07080 readers almost unanimously oppose the development of a new apartment/condo complex on the site of the old Tingley Rubber factoryoff Hamilton Boulevard. Developer Jack Morris received approval for the project in April, when the Planning Board voted to allow him to remove age restrictions that were required for the site when it was originally approved several years ago.
Of those taking part in the survey, 90% said they do not support the plan, and only six percent said they like the idea. A small number, about two percent, were undecided. While the survey did not ask readers why they voted as they did, reader comments to an 07080 article suggest overdevelopment is a key reason. That same article triggered 14 comments, one of our biggest responses.
While 07080 polls are not scientific, the one that was actually tested in the real world was right on target. In April, 58% of readers said they intended to vote "no" on the school-board budget, with only 41% saying they'd support it. The election result mirriored that, with the budget going down 60%-40%.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think the description of the planning board action in the blog is incorrect. I read the article and the removal of the age restrictions was done by the state legistlature - the planning board only voted on the application - the state changed the approved use from age restricted to unrestricted.
ReplyDeleteWe believe we are accurate in what we said. We were informed when we did our research that the planning board had the discretion to turn down the application, which is backed up by the fact that three members voted no.
ReplyDeleteWe appreciate your comments, though, and if we discover we were incorrect, we would be happy to make a correction.
As a blog master, you really have to learn how to read. I did not say the board could not vote no. What I said was that the board did not have the authority to impose the age restriction since the restrictions were lifted by the state. Read the law: 45:22A-46.3 to 46.16 of the New Jersey statutes (you can find it online), especially 46.6 which says that the intent of the law is that the converted development is to be considered a permitted use. The Board did not vote to "remove the age restrictions that were required for the site when it was originally approved several years ago." The board voted on an application for an approved use.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, but as the statute you pointed us to states, the Board still has the discretion to turn down the application. It says: "If the approving board determines that...the conversion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance, the application for the conversion shall be approved."
ReplyDeleteConversely, if the board finds that the conversion would create a detriment or impair the zone plan, it could deny the conversion, and the property would remain age restricted. It's age restricted now and could have remained so if the board voted no on the conversion application.
Thus, the planning board voted to allow him to remove the restrictions, just like we said.
We stand by our statement. :)