds and prevailing waves and how it moves along the shore,” he said. “The idea is we want to come up with a pier that is basically within a harbor.
“We want to build a pier, wrap it around and have a ferry come in and dock.”
Architect Rick Cook gave multiple design examples of what the pier would look like and where the buildings on the pier would be placed.
Cook also showed examples of piers around the world, including ones in Atlantic City, Chicago, Santa Barbara, England and The Netherlands.
“This is a Jersey Shore pier. It is about creating the right pier for here in Long Branch,” he said.
After McLaren’s presentation, residents were able to ask questions at different tables set up with specific topics, including environmental impact, open space, design, the ferry, and the pier and parking.
A few features that may be included on the 1,000-foot-long pier are restaurants, retail, an events center, trees, benches and a winter garden.
In what became the most visited table, city of Long Branch consultant Brian Dowling and Long Branch counsel Robert Beckelman manned the table dealing with questions about funding and cost.
Dowling broke down the different parts of the project and how much they would cost.
“The total cost we think is about $91.5 million, and that can be broken down into four components,” he said. “The landpreparing rights is $2.5 million, the core pier is $36 million, the ferry terminal itself is $20 million, and the amenities — anything from the restaurants, the retail, the winter garden — for $33 million.”
Dowling said the project already has $6.5 million in funding that is committed and controlled and another $53 million is expected from noncompetitive grants.
The remaining $38 million could be obtained a number of ways, including naming rights, private-sector contributions, and many target grants, including the Transit Security Grant Program and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
One funding option for the project is the Tiger II (Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery) grant, through which the Department of Transportation will dole out $600 million for various transportation projects.
Dowling said the original grant application was denied, but he is hopeful to receive money from this year’s grant.
“If you look at the criteria, Long Branch meets the criteria,” he said. “We are going to reapply; we are further along with the planning process.
“With the stimulus money, it’s how soon are you ready to build. We were competing with projects that were ready to go.”
Beckelman said that one way the remaining money would not be raised was through bonding.
“We are not going to be bonding for $38 million,” he said.
Dowling said the pier and ferry must be constructed together, but it would be possible to phase in the different amenities.
“The amenity program could be phased based on the demand,” he said. “The amenity program, the plan to fund that is from leasing. The city never had a plan to build a restaurant and then subsidize that operation.”
McLaren described the design that would work the best.
“We want to build some sort of breakwater and incorporate that within the pier structure itself,” he said. “The waves will then be reflected off this breakwater, and we will have a nice, still basin, and the people could get on and off the ferry.”
McLaren described a way the design would fail.
“If we put a pier out there with a leg on it, then the piles don’t really stop the waves, they just kind of rock the boats,” he said. “Nobody is going to be able to get on and off the boat.”
McLaren said that one of the goals of the design is to not make drastic changes to the shoreline.
“We also have to be very sensitive to shoreline erosion. We don’t want to build another jetty,” he said. “We don’t want to create a pier that’s going to cause too many changes to the beach itself.”
McLaren said there are options on what size ferry the city could use.
“We looked at a couple of different vessel types,” he said. “A 78-foot boat could operate safely in waves up to 5 feet, a 121- foot boat could operate safely in waves up to 7 feet, and a 141-foot boat can operate safely in waves up to 8 feet.
“I’m looking at wave frequency to determine that an 8-foot wave only occurs 15 days a year,” he added. “So, 350 days a year, the waves are less than 8 feet, and that means the vessel could operate 350 days a year.
“We’d like to use 141-foot vessel with 399-passenger capacity.”
McLaren said the ride from Long Branch into Manhattan would be a little longer than some of the neighboring ferries.
“There are existing services from Highlands that takes about 50 minutes, and Belford takes about 40 minutes,” he said. “We are anticipating about 900 passengers per day.”
McLaren said one of the big challenges for the pier and ferry project will be obtaining permits from a number of government agencies.
“We will have to go through a very expensive permitting process with the Army Corps [of Engineers] and the New Jersey DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] and all types of interested agencies,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do to make sure we satisfy the agencies.”
McLaren said he expects two-way traffic for the ferry.
“We see this as a real opportunity for [people] to leave from Long Branch and go to Manhattan but also for people to come here,” he said. “This will be a great destination. We can provide a place for real pride and create an economic engine here in Long Branch.”
Another feature of the design will be a wind turbine at the end of the pier.
“We want to showcase renewable energy; I think this is a great opportunity to do that,” McLaren said.
McLaren said that a few steps have already been completed, including a financial feasibility study, a geotechnical investigation, research on access routes, research on waves and wind, breakwater design research, meetings with government agencies, and alternative concept designs.
“We’ve done a lot of work to get to this point. We learned a lot, and we want to learn some more,” he said.
McLaren said that next, the design firm would publish a report from the charrette, price out the concepts, obtain permits, and come up with a final design.
“At some point when we raise enough money, we are going to build the darn thing,” he said. “I really think this is going to be terrific.”
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider said the pier has been an issue in the city for decades.
“For the last 20 years, it has been a clear project for this city,” he said.
Schneider said that even though there were some questions about the viability of a ferry in the ocean, Long Branch history proves that a ferry and pier is possible.
“There has been a pier and ferry service in Long Branch since 1880, so we know that it is doable, and now we have to prove that we can do it in the year 2010,” he said. “We can do all this, we hired a great team of professionals.”
The pier and ferry have been frequently criticized by residents at council meetings, but Schneider sees it as a benefit for the residents.
“Clearly the pier has sparked debate in this town. I think it is viable for this city,” he said. “I think ferry service enhances the city tremendously.
“You can get on a ferry and get to Manhattan in under an hour. That enhances everybody’s property value. It also means that people that already are in Manhattan can come down to Long Branch for a long weekend or the day.
“It makes us so much more economically viable, and that’s always been and always will be the goal,” he added.
Councilman Brian Unger said the project looks impressive.
“I think it is very exciting, I think the critical thing is getting the financing in place so it doesn’t fall on the taxpayers,” he said. “I thought they were pretty accurate.
“I think it is doable; they need a really deep vessel that can handle ocean waves.”
If the pier is constructed, it would be the sixth pier to be built in Long Branch since 1828. The last pier was destroyed in a 1987 fire.
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 Tom's Ford
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Planners deny conversion of age-restricted housing
Planners deny conversion of age-restricted housing
Board cites impact on schools from Rose Glen application
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
After months of lengthy testimony, the Tinton Falls Planning Board has ruled against an application that would convert an approved age-restricted development to non-age-restricted housing.
The board at its June 9 meeting voted 9-0 against the application by Caruso Building to convert the Rose Glen development. Board member and Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera said the impact of the conversion would be too detrimental on the borough.
“I don’t see the overall benefits in approving this application,” he said. “I believe this will be a detriment to the public good, this will increase taxes, this will increase services, and this will also increase the supply for housing where the demand … just does not exist.”
The proposed housing development, which would be located between Shafto Road and West Park Avenue and Tormee Drive, was originally approved as an agerestricted development in 2007, but Caruso Building did not go forward with plans.
The developer was able to seek a conversion to market-rate units after Senate bill S-2577 was signed into law last spring. The bill permits the conversion of age-restricted housing to non-age-restricted housing under certain circumstances, and the developer petitioned the Planning Board to approve such a conversion.
The board began hearing testimony by Kenneth Pape, attorney for Caruso, at the March 3 meeting.
The original approved application included 270 single-family units and 34 affordable income units, totaling 1,148 bedrooms.
The conversion application called for 1,110 bedrooms in 243 single-family units and 61 affordable units.
In response to a query from a member of the audience, Special Planning Board Attorney Thomas Hirsch explained the process for an appeal.
“[If] either the applicant or some other party was dissatisfied with the board’s decision, they would file an appeal with Monmouth County,” he said. “It is done in a summary manner; there [are] no other witnesses allowed or testimony presented, and the court has to determine if the board’s action was unreasonable.
“If someone is dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, they have the right to take it up to the appellate court.”
Before the vote, Tinton Falls Planner Paul Gleitz, of Heyer, Gruel and Associates, said that if the conversion were approved, the cost would outweigh the potential revenues.
“Because it is school-age children generated, it is anticipated that there will be more school costs than revenues,” he said. “Agerestricted development, you would see a surplus, and a portion of that would be to the school.”
According to a report furnished by Gleitz, if the development were converted, the borough would operate at a $588,000 tax deficit annually and the school district would be hit with a $3.8 million annual deficit.
However, if the development remains age-restricted, Gleitz predicted that it would result in a $1.3 million tax surplus, $20,000 to the borough and $1.3 million to the school district.
The applicant has previously used 0.26 children per unit as a multiplier to determine the number of school-age children that would result from the non-age-restricted housing, estimating that 79 school-age children would live in the development.
But Gleitz used 1.04 as his multiplier, which would result in 275 pupils living in the housing.
Councilman Gary Baldwin cited the impact the conversion would have on the zone before voting against the application.
“Simply because the Legislature made this conversion possible doesn’t negate the impact on our master plan,” he said. “The master plan encourages development of plans with office and light industrial in the IOP [Industrial Office Park] zone.
“An age-restricted community was intended for that zone, so the original application I thought was excellent. Market-rate housing does not meet this land-use objective.”
Baldwin said the application does not achieve most of the borough’s stated goals.
“Our plan was to strengthen the tax base and encourage private investment consistent with the community’s needs, and I do not believe this application meets that objective,” he said. “The cost of servicing residential units tends to exceed the revenue such units produce.
“There was some economic gain from the first application and a significant economic loss if the conversion gets approved.”
Planning Board member Gordon Brown said the original application was approved for a reason that the conversion does not satisfy.
“That land was originally designated IOP, and we did allow the age-restricted [housing] based on a representation that there was a solid market for that type of development and based on an understanding that there would not be an impact on the school system,” he said.
Before the vote took place, Pape, of Heilbrunn, Pape & Goldstein, argued that in the last year, a lot has been learned about the conversions.
“The statute is about to have its first birthday — it’s almost 1 year old,” he said. “When we filed the application, it was new and somewhat untried, and as we’ve been here with you through the winter and the spring, the applications around the state from the conversions have been many.
“The complexity really began because it was new and different from the municipal land-use acts.”
Pape also said that he expects the number of bedrooms to decrease as the units are sold.
“We actually have less bedrooms than the original project,” he said. “The way that the project was originally approved, we increased the number of affordable units without increasing the total number of units.
“We have a total of six models, three of them are three bedroom and three of them are four bedroom. Unless every single buyer that comes into the community buys a four bedroom, the number of bedrooms is going to go down again because half the opportunities are smaller than four bedrooms.
“I don’t know how many people are going to buy each of the units, but it’s a fair and accurate statement to say there could be any number of three bedrooms.”
Hirsh admitted that certain language in the statute makes the board’s job harder.
“The question was what did the Legislature intend when it stated this use must now be deemed permitted but then added the language that the board would have to consider if it was not a permitted use, ‘will it have a substantial negative impact on the zone plan’ or ‘will it have a substantial detriment to the public good,’ ” he said. “They don’t go together in any of the case law we have.”
He also said that the statute fails to address the fact that every conversion may be a different situation.
“The trouble I think municipalities have is the fact that not all adult communities are the same,” he said. “You could have a development of nothing but two-bedroom units, there could be 50 of them, 20 of them or 500 of them.
“The impact on the town is not going to be the same for every conversion,” he added. “There can be so many sizes, shapes of agerestricted communities.”
Hirsh said the language in the statute means that the board could consider the impact on the schools.
“A court might someday say you absolutely cannot consider the impact on the school system, but I believe the way the statute was amended, that it has somewhat of a broader sense to it,” he said.
Former Councilman Paul Ford said during the public comment portion that the conversion would destroy the quality of life in the borough.
“You add children, it is going to be devastating,” he said. “Really, it is going to ruin our whole quality of life in Tinton Falls with increased traffic and higher taxes.”
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Board cites impact on schools from Rose Glen application
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
After months of lengthy testimony, the Tinton Falls Planning Board has ruled against an application that would convert an approved age-restricted development to non-age-restricted housing.
The board at its June 9 meeting voted 9-0 against the application by Caruso Building to convert the Rose Glen development. Board member and Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera said the impact of the conversion would be too detrimental on the borough.
“I don’t see the overall benefits in approving this application,” he said. “I believe this will be a detriment to the public good, this will increase taxes, this will increase services, and this will also increase the supply for housing where the demand … just does not exist.”
The proposed housing development, which would be located between Shafto Road and West Park Avenue and Tormee Drive, was originally approved as an agerestricted development in 2007, but Caruso Building did not go forward with plans.
The developer was able to seek a conversion to market-rate units after Senate bill S-2577 was signed into law last spring. The bill permits the conversion of age-restricted housing to non-age-restricted housing under certain circumstances, and the developer petitioned the Planning Board to approve such a conversion.
The board began hearing testimony by Kenneth Pape, attorney for Caruso, at the March 3 meeting.
The original approved application included 270 single-family units and 34 affordable income units, totaling 1,148 bedrooms.
The conversion application called for 1,110 bedrooms in 243 single-family units and 61 affordable units.
In response to a query from a member of the audience, Special Planning Board Attorney Thomas Hirsch explained the process for an appeal.
“[If] either the applicant or some other party was dissatisfied with the board’s decision, they would file an appeal with Monmouth County,” he said. “It is done in a summary manner; there [are] no other witnesses allowed or testimony presented, and the court has to determine if the board’s action was unreasonable.
“If someone is dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, they have the right to take it up to the appellate court.”
Before the vote, Tinton Falls Planner Paul Gleitz, of Heyer, Gruel and Associates, said that if the conversion were approved, the cost would outweigh the potential revenues.
“Because it is school-age children generated, it is anticipated that there will be more school costs than revenues,” he said. “Agerestricted development, you would see a surplus, and a portion of that would be to the school.”
According to a report furnished by Gleitz, if the development were converted, the borough would operate at a $588,000 tax deficit annually and the school district would be hit with a $3.8 million annual deficit.
However, if the development remains age-restricted, Gleitz predicted that it would result in a $1.3 million tax surplus, $20,000 to the borough and $1.3 million to the school district.
The applicant has previously used 0.26 children per unit as a multiplier to determine the number of school-age children that would result from the non-age-restricted housing, estimating that 79 school-age children would live in the development.
But Gleitz used 1.04 as his multiplier, which would result in 275 pupils living in the housing.
Councilman Gary Baldwin cited the impact the conversion would have on the zone before voting against the application.
“Simply because the Legislature made this conversion possible doesn’t negate the impact on our master plan,” he said. “The master plan encourages development of plans with office and light industrial in the IOP [Industrial Office Park] zone.
“An age-restricted community was intended for that zone, so the original application I thought was excellent. Market-rate housing does not meet this land-use objective.”
Baldwin said the application does not achieve most of the borough’s stated goals.
“Our plan was to strengthen the tax base and encourage private investment consistent with the community’s needs, and I do not believe this application meets that objective,” he said. “The cost of servicing residential units tends to exceed the revenue such units produce.
“There was some economic gain from the first application and a significant economic loss if the conversion gets approved.”
Planning Board member Gordon Brown said the original application was approved for a reason that the conversion does not satisfy.
“That land was originally designated IOP, and we did allow the age-restricted [housing] based on a representation that there was a solid market for that type of development and based on an understanding that there would not be an impact on the school system,” he said.
Before the vote took place, Pape, of Heilbrunn, Pape & Goldstein, argued that in the last year, a lot has been learned about the conversions.
“The statute is about to have its first birthday — it’s almost 1 year old,” he said. “When we filed the application, it was new and somewhat untried, and as we’ve been here with you through the winter and the spring, the applications around the state from the conversions have been many.
“The complexity really began because it was new and different from the municipal land-use acts.”
Pape also said that he expects the number of bedrooms to decrease as the units are sold.
“We actually have less bedrooms than the original project,” he said. “The way that the project was originally approved, we increased the number of affordable units without increasing the total number of units.
“We have a total of six models, three of them are three bedroom and three of them are four bedroom. Unless every single buyer that comes into the community buys a four bedroom, the number of bedrooms is going to go down again because half the opportunities are smaller than four bedrooms.
“I don’t know how many people are going to buy each of the units, but it’s a fair and accurate statement to say there could be any number of three bedrooms.”
Hirsh admitted that certain language in the statute makes the board’s job harder.
“The question was what did the Legislature intend when it stated this use must now be deemed permitted but then added the language that the board would have to consider if it was not a permitted use, ‘will it have a substantial negative impact on the zone plan’ or ‘will it have a substantial detriment to the public good,’ ” he said. “They don’t go together in any of the case law we have.”
He also said that the statute fails to address the fact that every conversion may be a different situation.
“The trouble I think municipalities have is the fact that not all adult communities are the same,” he said. “You could have a development of nothing but two-bedroom units, there could be 50 of them, 20 of them or 500 of them.
“The impact on the town is not going to be the same for every conversion,” he added. “There can be so many sizes, shapes of agerestricted communities.”
Hirsh said the language in the statute means that the board could consider the impact on the schools.
“A court might someday say you absolutely cannot consider the impact on the school system, but I believe the way the statute was amended, that it has somewhat of a broader sense to it,” he said.
Former Councilman Paul Ford said during the public comment portion that the conversion would destroy the quality of life in the borough.
“You add children, it is going to be devastating,” he said. “Really, it is going to ruin our whole quality of life in Tinton Falls with increased traffic and higher taxes.”
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
T.F. prioritizes open space acquisitions
T.F. prioritizes open space acquisitions
Farmland preservation tops list of properties
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council may look at adding to the borough’s open space inventory now that the Open Space Committee has compiled a priority list of properties.
The list, which includes eight properties around the borough, was read by Councilman Andrew Mayer at the June 1 council meeting.
“We had some really good discussions on what our priorities should be for open space,” he said. “Of course, there were some challenges with the current reductions in the open space tax, so we need to start balancing things out to get the most bang for our buck.”
Mayer said the committee began by looking at preserving more farmland.
“One of the areas that the committee really tried to focus on was farmland preservation,” he said. “We really have no farmland preserved in town, and there are potential funds available for acquiring that property or purchasing the developer’s rights, which would maintain that land in perpetuity as farmland.”
The first two properties given priority on the list are a 57-acre farm and a 44-acre farm.
“The first two are really focused on farmland preservation,” Mayer said.
The third property on the priority list is a parcel on Green Grove Road that could be used for recreation.
“This is an area that is currently not farmland, but it is very well cleared, and the committee has taken time and actually walked that property and feels that if there is an opportunity to acquire land for recreational purposes, it would be a well-suited area for fields and such,” Mayer said. “Perhaps we can add a band shell for all types of future recreational purposes.”
Mayer described the fourth property on the list that could be used as a skate park.
“The fourth item on the list would be the skate park, and the purposed site for that would be right behind Borough Hall,” he said. “We are currently looking at different estimated costs for that. There is a possibility of donations, and many [municipalities] have received matching grants from the county. [Skate parks] have been very successful in receiving open space grant money, which is one of the reasons it’s high on the priority list.”
Fifth and sixth on the list are both farmland properties that are between 15- and 20-acre parcels.
The seventh property is a landlocked 3.5-acre parcel on the banks of the Swimming River that, according to Mayer, has been for sale for a while.
“The Open Space Committee has taken time and walked it,” Mayer said. “The actual price of this property continues to drop, so it might be a property we want to keep our eye on.
“This is a property we would acquire for recreational purposes. It is adjoining the Swimming River. It has a lot of potential uses as far as picnic areas and boating and fishing.”
Open Space Committee member Frank DeVita explained why the borough is particularly interested in that property.
“One of the reasons we are interested in that property is that even though it is only 3.5 acres, it touches a piece of property that is in excess of 7 acres that we already own but is land-locked,” he said. “It would potentially be a 10- or 11-acre piece of property if we are able to access the property we already own, which we can’t get to.”
The final priority on the list is the much-discussed lighting for the football fields at Liberty Park II, which Mayer said still has some unanswered questions.
“The committee would like to have some feedback from the recreation department as to what other uses those lights would be used for,” he said.
“Are we looking at lacrosse or anything else? Is there an opportunity to share costs with Eatontown or Pop Warner?”
Mayer said the Open Space Committee has started conversations with property owners and will look to formalize the conversation on the purchase of the lands.
“We have had some informal discussions with many of the property owners, and some of them have expressed interest,” he said. “What we really need to do is formalize our approach with the landowner and have a negotiation with the landowner.”
Mayer said the borough could work with New Jersey Preservation Conservation to help property owners maintain farmland.
“The administration could also work with the New Jersey Preservation Conservation to help create ways to preserve the land,” he said. “Especially with farmland, it is a way to preserve it without having to maintain it.”
Pop Warner representative Robert Missi criticized the list, saying the lighting at the sports field is too low on the list.
“I am a little disappointed to find out that the lighting for the field dropped down to the bottom of the list,” he said. “To me, it seems that nothing is going to happen, so
guess we have to go rent the lights again.
“My whole thing is, let’s finish one park first and then we can start on another one.”
Baldwin responded that the council hasn’t decided which project to make their priority.
“What was given to us tonight was simply recommendations from that committee; no decision has been made,” he said. “The committee doesn’t make that decision, the council will at some point in time.”
Contact Kenny Walter at kwalter@gmnews.com.
Farmland preservation tops list of properties
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council may look at adding to the borough’s open space inventory now that the Open Space Committee has compiled a priority list of properties.
The list, which includes eight properties around the borough, was read by Councilman Andrew Mayer at the June 1 council meeting.
“We had some really good discussions on what our priorities should be for open space,” he said. “Of course, there were some challenges with the current reductions in the open space tax, so we need to start balancing things out to get the most bang for our buck.”
Mayer said the committee began by looking at preserving more farmland.
“One of the areas that the committee really tried to focus on was farmland preservation,” he said. “We really have no farmland preserved in town, and there are potential funds available for acquiring that property or purchasing the developer’s rights, which would maintain that land in perpetuity as farmland.”
The first two properties given priority on the list are a 57-acre farm and a 44-acre farm.
“The first two are really focused on farmland preservation,” Mayer said.
The third property on the priority list is a parcel on Green Grove Road that could be used for recreation.
“This is an area that is currently not farmland, but it is very well cleared, and the committee has taken time and actually walked that property and feels that if there is an opportunity to acquire land for recreational purposes, it would be a well-suited area for fields and such,” Mayer said. “Perhaps we can add a band shell for all types of future recreational purposes.”
Mayer described the fourth property on the list that could be used as a skate park.
“The fourth item on the list would be the skate park, and the purposed site for that would be right behind Borough Hall,” he said. “We are currently looking at different estimated costs for that. There is a possibility of donations, and many [municipalities] have received matching grants from the county. [Skate parks] have been very successful in receiving open space grant money, which is one of the reasons it’s high on the priority list.”
Fifth and sixth on the list are both farmland properties that are between 15- and 20-acre parcels.
The seventh property is a landlocked 3.5-acre parcel on the banks of the Swimming River that, according to Mayer, has been for sale for a while.
“The Open Space Committee has taken time and walked it,” Mayer said. “The actual price of this property continues to drop, so it might be a property we want to keep our eye on.
“This is a property we would acquire for recreational purposes. It is adjoining the Swimming River. It has a lot of potential uses as far as picnic areas and boating and fishing.”
Open Space Committee member Frank DeVita explained why the borough is particularly interested in that property.
“One of the reasons we are interested in that property is that even though it is only 3.5 acres, it touches a piece of property that is in excess of 7 acres that we already own but is land-locked,” he said. “It would potentially be a 10- or 11-acre piece of property if we are able to access the property we already own, which we can’t get to.”
The final priority on the list is the much-discussed lighting for the football fields at Liberty Park II, which Mayer said still has some unanswered questions.
“The committee would like to have some feedback from the recreation department as to what other uses those lights would be used for,” he said.
“Are we looking at lacrosse or anything else? Is there an opportunity to share costs with Eatontown or Pop Warner?”
Mayer said the Open Space Committee has started conversations with property owners and will look to formalize the conversation on the purchase of the lands.
“We have had some informal discussions with many of the property owners, and some of them have expressed interest,” he said. “What we really need to do is formalize our approach with the landowner and have a negotiation with the landowner.”
Mayer said the borough could work with New Jersey Preservation Conservation to help property owners maintain farmland.
“The administration could also work with the New Jersey Preservation Conservation to help create ways to preserve the land,” he said. “Especially with farmland, it is a way to preserve it without having to maintain it.”
Pop Warner representative Robert Missi criticized the list, saying the lighting at the sports field is too low on the list.
“I am a little disappointed to find out that the lighting for the field dropped down to the bottom of the list,” he said. “To me, it seems that nothing is going to happen, so
guess we have to go rent the lights again.
“My whole thing is, let’s finish one park first and then we can start on another one.”
Baldwin responded that the council hasn’t decided which project to make their priority.
“What was given to us tonight was simply recommendations from that committee; no decision has been made,” he said. “The committee doesn’t make that decision, the council will at some point in time.”
Contact Kenny Walter at kwalter@gmnews.com.
MTOTSA holdouts sue city for damages
MTOTSA holdouts sue city for damages
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
At least two of the MTOTSA property owners who refused to sign a settlement with the city of Long Branch have moved forward with complaints against the city.
Lee and Denise Hoagland Lee and Denise Hoagland The suits were filed by Lakewood attorney Peter Wegener, of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, in state Superior Court in Freehold on behalf of Denise and Lee Hoagland and the estate of Albert Viviano.
All but six property owners in the MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue) neighborhood reached a settlement in September in their longstanding battle over the city’s condemnation of their homes.
Wegener, along with the public interest law firm Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C., led the legal team for the MTOTSA residents.
The Hoagland complaint, which is dated June 1, stems from the city’s attempt to acquire their Ocean Terrace home in 2005, a taking that was granted in 2006 by Judge Lawrence Lawson. The property owners appealed the decision in August 2006, and it was overturned by the Appellate Division of Superior Court in 2008.
Albert Viviano Albert Viviano The Hoaglands refused to waive the right to sue for damages, which many of their neighbors agreed to in a settlement with the city in September 2009.
The current complaint states that the city’s actions have caused the Hoaglands significant financial damage.
“The plaintiff has incurred significant appraisal and legal expenses and disbursements,” the complaint states.
“As a … result of defendant’s actions, plaintiffs suffered damages, including but not limited to, the difference between the value of the property as of the date of the taking and the value on the date of the settlement,” the complaint continues.
The three-count complaint is seeking just compensation for the period of the temporary taking, actual damages, compensatory damages, costs of bringing the suit, interest and further relief the court deems necessary for all three counts.
Denise Hoagland said in an interview this week that the city should be held accountable.
“Our intention really was to take this to the next level and have precedence set and the city be held responsible for their actions,” she said. “For me, the lawsuit is definitely about saying what they did was wrong and they shouldn’t get away with it.”
Hoagland said the decision to not settle with the city was a difficult one for her family, reached after much deliberation.
“We spent months not sleeping; it was a very difficult decision for us to not settle,” she said. “In the settlement, there really was no benefit.”
Hoagland said she made her final decision not to settle about a month before the settlement was announced.
“I didn’t go to the last mediation because I knew we were not going to settle,” she said. “We had made the decision before that, which I believe was August. It took us a long time to make the decision.
“We didn’t make that decision because we wanted to sue. We made that decision because what the city had done was wrong and we wanted to set precedent. We didn’t spend 10 years of our lives fighting not to set precedent.”
One of the major sticking points in the settlement was the stipulation that residents who signed on agreed to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages.
In return, city officials agreed to take eminent domain off the table in the neighborhood and to allow property owners the right to improve their homes.
As part of the 14-point deal, the city agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees for MTOTSA property owners who agreed to the settlement; to have the developer demolish all boarded-up houses in the neighborhood; and within two years pave the roads and fix the lighting conditions in the area. Another benefit to the property owners is that they are now eligible for five-year tax abatements.
The complaint filed on behalf of the Viviano estate comes after the city exercised the use of eminent domain in 2006 on the Marine Terrace home. The property was abandoned and condemned in 2009 after Viviano’s February 2007 death.
The five-count complaint includes reimbursement for attorney fees and appraisal fees, compensation for the period of the temporary taking, actual damages, compensatory damages, costs of bringing suit, interest, and further relief the court deems necessary for the loss of property value, payment of principal taxes, and the value of an option for the period of the temporary taking.
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA property owners pre-empted a legal battle in which MTOTSA attorneys challenged the city’s blight designation of the neighborhood enabling the city to use eminent domain to take the homes.
In June 2006, Lawson ruled in favor of the city’s right to use eminent domain in MTOTSA, but attorneys for MTOTSA appealed the decision, and the appellate court remanded the case back to Lawson to give the city the opportunity to expand the record in an attempt to prove that its redevelop- ment plan met the heightened blight standard.
Both MTOTSA and the city petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear the case, but
the court denied both requests.
The two sides held mediation sessions, and the city announced on Sept. 16, 2009, that an agreement had been reached with all but six of the MTOTSA property owners.
A few hours after the signing of the agreement, the City Council held a special meeting to adopt two resolutions authorizing the settlement order and amending the redevelopment agreement for the Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone.
MTOTSA is one of six zones slated for redevelopment and is located in the city’s Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone. Also labeled as redevelopment zones are Beachfront South, Pier Village, Hotel Campus, Broadway-Gateway and Broadway Corridor.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
At least two of the MTOTSA property owners who refused to sign a settlement with the city of Long Branch have moved forward with complaints against the city.
Lee and Denise Hoagland Lee and Denise Hoagland The suits were filed by Lakewood attorney Peter Wegener, of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, in state Superior Court in Freehold on behalf of Denise and Lee Hoagland and the estate of Albert Viviano.
All but six property owners in the MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue) neighborhood reached a settlement in September in their longstanding battle over the city’s condemnation of their homes.
Wegener, along with the public interest law firm Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C., led the legal team for the MTOTSA residents.
The Hoagland complaint, which is dated June 1, stems from the city’s attempt to acquire their Ocean Terrace home in 2005, a taking that was granted in 2006 by Judge Lawrence Lawson. The property owners appealed the decision in August 2006, and it was overturned by the Appellate Division of Superior Court in 2008.
Albert Viviano Albert Viviano The Hoaglands refused to waive the right to sue for damages, which many of their neighbors agreed to in a settlement with the city in September 2009.
The current complaint states that the city’s actions have caused the Hoaglands significant financial damage.
“The plaintiff has incurred significant appraisal and legal expenses and disbursements,” the complaint states.
“As a … result of defendant’s actions, plaintiffs suffered damages, including but not limited to, the difference between the value of the property as of the date of the taking and the value on the date of the settlement,” the complaint continues.
The three-count complaint is seeking just compensation for the period of the temporary taking, actual damages, compensatory damages, costs of bringing the suit, interest and further relief the court deems necessary for all three counts.
Denise Hoagland said in an interview this week that the city should be held accountable.
“Our intention really was to take this to the next level and have precedence set and the city be held responsible for their actions,” she said. “For me, the lawsuit is definitely about saying what they did was wrong and they shouldn’t get away with it.”
Hoagland said the decision to not settle with the city was a difficult one for her family, reached after much deliberation.
“We spent months not sleeping; it was a very difficult decision for us to not settle,” she said. “In the settlement, there really was no benefit.”
Hoagland said she made her final decision not to settle about a month before the settlement was announced.
“I didn’t go to the last mediation because I knew we were not going to settle,” she said. “We had made the decision before that, which I believe was August. It took us a long time to make the decision.
“We didn’t make that decision because we wanted to sue. We made that decision because what the city had done was wrong and we wanted to set precedent. We didn’t spend 10 years of our lives fighting not to set precedent.”
One of the major sticking points in the settlement was the stipulation that residents who signed on agreed to waive their right to sue the city for compensatory damages.
In return, city officials agreed to take eminent domain off the table in the neighborhood and to allow property owners the right to improve their homes.
As part of the 14-point deal, the city agreed to pay $435,000 in legal fees for MTOTSA property owners who agreed to the settlement; to have the developer demolish all boarded-up houses in the neighborhood; and within two years pave the roads and fix the lighting conditions in the area. Another benefit to the property owners is that they are now eligible for five-year tax abatements.
The complaint filed on behalf of the Viviano estate comes after the city exercised the use of eminent domain in 2006 on the Marine Terrace home. The property was abandoned and condemned in 2009 after Viviano’s February 2007 death.
The five-count complaint includes reimbursement for attorney fees and appraisal fees, compensation for the period of the temporary taking, actual damages, compensatory damages, costs of bringing suit, interest, and further relief the court deems necessary for the loss of property value, payment of principal taxes, and the value of an option for the period of the temporary taking.
The settlement between the city and the MTOTSA property owners pre-empted a legal battle in which MTOTSA attorneys challenged the city’s blight designation of the neighborhood enabling the city to use eminent domain to take the homes.
In June 2006, Lawson ruled in favor of the city’s right to use eminent domain in MTOTSA, but attorneys for MTOTSA appealed the decision, and the appellate court remanded the case back to Lawson to give the city the opportunity to expand the record in an attempt to prove that its redevelop- ment plan met the heightened blight standard.
Both MTOTSA and the city petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear the case, but
the court denied both requests.
The two sides held mediation sessions, and the city announced on Sept. 16, 2009, that an agreement had been reached with all but six of the MTOTSA property owners.
A few hours after the signing of the agreement, the City Council held a special meeting to adopt two resolutions authorizing the settlement order and amending the redevelopment agreement for the Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone.
MTOTSA is one of six zones slated for redevelopment and is located in the city’s Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone. Also labeled as redevelopment zones are Beachfront South, Pier Village, Hotel Campus, Broadway-Gateway and Broadway Corridor.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Special kids get their best beach day ever
Special kids get their best beach day ever
Sea Bright-based chapter sponsors camp program
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — For the third straight year, a California-based nonprofit held a free water-sport event to give some special children their “Best Day at the Beach” in Long Branch.
A youngster is supported by volunteers as he rides the surf during ‘Best Day at the Beach’ held June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch. The event, which is sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation, includes surfing and other water sports. A youngster is supported by volunteers as he rides the surf during ‘Best Day at the Beach’ held June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch. The event, which is sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation, includes surfing and other water sports. The event went off June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation.
The Best Day New Jersey events are free for children with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, blindness, cancer, spinal cord injuries and other physical and developmental challenges.
The Best Day New Jersey Chapter is based in Sea Bright, and events are planned in Brick and Loch Arbour as well as Long Branch.
Children spent June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch at “Best Day at the Beach,” an event sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation. Children spent June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch at “Best Day at the Beach,” an event sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation. According to New Jersey Chapter Co- Chairwoman Alexis Downham, the events have filled quickly.
“Our camps filled up in two days,” she said. “Both days [in Long Branch] we will have 35 kids.”
Downham said there are about 40 people on the waiting list and that she expects many volunteers to help out, even those unaccounted for.
“[The number of] volunteers kind of range between 50 and 80,” she said. “There are a lot of people who just show up and don’t register.”
Downham described the schedule of events.
“Once the kids get there, they do some stretching with Spider-Man, they do an obstacle course through the sand,” she said. “Then they get on their wetsuits and their helmets and their life jackets, and they go into the water.
“Usually there are two tandem surfboards that they go on and five or six boogie boards, and they kind of rotate between stations.”
Downham, who is co-chair with her husband, Lake, described the work that must be done in the months leading up to the summer events.
“There is a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that people don’t know,” she said. “We have phone meetings once a week that last between an hour and an hour and a half.
“It is completely volunteer-based and we each have full-time jobs, and on top of that, we put in 10 to 20 hours a week doing stuff for Best Day,” she added. “I wouldn’t say there is one thing that is particularly the hardest, there’s just a lot of little stuff.”
Another challenge Downham described was finding people to volunteer and donate to support the events.
“Getting the word out there and getting people to donate their time and their money, food and water and all that stuff,” she said. “It is hard to get people to donate all the door prizes.
“The more known we get, the easier it is. This year’s been easier than last year.”
To increase funding, Downham said, the New Jersey chapter has planned fundraisers.
“All of the funding that we get is through private donations and fundraising,” she said. “We’ve been trying to plan a couple of fundraisers.
“We have a movie premiere planned for August and a poker tournament planned for October.”
Downham did say that there are very few problems on the day of the event.
“The days run pretty smoothly,” she said. “The biggest challenge that we’ve run into is picking up pizza.
“Last year it took two hours to get pizza to the beach,” she added. “We have really great volunteers that know what they are doing, so the events run really smoothly.”
Brooks Lambert, an entrepreneur who founded three multimillion-dollar companies, and Max Montgomery, a writer, publisher and software developer, launched the foundation in March 2008.
The Best Day currently has two chapters, the local chapter based in Sea Bright and the original chapter based in Ventura, Calif.
According to its mission statement, the Best Day Foundation enables kids with special needs to build self-esteem and confidence through safe, fun outdoor adventure activities that stretch their limits, expand their true potential, reinforce their achievements, and connect them with diverse populations in their communities.
Current activities include surfing, body boarding, kayaking and snow tubing.
According to the website, the foundation accomplishes these goals by enabling communities to offer special days at the beach and in the snow for children with special needs.
Best Day provides support, training, and business resources to ensure that safe, self-sufficient programs are created. The program is funded through donations, grants and sponsorships and is currently run entirely by volunteers.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Sea Bright-based chapter sponsors camp program
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — For the third straight year, a California-based nonprofit held a free water-sport event to give some special children their “Best Day at the Beach” in Long Branch.
A youngster is supported by volunteers as he rides the surf during ‘Best Day at the Beach’ held June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch. The event, which is sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation, includes surfing and other water sports. A youngster is supported by volunteers as he rides the surf during ‘Best Day at the Beach’ held June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch. The event, which is sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation, includes surfing and other water sports. The event went off June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation.
The Best Day New Jersey events are free for children with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, blindness, cancer, spinal cord injuries and other physical and developmental challenges.
The Best Day New Jersey Chapter is based in Sea Bright, and events are planned in Brick and Loch Arbour as well as Long Branch.
Children spent June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch at “Best Day at the Beach,” an event sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation. Children spent June 5 and 6 at Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch at “Best Day at the Beach,” an event sponsored by the New Jersey Chapter of the Best Day Foundation. According to New Jersey Chapter Co- Chairwoman Alexis Downham, the events have filled quickly.
“Our camps filled up in two days,” she said. “Both days [in Long Branch] we will have 35 kids.”
Downham said there are about 40 people on the waiting list and that she expects many volunteers to help out, even those unaccounted for.
“[The number of] volunteers kind of range between 50 and 80,” she said. “There are a lot of people who just show up and don’t register.”
Downham described the schedule of events.
“Once the kids get there, they do some stretching with Spider-Man, they do an obstacle course through the sand,” she said. “Then they get on their wetsuits and their helmets and their life jackets, and they go into the water.
“Usually there are two tandem surfboards that they go on and five or six boogie boards, and they kind of rotate between stations.”
Downham, who is co-chair with her husband, Lake, described the work that must be done in the months leading up to the summer events.
“There is a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that people don’t know,” she said. “We have phone meetings once a week that last between an hour and an hour and a half.
“It is completely volunteer-based and we each have full-time jobs, and on top of that, we put in 10 to 20 hours a week doing stuff for Best Day,” she added. “I wouldn’t say there is one thing that is particularly the hardest, there’s just a lot of little stuff.”
Another challenge Downham described was finding people to volunteer and donate to support the events.
“Getting the word out there and getting people to donate their time and their money, food and water and all that stuff,” she said. “It is hard to get people to donate all the door prizes.
“The more known we get, the easier it is. This year’s been easier than last year.”
To increase funding, Downham said, the New Jersey chapter has planned fundraisers.
“All of the funding that we get is through private donations and fundraising,” she said. “We’ve been trying to plan a couple of fundraisers.
“We have a movie premiere planned for August and a poker tournament planned for October.”
Downham did say that there are very few problems on the day of the event.
“The days run pretty smoothly,” she said. “The biggest challenge that we’ve run into is picking up pizza.
“Last year it took two hours to get pizza to the beach,” she added. “We have really great volunteers that know what they are doing, so the events run really smoothly.”
Brooks Lambert, an entrepreneur who founded three multimillion-dollar companies, and Max Montgomery, a writer, publisher and software developer, launched the foundation in March 2008.
The Best Day currently has two chapters, the local chapter based in Sea Bright and the original chapter based in Ventura, Calif.
According to its mission statement, the Best Day Foundation enables kids with special needs to build self-esteem and confidence through safe, fun outdoor adventure activities that stretch their limits, expand their true potential, reinforce their achievements, and connect them with diverse populations in their communities.
Current activities include surfing, body boarding, kayaking and snow tubing.
According to the website, the foundation accomplishes these goals by enabling communities to offer special days at the beach and in the snow for children with special needs.
Best Day provides support, training, and business resources to ensure that safe, self-sufficient programs are created. The program is funded through donations, grants and sponsorships and is currently run entirely by volunteers.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
State delays vote on Long Branch budget
State delays vote on Long Branch budget
Residents critical of bonding, spending
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — For the second straight year, the City Council was unable to vote to adopt the municipal budget when scheduled.
The vote was originally scheduled for the June 8 meeting, but because the state has yet to approve the proposed budget, the council was not able to vote on it.
The proposed $48.5 million budget, up 1.45 percent from last year, includes a $31.5 million tax levy, an increase of $995,120.
Because of the re-evaluation the city recentlywent through, the tax rate will be $1.85 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The council voted 4-1 to introduce the budget at the April 27 meeting.
Although the council did not vote on the adoption of the budget, they did hold a public hearing, where they were roundly criticized for the budget.
Resident Bill McLaughlin criticized the spending practices of the administration.
“You are taxing us with this budget, you are spending, because that is what we do. You tax, you spend and you bond,” he said. “I’ve been here 16 years, and you’ve never once listened to the public and lowered the budget even one-tenth of a penny.
“This is not serving the public. I just hope that the new council learns that you serve the public.”
McLaughlin was also critical of the Long Branch Parking Authority.
“I’d like to talk about the parking authority. They have a [$3,100] budget this year,” he said. “How much did they bring in? Zero.
“We couldn’t even get one meter down there,” he added. “It seems like the city doesn’t want to make any money for the taxpayers.
“You could probably make $500,000 a year.”
McLaughlin criticized the city’s decision to bond, but Mehlhorn said that it is illegal to bond for operational costs.
“You are not allowed to bond for operations; when you bond, you bond for largeticket items,” he said.
Resident Vincent LePore also criticized the city’s bonding for $45 million.
“The constant rollover leaves future taxpayers in this city with a burden that’s going to slam them in the face,” he said.
Harold “Pudgy” Cooper asked the administrationwhen they thought the city would ultimately go bankrupt.
“Could you give a time frame when you think that Long Branch might become bankrupt?” he asked.
Mehlhorn tried to placate Cooper, saying the situation isn’t that dire.
“I don’t think the situation is that severe,” he said. “You equate it not to credit-card spending but more to like a mortgage. We mortgage a lot of things.”
Mehlhorn said the only way the city would go bankrupt is if the people of Long Branch go bankrupt first.
“We don’t exist as a separate entity, we are the people of Long Branch,” he said. “If the people go bankrupt, then we go bankrupt, but not before that.”
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider praised the city’s financial standing.
“This city is not going bankrupt,” he said. “We are not even remotely close to it.
“It isn’t even a concept on the table; we are not monumentally in debt,” he added. “We are well under the amount of money we would be allowed to borrow, and our credit rating is top-notch.”
Not all of the public comments were negative, with resident Diana Multare praising Mehlhorn’s willingness to answer questions.
“Most people find looking at a budget a challenging experience, and I called up Mr. Mehlhorn earlier today and he graciously gave me the time and answered most of my questions,” she said.
Multare did question the city’s decision to pay for renovations for the municipal court.
“This building is rented by the city and the city pays $120,000 annually, and my impression is that has been paid to the landlord for a number of years,” she said. “The building had to undergo significant renovations, and the renovations cost at least $150,000 and the city paid for the renovations.
“I was surprised at the fact the city paid this money to renovate it,” she said. “Apparently, [the renovation] was a requirement from a judge in Freehold — the building needed significant repairs, and it has been neglected for a number of years.
“Why is it that the city didn’t say to the landlord, ‘Look, fix it; otherwise, we’ll go somewhere else’?”
Schneider responded.
“The problem was it wasn’t a plumbing repair or fixing the lighting, these were requirements specifically to the municipal court as designated by the administrative office of the court,” he said. “We had very few options. The court has been in that building for the last 25 years, and there is no other facility.
“We were either looking at an expansion here, where we don’t have adequate parking, or leaving it there,” he said. “It simply made the most sense from a security point of view, and from an economic point of view.”
Schneider said he doesn’t feel constructing a new building would be productive.
“If we had other options, that would be great, which would mean acquiring land and building a building,” he said. “Frankly, I’m not thrilled about making repairs, but I’m less anxious to build, because I don’t think cities do that well bidding.”
Multare also asked whether or not moving City Hall was being considered, and Schneider rejected the idea, saying, “I have no intention of moving.”
Some of the major increases in the budget include $1.9 million in pension costs, $707,000 in salaries, and $426,000 in debt service.
Some of the cuts include $252,000 less in landfill costs, more than $200,000 was cut in expenses in the division of solid waste and recycling, and $129,000 was cut in utilities.
Mehlhorn said the city received a $1.1 million reduction in state aid, bringing the total aid to just over $4 million.
The next council meeting is scheduled for June 22.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Residents critical of bonding, spending
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — For the second straight year, the City Council was unable to vote to adopt the municipal budget when scheduled.
The vote was originally scheduled for the June 8 meeting, but because the state has yet to approve the proposed budget, the council was not able to vote on it.
The proposed $48.5 million budget, up 1.45 percent from last year, includes a $31.5 million tax levy, an increase of $995,120.
Because of the re-evaluation the city recentlywent through, the tax rate will be $1.85 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The council voted 4-1 to introduce the budget at the April 27 meeting.
Although the council did not vote on the adoption of the budget, they did hold a public hearing, where they were roundly criticized for the budget.
Resident Bill McLaughlin criticized the spending practices of the administration.
“You are taxing us with this budget, you are spending, because that is what we do. You tax, you spend and you bond,” he said. “I’ve been here 16 years, and you’ve never once listened to the public and lowered the budget even one-tenth of a penny.
“This is not serving the public. I just hope that the new council learns that you serve the public.”
McLaughlin was also critical of the Long Branch Parking Authority.
“I’d like to talk about the parking authority. They have a [$3,100] budget this year,” he said. “How much did they bring in? Zero.
“We couldn’t even get one meter down there,” he added. “It seems like the city doesn’t want to make any money for the taxpayers.
“You could probably make $500,000 a year.”
McLaughlin criticized the city’s decision to bond, but Mehlhorn said that it is illegal to bond for operational costs.
“You are not allowed to bond for operations; when you bond, you bond for largeticket items,” he said.
Resident Vincent LePore also criticized the city’s bonding for $45 million.
“The constant rollover leaves future taxpayers in this city with a burden that’s going to slam them in the face,” he said.
Harold “Pudgy” Cooper asked the administrationwhen they thought the city would ultimately go bankrupt.
“Could you give a time frame when you think that Long Branch might become bankrupt?” he asked.
Mehlhorn tried to placate Cooper, saying the situation isn’t that dire.
“I don’t think the situation is that severe,” he said. “You equate it not to credit-card spending but more to like a mortgage. We mortgage a lot of things.”
Mehlhorn said the only way the city would go bankrupt is if the people of Long Branch go bankrupt first.
“We don’t exist as a separate entity, we are the people of Long Branch,” he said. “If the people go bankrupt, then we go bankrupt, but not before that.”
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider praised the city’s financial standing.
“This city is not going bankrupt,” he said. “We are not even remotely close to it.
“It isn’t even a concept on the table; we are not monumentally in debt,” he added. “We are well under the amount of money we would be allowed to borrow, and our credit rating is top-notch.”
Not all of the public comments were negative, with resident Diana Multare praising Mehlhorn’s willingness to answer questions.
“Most people find looking at a budget a challenging experience, and I called up Mr. Mehlhorn earlier today and he graciously gave me the time and answered most of my questions,” she said.
Multare did question the city’s decision to pay for renovations for the municipal court.
“This building is rented by the city and the city pays $120,000 annually, and my impression is that has been paid to the landlord for a number of years,” she said. “The building had to undergo significant renovations, and the renovations cost at least $150,000 and the city paid for the renovations.
“I was surprised at the fact the city paid this money to renovate it,” she said. “Apparently, [the renovation] was a requirement from a judge in Freehold — the building needed significant repairs, and it has been neglected for a number of years.
“Why is it that the city didn’t say to the landlord, ‘Look, fix it; otherwise, we’ll go somewhere else’?”
Schneider responded.
“The problem was it wasn’t a plumbing repair or fixing the lighting, these were requirements specifically to the municipal court as designated by the administrative office of the court,” he said. “We had very few options. The court has been in that building for the last 25 years, and there is no other facility.
“We were either looking at an expansion here, where we don’t have adequate parking, or leaving it there,” he said. “It simply made the most sense from a security point of view, and from an economic point of view.”
Schneider said he doesn’t feel constructing a new building would be productive.
“If we had other options, that would be great, which would mean acquiring land and building a building,” he said. “Frankly, I’m not thrilled about making repairs, but I’m less anxious to build, because I don’t think cities do that well bidding.”
Multare also asked whether or not moving City Hall was being considered, and Schneider rejected the idea, saying, “I have no intention of moving.”
Some of the major increases in the budget include $1.9 million in pension costs, $707,000 in salaries, and $426,000 in debt service.
Some of the cuts include $252,000 less in landfill costs, more than $200,000 was cut in expenses in the division of solid waste and recycling, and $129,000 was cut in utilities.
Mehlhorn said the city received a $1.1 million reduction in state aid, bringing the total aid to just over $4 million.
The next council meeting is scheduled for June 22.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)