Who is responsible for the Master Plan amendment our Planning Board won’t see until June 6, but is under pressure to adopt on June18, setting Borough housing policy for the next ten years?
Why did our Borough Council let someone concoct such a plan 100% behind closed doors, without any public input?
Why does that plan include developing a vacant, green, woodsy, Borough-owned lot right next to Memorial Park?
58 N. Passaic Avenue
Was it ok for our Borough Council to skip presenting that plan in public, skip voting on it, skip running it by the Shade Tree Commission or Environmental Commission, and instead simply pay a hired planner to present a summary to our Planning Board?
Did the Council have an obligation to explain, release, or disclose the actual plan BEFORE turning it over to the Planning Board?
Did having the planner tell the Planning Board about the plan really muzzle the Borough Council as claimed?
Is the Planning Board required to approve the plan, which it won’t even see until at least June 6?
If the Planning Board is required to rubber stamp the never-before-seen plan, which the Council has never voted on or even discussed in public, then who is responsible for the policy decisions that will guide local decision making for the next ten years?
Why does the Council President say answering questions like that would expose her to “legal risk”?
Ask her: Jmathiasen@chathamborough.org
Ok with you if the Planning Board votes to develop that green, vacant, Borough-owned lot right next to the park without having justified or explained that choice?
Ever notice that each NJ town has its own unique character?
One reason is that each town is protected by a local Master Plan, created by residents to guide local officials in big decisions.
When asked to adopt a new regulation or grant a special exemption from zoning laws, our leaders must consider if what’s proposed is consistent with the Master Plan. If not, they must vote it down.
Changing the Master Plan can be done only by the local Planning Board, which is made up only of residents and must follow a transparent process. They review the Master Plan, discuss and air proposed changes at public meetings, take questions and comments from residents, and make decisions in public.
At the Wednesday, May 7 meeting – the Board’s first since January – members learned about a major change in the Master Plan’s Fair Share & Housing Element, which was crafted behind closed doors by a special 8-member advisory committee that includes four non-residents and does not answer to the public. https://www.chathamborough.org/boards/advisory/235-affordable-housing
The only hearing scheduled to give residents chance to ask questions or tell the Planning Board what they think of the changes is at the same June 18 meeting where the Planning Board must vote to approve those changes.
That puts our Planning Board in a tight spot. Or rather, it’s a tight spot for the rank and file members, who who aren’t also Mayor, or married to the boss of the dominant party, or members of the elite committee that drafted the changes behind closed doors.
But what options do the rank and file Planning Board members really have?
Should they stand up for the right of residents to participate in the process, and risk not being reappointed to the Boardby the Mayor?
Or should they go along to get along, and hope for other opportunities to protect Chatham Borough?
That’s the easy way out, but if they take it, they will have lost control of one of the most important parts of our Master Plan.
It’s time for the Planning Board to do right by residents and stand up for itself. Refuse to be bullied into approving a Housing Element they had no role in crafting. Demand a chance to do their job, and weigh alternatives.
Your opportunity to ask or weigh in about any of that at a public meeting – before it’s too late to make any difference – will be at the Council meeting this Monday, May 12, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
Please keep in mind that you need not say a word. You can make a difference simply by attending that meeting.
You indulge in restaurants, travel, parties, gifts, and concert tickets, and then discover you don’t have enough money left for necessities like your mortgage payment or groceries.
What should you do?
Incur more debt? Make your spouse take a second job to cover necessities?
That’s what our Mayor and some Borough Council members seem to think.
Faced with an urgent need for two or three new fire trucks to replace a dangerously aging fleet, they continued to prioritize lower priority expenses, like public art, street decorations, concerts, parades, celebrations, tennis courts, and the Stanley Center.
Now they’re tying to tell us that the Borough can afford the desperately needed ladder truck only because the Borough is moonlighting as a real estate developer to bring in new PILOT income from the giant Ivy apartment project on River Road.
That’s the thrust of the April 28 budget presentation, an extended infomercial for PILOTS, starting at approx. minute 1:39:30 here:
That might make sense if the Mayor & Council were required to place a higher priority on the fun stuff. But it isn’t. The Council’s highest priority must be public safety, including adequate fire trucks. The fun stuff must come second.
At that April 28 meeting, Mayor & Council ignored all that, and tried to justify the Ivy PILOT deal (and warm you up for the next PILOT project in the pipeline) by claiming a good chunk of the revenue will be put aside for the ladder truck.
Don’t fall for that.
In fact, the PILOT payments go into the Borough’s general fund, along with revenue from various other sources, including your property taxes.
Because money is fungible, there is no way Mayor Council can say if a certain dollar came from property taxes, or PILOT revenue, or some other source, like the ECLC rents or the parking fees.
Pretending they can is pure spin.
Simple fact is, every time they raise spending, you lose the tax break that the PILOT payments could afford.
Time to tell our Mayor & Council to do the right thing:
First, take care of absolute necessities, like the ladder fire truck. before considering secondary expenses and discretionary items likepublic art, concerts, parades, celebrations, decorations, and the Stanley Center.
Second, the Council should NOT use the PILOT revenue as an excuse to increase spending. Use it to reduce the tax rate.
Third, if the Council wants extra goodies, let the voters decide whether or not to sacrifice the tax break to get those goodies.
After all, it’s your money they’re spending. Find out how the Mayor & Council aim to spend it while there’s still time to influence the outcome.
Stop by the next Council meeting, May 12 at 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue.You don’t need to speak.
You first heard about the Ivy on River Road and the new building on Main Street too late to make your opinion count?
Love it or hate it, the time to weigh in is BEFORE they break ground.
Consider the NEXT two big decisions facing Chatham Borough:
First, how will the Borough satisfy its affordable housing quota (RDP) for the next ten years?
That’s something the Planning Board must decide before the end of June. So far they haven’t let us in on their thinking.
What are the options?What do they have in mind? How many new apartments can we expect? Where might they be built? What will they cost us in higher taxes, more traffic & environmental issues, and lower quality of life?
Second, what about the Council’s upcoming Redevelopment Plan for River Road, a 500-unit project, TWICE the size of the Ivy, and almost certainly property tax-free?
Why would the Mayor & Council pursue such a thing, knowing the project is NOT needed to satisfy the Borough’s RDP affordable housing quota and would NOT count toward the quota?
Of course the project would enrich the lucky redevelopers, but would it benefit Borough residents in any way? If so, howexactly?
If you care about the future of your hometown, you will start asking those questions before it’s too late, or at least observe a meeting to show you care.
Go to the Council meeting at 7:30 pm this Monday, April 28 at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. You need not speak or even stay to the end.
But WHAT “Redevelopment Contract” are they talking about?
Are they looking to renegotiate the Borough’s longstanding deal with the Ivy? Or the 15-unit project they agreed to build at Post Office Plaza back in 2022?
Last November 11, our Borough Council commissioned a draft Redevelopment Plan for a massive, 500-unit apartment project on River Road, next to the huge, 245-unit Ivy complex.
Since then, it’s come to light that the new project would be risky for Chatham Borough in at least seven ways, as follows:
First, this new River Road project is NOT required by affordable housing law, and it would NOT help fulfill the Borough’s new Fourth Round affordable housing RDP quota for 2025-2035 either.
The new apartments would be in addition to the Borough’s 2025-2035 affordable housing quota, which the Council must figure out how to satisfy before the end of this June2025.
Second, the alleged risk associated with NOT adopting that 500-apartment Redevelopment Plan for River Road is imaginary.
Our Council President insists that, absent the new Plan, current zoning allows private property owners to develop up to 707 new apartments on River Road and the Borough would have NO say in the matter. That sounds scary, but where is the evidence?
In fact, about 40% of the Redevelopment Area (and more than 50% of the Gateway 1 district) is Borough-owned. Would-be developers can’t touch it without the Council’s consent.
Also, the part of the Redevelopment area that’s privately-owned is mostly small lots, all subject to many federal, state, and local rules and regulations, including setbacks. https://ecode360.com/6793110#29899351
As such, the owners of that private property would NOT be able to build anywhere near 707 new apartments there without Borough approval.
Third, if the Borough Council tries to prevent private development by adopting a rental Redevelopment Plan, then we’ll end up with far more apartments on River Road. That’s because to satisfy the legal requirement to provide at least 75 affordable units, making up at least 15% of the project, a rental Plan would have to provide for at least 500 new apartments – more than twice the number at the Ivy.
Our Mayor & Council are well aware that the Redevelopment Plan would allow construction of 500 apartments – twice the number at the Ivy. They heard it directly from Borough Planner Fran Reiner last March. Go to minute 1:06:00 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=197
Fourth, some Council members don’t seem to realize that such a Plan would also almost inevitably involve granting the redeveloper corporate welfare, at the very least a total PILOT exemption from paying property taxes, same as the Ivy.
Fifth, some believe the Mayor & Council could negotiate for a smaller project by persuading a developer to provide MORE than 15% affordable rental units. A 20% affordable project, for instance, could be limited to 375 units. But what would the Council need to do to induce a redeveloper to accept that deal?
Would they give away the Borough land along the River? Allow the redeveloper to build several extra stories? Grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption? All three? How would such concessions impact financial security and quality of life in the Borough?
Sixth, even a 375-unit Redevelopment project would burden our precious water supply, and might force us to resort to less desirable sources.
Seventh, the Mayor & Council President claim that adopting a Plan would enable them to get the redeveloper to throw in a “free” riverside park and other so-called “amenities.” But the fact is that nothing is free.
To get those goodies, the Borough Council would have to accept an even worse a deal for residents and taxpayers. They’d probably need to give away most or all of the Borough land along the River, to allow the redeveloper to build even more extra stories, and to grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption.
Before spending any more time or money on another Redevelopment Plan for River Road, our Mayor & Council need to tell us how they would avoid getting stuck with a huge, 500-unit rental projectthat would clog up our roads, and would almost certainly demand an exemption from property taxes, forcing the rest of us to make up the difference.
Tell the Mayor & Council to set aside this ill-conceived scheme and concentrate on urgent business, including meeting our affordable housing quota without overburdening our wallets and infrastructure.
What’s more, it is a far better choice than the option advocated by Council members Jocelyn Mathiasen, Karen Koronkiewicz, and now Mayor Carolyn Dempsey: a huge, 100+ unit, 85% luxury, tax-exempt Kushner project that would have clogged up Main Street and eliminated all of the public parking at Post Office Plaza.https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=80 (Go to 3:32:39)
That’s exactly what we’d be stuck with today if not for the courage of then Chatham Borough Mayor Thad Kobylarz, former Council members Len Resto, Frank Truilo, and still Council member Irene Treloar, who achieved a political and legal miracle with the help of lawyer Jonathan Drill, Esq.https://chathamchoice.org/2022/05/close-call/https://chathamchoice.org/2022/11/
When you happen to see Kobylarz, Resto, Truilo, or Treloar around town, there’s no need to say anything except “Thank you.”
Do you love the giant Ivy apartment complex on River Road?
Now our Mayor & Borough Council are hell bent on getting yet another massive housing project built there – one that’s more than twice the size of the Ivy – all without having considered any alternatives or implications.
This project is NOT necessary. The Borough does NOT need it to meet its current affordable housing quota and, if built, the new place wills NOT count toward the Borough’s quota (RDP) for 2025-2035.
How do we know the Plan will be for 500 units? That’s what the Borough planner told the Council on March 11, 2024.
Not only would this new project be massive, we taxpayers would inevitably wind up having to pay for it by granting the developer a corporate welfare PILOT tax exemption.
Is that what you want? Would you prefer that our Mayor & Council consider some options before committing to this scheme? Do you have any questions? Don’t wait until it’s too late to ask them.
Back on September 23, Council President Mathiasen promised to level with residents about the crucial differences between PILOT payments of the kind the Borough gets from the Ivy, and the normal property taxes the rest of us have to pay.
Instead, she used our tax money to hire a slick financial consultant to do an hourlong infomercial for corporate welfare.
That’s the only way to describe her consultant’s presentation at the October 15 Council meeting. He made his best case for continuing to waive property taxes on big, new apartment buildings for decades, so that the Council can get its hands on a cut of the revenues, which they call PILOT payments.
Those PILOT payments are actually our money. And it’s a lot of money. With the Ivy, for instance, the consultant says the PILOT payments will average $1.7 million per year for three decades. That’s ten percent of the Borough’s current budget, and 13% of the municipal tax levy.
Does that PILOT revenue reduce the property tax burden on the rest of us, as a new taxable development would? No. The Council can spend it all and go right on raising taxes every year as usual.
In effect,PILOTs take money out of the pockets of the rest of us, by depriving us of the automatic tax break we’d get if the Ivy paid property taxes.
PILOTs also deprive us residents of the right to vote on how to use those extra public funds.
Ms Mathiasen’s consultant actually touted PILOTs as a way to use public funds for projects that are politically unpopular.Check it out here:
Huh? Why does the consultant think spending taxpayer funds to thwart the wishes of voters is a good thing?
Now the Mayor & Council are ready to plunge ahead with a second, luxury redevelopment project on River Road – one that’s twice the size of the Ivy, with 500 apartments, and will require taxpayers to subsidize it with yet another PILOT tax break.
Demand that before taking another step, the Council first:
Identify the alternatives.
Do its due diligence.
Present a timely, thorough matrix, comparing the costs, benefits, and other implications of that 500-unit PILOT project with other alternatives, including the normal, wait-and-see approach.
Hold a timely, robust public discussion.
“By using PILOT agreements, local governments can essentially raise revenue and finance public services in ways that sidestep the constraints of tax caps or spending limitations.”
