All posts by brigidmcmenamin

Postponed to Dec. 20!

Would you like to see a convenience store/gas station in Chatham’s Main Street Historic District?

Should our Zoning Board waive the normal rules to allow that?* **

Come to the public Zoning Board hearing.

NEW NEW Date!

December 20, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.

What’s this all about?

The new owner of the Exxon station on Main Street hopes to add a convenience store that’s inconsistent with our Borough Zoning laws.. To go ahead, he must convince the Zoning Board that adding that store would be good for Chatham.***

The applicant operates a similar gas/convenience store that’s open 24/7 just over the border in Summit. 18 County Rd 649 – Google Maps

https://www.7-eleven.com/locations/nj/summit/6-river-rd-38126
6 River Road

The main difference is that the Shell/7-Eleven on River Road has a brick facade, instead of the vinyl siding the applicant plans for the TigerMart on Chatham’s Main Street.

https://www.propertyshark.com/mason/Property/4431940/6-River-Rd-Summit-NJ-07901/

https://njparcels.com/property/2018/201/12#google_vignette

By keeping long hours – often all night – convenience stores average 1,400 transactions per day, and most patrons (65%) consume their purchases on the spot. “Litter can be a significant challenge,” notes the trade association that advocates for the industry. @

The Exxon proposal for Chatham would also involve chopping down at least one 20 ft Douglas Fir tree and adding a bigger sign that lights up.** https://ecode360.com/33846367#33846367. https://ecode360.com/6793659

How would a place like that affect Chatham’s historic district or the value of nearby homes on or near Hillside Avenue?

Historic district: https://www.chathamborough.org/government/documents/maps/1260-chatham-borough-historic-district-april-2014/file

https://www.chathamborough.org/government/documents/meeting-documents/historic-preservation-meetings/2022-historic-preservation-meeting-documents/2123-chatham-borough-historic-district-design-guidelines-2021-0221-compressed/file

Come to the public hearing, postponed yet again to November 15, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.

That is your chance to get the facts, ask questions, make comments, and show you care about your town.

If you cannot be there in person, you can Zoom or call in. You’ll find the directions by clicking on the Zoning Board Meeting to be posted on the Borough calendar:

https://chathamborough.org

https://chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/zoning-board-2-1692833400

The Zoning Board has announced that there will be no further official notice of this proposed project.

* Details about the 0.59-acre property, block 122/lot 2: https://njparcels.com/property/1404/122/2

** Exactly what is the applicant proposing to build? To see the complete application, visit the Clerk’s office at Borough Hall, 54 Main Street or click on “Agenda Packet” for the Zoning Board at this link: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1

Or download the basic application (no exhibits or supporting documents):

*** What does the applicant need to prove? https://chathamborough.org/boards/zone

Want more detail? Look at these files:

Any similar situations?

https://casetext.com/case/financial-services-v-zoning-brd-of-adj

@ Source: “Convenience Stores and Their Communities,” published April 2019 by National Association of Convenience Stores, accessed August 5, 2023 at https://www.lilanduseandzoning.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/128/2020/01/How-Stores-Work.pdf

Why should Chatham Borough pay more than its fair share?

Our Peeping Goat had the good sense to run from harm.

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2023/05/12/peeping-goat/7941683898359/

Let’s hope our Borough Council will do the same!

The Council is under pressure to burden Borough taxpayers with more than their fair share of school taxes, jeopardizing its ability to provide urgent necessities like new fire trucks.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/attention-chatham-borough-residents-would-you-like-to-pay-more-than-your-fair-share-of-our-school-taxes

https://patch.com/new-jersey/chatham/posts

https://www.newjerseyhills.com/chatham_courier/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/letter-should-chatham-borough-pay-more-than-its-fair-share/article_a42feec2-09ef-11ee-8827-6b766a82977e.html

Why would our Borough Council even consider jeopardizing its ability to meet pressing needs?

Why should Chatham Borough pay more than its fair share of school taxes?

Shouldn’t Borough residents have a say in such a decision?

Tell your Council to stay in its own lane and follow the normal procedure.

[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]

The big question

Delighted to see some fresh faces at the May 8 Borough Council meeting. Kudos to the four newcomers who stepped up to the microphone that night to talk about the biggest issue facing the Borough, namely:

Shall we use our Borough PILOT revenue from the new River Road development to reduce our property taxes and pay for urgent necessities like fire trucks? Or shall we spend that money on luxuries and gifts?

Before that night, every Borough resident who spoke out asked the Council to use our PILOT money for property tax relief and urgent necessities like fire trucks.

We heard a different point of view at that May 8th Council meeting, where three Borough residents – and a lady from Chatham Township – asked the Borough Council to spend some of our Borough PILOT money on gifts to our joint School District.

(Click here https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=129 and start around minute 1:07:00)

That’s understandable: Education is a worthy cause. If the schools need more money, then they should have it. And vigorous discussion can help foster informed decision-making.

Yet judging from the comments made at that Council meeting, we are nowhere near ready to make an informed decision about our Borough PILOT money. Some of the speakers seemed downright confused.

For instance, most of the speakers didn’t seem to realize that the PILOT money is OUR money – a Borough asset. If we give it away, we’ll have to raise our Borough property taxes to pay for necessities like fire trucks.

Also, most of the May 8 presentations to the Council rested on the mistaken assumption that the School District is is short on funds and has nowhere else to turn for help.

That simply isn’t the case.

In fact, the School District has far greater resources than does Chatham Borough – including a $86.3 million annual budget and the option to raise additional funds from Borough and Township taxpayers alike, using ballot questions like the two we’ll vote on this November.

https://chathamchoice.org/2023/04/what-does-it-take-to-educate-4000-children-teens/?preview=true

As such, simply gifting scarce Borough funds to the School District makes no more sense than giving them to the local Post Office, New Jersey Transit, the Morristown hospital.

Important as those institutions are, they aren’t municipal functions, and neither is the School District. The Council has no business diverting scarce Borough resources to any non-municipal purpose without voter approval.

What’s more, the Borough Council has no right to meddle in School District affairs. It should stay in its own lane, and defer to the proper authority on local education: the School Board.

If the School District needs more money, the Township and Borough should share the expense – the same way they share every other cost of operating the schools- following the normal process the School Board has been using for years:

Residents pitch their ideas to the School Board. If the Board deems an expenditure worthwhile, it either fits it into its regular guaranteed annual budget, or else floats a ballot question, giving Borough and Township residents alike the chance to decide if the idea justifies raising our taxes. That’s the normal procedure. The Borough Council plays no role in that..

If the Council is determined to overstep its traditional role and consider diverting our Borough PILOT funds for a gift in excess of the Borough’s fair share of school expenses, it certainly should not do so without the consent of residents.

The Council should put the question on the ballot and let Borough voters decide.

At the very least, the Council should provide a timely forum for vigorous, robust public debate before even considering earmarking our Borough PILOT money for any particular purpose.

The Borough Council and voters alike should beware of making such an important choice based on false assumptions. For instance:

PILOT PAYMENTS: MYTH versus REALITY

MYTH: Only a selfish cheapskate – who values money more than the education of our children – would oppose gifting our Borough PILOT money to the School District.

MYTH:  The School District deserves a portion of our Borough’s River Road PILOT money, because the District would have received nearly two thirds of the property taxes from River Road if it paid property taxes.

REALITY:  Not so. It’s a question of accountability. For the Council to gift money to the School District is to do an end run around voters, diminishing the community’s voice in our schools – and potentially subjecting them to partisan political control. 

REALITY: Not so. Given the 2% cap, the School District wouldn’t be entitled to any additional property tax revenue if River Road were a taxpaying development.

MYTH: Even if the School District isn’t legally entitled to a portion of the PILOT money, the Council should gift the District PILOT money in light of the additional schoolchildren at River Road.

REALITY: Nonsense. Absent voter approval, the School District’s portion of property taxes remains exactly the same whether enrollment plummets or soars. Why should the possibility of additional school children at River Road change that rule?

MYTH: If the Borough doesn’t promise to share our PILOT money with the School District, the quality of education will suffer.

REALITY: Nonsense. The School Board president has admitted it’s impossible to predict how much – or even if – the River Road project might increase school expenses. If it does increase expenses significantly, the District will budget for it – or else float a ballot question to raise more money, just like every other district in the state.

MYTH: If the Borough Council doesn’t share our PILOT money with the School District, it will unfairly burden Township residents with the cost of educating additional Borough school children at River Road.

REALITY: Preposterous. Borough residents are required to help bear the cost of educating additional children from new Township developments like the Enclave. How is it unfair for Township residents to help bear the cost of educating additional children from a new Borough development like River Road?

Tell your Mayor & Borough Council what you think!

[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]

For the response click here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=130 (Minute 2:14:45)

For more detail, check out this letter: 

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/it-s-our-money-use-borough-pilot-revenues-to-reduce-property-taxes-and-cover-necessities

Care to dig deeper? Click here: 

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-council-do-the-right-thing-concerning-pilot-not-merely-what-s-legally-permissible-or-expedient

Budget Tricks

When you pay property taxes to Chatham Borough or Township, approximately two thirds of your tax dollars go to pay 90% of the cost of running the Chatham schools – around $86 million per year.

That’s a big deal, because how the School Board chooses to spend your tax dollars pretty much determines the quality of education your children get – and the resale value of your house.

How will the School Board opt to spend your money next year? How much will they raise your property taxes?

Find out this Monday, April 24, 7:30 pm, when our School Board votes on the 2023/2024 budget.

Ever wonder who is responsible for making sure our school tax dollars are well spent?

Certainly not our Chatham Borough and Township officials. Yes, they collect the property taxes, but they have no control over the amount of money that goes to the schools – or how it’s spent.

Almost equally powerless are Chatham Borough and Township residents. Sure we pay the property taxes, but we have virtually no control over how the School Board spends our money.

Why? Because we lost control of our schools in 2015, when our School Board decided to stop letting us residents vote on the annual budget.

(For details, click here: https://chathamchoice.org/2015/10/lost-your-right-to-vote-on-the-school-budget/ or go to the 1 hour 46 minute mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbel8dtNRMc)

Since 2015, Chatham parents and residents have had a voice in the operation of our schools only on the rare occasions when the School Board was looking to exceed last year’s budget by more than 2%. That’s rare because the 2% cap excludes certain frequent increases in health and pension costs.

Result? The Chatham School Board is seldom held accountable to anyone.

Consider the $86.3 million budget (linked below) that our School Board expects to adopt at its April 24 meeting. That budget fills 103 pages but it isn’t terribly illuminating. (What, for instance, are the “other purchased services” that are up 100% over last year? p. 13, Line 78100)

Even if there were something dreadful buried in those pages, Chatham residents couldn’t stop it, because the increase over last year’s budget falls under the 2% cap.

And that cap is elastic. For instance, this year’s proposed budget includes a cap bank, which will allow the School Board to exceed the 2% cap by $1 million next year – without triggering a vote on the budget. (p. 31)

Most troubling is the way the proposed budget treats capital spending. It shows a “decrease in capital improvements” next year (p. 13), when in reality the School Board plans to raise our property taxes so it can spend an extra $850,000 on security doors. (p. 32)

The proposal to build security doors falls outside the 2% cap because the School Board has decided to let Chatham residents vote on it next November, along with a proposal to spend an extra $975,000 on full-time teacher’s aides {paraprofessionals.) (p. 33)

Both of those so-called “second questions” seem like worthy causes. If the School Board cannot cover them in the regular budget, then taking them to the voters in November is the right thing to do. But the way the School Board has done it is wrong.

Trouble is, the School Board has positioned both proposals as permanent increases in our property taxes, and in the base budget used to calculate the 2% annual increases going forward, which will yield even higher property taxes.

That may be fine for paying full-time paraprofessionals, because that’s a recurring expense. It is not fine when it comes to installing the security doors, a one-time expense that cannot justify a permanent increase in the school budget.

What would the School Board do with that money in subsequent years? The second question about the security doors doesn’t say.

Why would we allow the School Board to raise our taxes permanently by $850,000 (plus 2% annually forever) without explanation?

That doesn’t seem to comply with NJ Fiscal Accountability law, which forbids using such a proposal to raise money for “any capital outlay(s) necessary for health and safety reasons” Section 6A:23A-12.1 (a)(3) and requires such proposals to be worded clearly, “specifically identifying the program purposes” Section 6A:23A-12.1 (a)(6) https://casetext.com/regulation/new-jersey-administrative-code/title-6a-education/chapter-23a-fiscal-accountability-efficiency-and-budgeting-procedures

See for yourself here: https://casetext.com/regulation/new-jersey-administrative-code/title-6a-education/chapter-23a-fiscal-accountability-efficiency-and-budgeting-procedures/subchapter-12-tax-levy-growth-limitation-separate-voter-approval/section-6a23a-121-voter-authorization-to-exceed-tax-levy-limitation-separate-proposals

The solution is for the School Board to edit the second question to make the purpose explicit, fit the security doors into its regular budget, or else simply reframe that proposal as a one-time expenditure.

If the Board refuses to make that simple correction, we’ll face a tough choice in November: either vote down the security doors or accept a permanent increase in our property taxes for no clear purpose.

See the proposed budget here:

You can find budget summaries here:

https://www.chatham-nj.org/domain/1622

Good news about the River Road Project

Our Borough Council got some good news at its April 10 meeting.

Retired Bloomfield Fire Captain Robert Penn reported that the apartment project going up on River Road is far safer than he had expected. Check out his words at minute 1:29:28:

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=123

With that, Captain Penn put to rest most of the fire safety concerns he had raised at the March 27 Council meeting.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=121 Go to minute 1:56:56

Of course, our volunteer fire fighters are still hobbled by ancient fire trucks and have no good way to put out fires in the growing number of electric cars.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=121 Go to minute 53:00

Winds of change?

Can your town suddenly decide to zone one lot differently from its neighbors?

No. That’s “spot-zoning.” It’s illegal in New Jersey.

But there is an exception if the lot is arguably “blighted” or “in need of redevelopment,” according to a state law designed to help poor towns attract new construction.

The Local Redevelopment & Housing Law lists eight types of situations that can justify deeming a place “in need of redevelopment” and as such not subject to normal zoning laws: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-40a/section-40a-12a-5/

For years, real estate developers have abused that exception to achieve a kind of legalized spot zoning:

  • They’ve used it to get around normal zoning laws in towns that have no trouble attracting investors.
  • They’ve used it to sweep away normal zoning rules for properties that aren’t blighted at all.
  • They’ve used it to qualify for whopping property tax breaks that enrich the developers at the expense of residents.
  • Sometimes they’ve used it to get title to public land without the normal checks and balances.

The courts usually turn a blind eye to that kind of abuse.

One noteworthy exception is the 2007 case of Gallenthin v. Paulsboro, in which the state Supreme Court made clear that the mere fact that a property is operated in a less than optimal manner does not make it “stagnant and unproductive” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e).

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2007/a-51-06-doc.html

Now it seems the Court is beginning to tighten up the criteria for designating a property “in need of redevelopment” on the grounds that it is “dilapidated, obsolete, overcrowded” or has “other deleterious conditions.”

In a case published this month, Malanga v. Township of West Orange, the Court rejected the designation of the West Orange library as an “area in need of redevelopment” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d) simply because it was old, out of style, and needed repair. The Court also put to rest the idea that the mere assertion that a place is dilapidated, obsolescent, etc. will suffice, or that courts should defer to the township’s judgment on that score.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2023/a-45-21.html

The Malanga case establishes that to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d), the township must show both:

1) evidence of “dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout”; and

2) that, as a result, the premises “are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.”

Great news for anyone concerned about reckless overdevelopment.

What effect will the Malanga case have on areas already designated in need of redevelopment? Ask an expert:

What would you like to see in the center of Chatham Borough?

Come see what the developer has in mind for Post Office Plaza, and share your views with the Historic Preservation Commission:

Tuesday March 21, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.

Here’s what they’re considering:

https://chathamborough.org/component/dpcalendar/event/historic-preservation-3-1679441400?Itemid=809

Priorities & accountability

UPDATE: Turned out Captain Penn was 100% right about the Borough’s emergency need for new fire vehicles, according to the November. 2023 report by the experts the Council paid to study the issue. On July 8, 2024, the Council voted to spend $1.2 million on a new truck, some 40% more than it would have cost if they’d acted when first alerted to the issue.

Why would our Chatham Borough Council even consider gifting our River Road PILOT money to anyone when we’re in such desperate need of fire trucks and other necessities?

That was the elephant in the room at the Monday, 3/13 meeting of our Borough Council.

River Road

The elephant got loose during a presentation by a principal of BNE, the developer of the massive, stick-built apartment project going up at the corner of Watchung Avenue and River Road.

Asked if our volunteer fire department has the equipment, the manpower, and the training necessary to fight a real fire at River Road, the presenter, a principal with the developer, BNE Real Estate Group, said, “Yes, currently Chatham Borough has what they need to fight a fire in that building.” See the video linked below starting about 1:18:00.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=119

Is that true? No.

Brave, dedicated, and skilled as they are, our volunteer firefighters need more personnel, more training, and far newer fire trucks than Chatham Borough has – or can provide anytime soon, according to longtime, respected Borough resident Robert Penn, a former captain in the Bloomfield Fire Department who worked in the fire service for 44 years and has taught classes in Building Construction and Advanced Firefighting Tactics and Strategy. (Go to minute 37:46 in the following video:0)

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=106

Chatham’s fire trucks are so old and obsolete that they pose a risk to the safety of residents and fire fighters alike, says Penn.

https://patch.com/new-jersey/chatham/fire-safety-concerns-prompt-chatham-resident-call-new-equipment

In the event of a real fire at the River Road development, our volunteers would have to wait for help from surrounding towns.

The problem isn’t new or partisan. It dates back at least a decade, when the other political party controlled the Council. It will take years to get the necessary equipment.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/a-firefighter-s-response-to-mathiasen-s-letter-on-post-office-plaza

https://www.newjerseyhills.com/robert-penn-requests-chatham-look-into-replacing-outdated-apparatus/image_f38c5cac-6f49-5c16-acb2-4ced7f6655ba.html

https://www.newjerseyhills.com/chatham_courier/news/chatham-to-hire-consultant-to-help-craft-fire-apparatus-replacement-plan/article_1bbc2229-7f63-521e-a17a-a33703f740d9.html

Popular Borough Council Member Len Resto is working on getting the fire trucks we need. It will cost a bundle. The Council should use our PILOT money for tax relief and fire trucks, not for gifts. Certainly not without the informed consent of Chatham residents.

That the Council would even consider giving away our PILOT money without our consent is mind boggling. It’s a great example of what can happen when we don’t hold our elected representatives accountable for their decisions.

If the Council explains the situation, and residents vote to give away our PILOT money anyway, that’s their choice. But residents are entitled to know what’s at stake before any decisions are made.

Check out this letter:

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/it-s-our-money-use-borough-pilot-revenues-to-reduce-property-taxes-and-cover-necessities

For more information, click here:

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-council-do-the-right-thing-concerning-pilot-not-merely-what-s-legally-permissible-or-expedient

Do the right thing

What will Chatham Borough Council do with the Borough’s PILOT revenues from the River Road project?

Will the Council do the right thing?

Find out here: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/it-s-our-money-use-borough-pilot-revenues-to-reduce-property-taxes-and-cover-necessities


Learn more here: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-council-do-the-right-thing-concerning-pilot-not-merely-what-s-legally-permissible-or-expedient

Attend the 3/13 Council meeting in person or on Zoom here: https://www.chathamborough.org/component/dpcalendar/event/mayor-council-meeting-13-1678750200?Itemid=809

Like to pay lower property taxes? Or at least not pay more than necessary?

New Jersey suffers the nation’s highest property taxes, and they usually increase at least 2% per year – plus whatever it takes to cover certain exempt expenses, like health care and pensions for retired municipal workers.

In Chatham Borough, our property taxes will continue to increase even more than 2% per year unless our Council gets smart, and chooses to spend the millions in revenues expected from River Road for necessities – and easing our tax burden – rather than for luxuries and gifts.