Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Motion W - Brief - Cda

    Uploaded by

    mariner12
    71 views105 pages

    Original Title

    Motion W_brief -Cda

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    71 views105 pages

    Motion W - Brief - Cda

    Uploaded by

    mariner12

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 105
    HILL WALLACK up AiTORNEYS aT La? des Caan Cura 20 Box, Pano sist Tension 65) 9240808, Pa (60) 452-858 ‘rani Esooare, Bs, Pasa, La Uae Lauro aa Aucanons ager Da: (609) 734-6957 Siooerenahnmcinex cou July 21, 2012 HAND DELIVERY Deputy Clerk ‘Superior Court of New Jeracy Union County Courthouse Ist Floor, Room 107 2 Broad Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 Re: LEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. v. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al, DKT NO. UNN-L-0140-08 CRANEORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC et aly. ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD 4: aj DKT NO. UNN-L-003759-08 (consolidated) Dear Madam or Sir: Enclosed for filing in the above entitled matter by plaintiff Cran‘ord Development Associates ct al is an original and a copy of the notice of motion in aid of litigant’s rights, together with supporting brief, appendix and form of order. Please conform and return the extra copy to our waiting courier A check for the filing fee is also enclosed. As indicated by the certification of service attached to the notice of ‘motion, these papers have been served on all parties, Ihave also hand-delivered a courtesy copy directly to the Hon, Lisa Chrystal, J.8.C. (FywpoxocsmyervosunaHey 1) Prose Nes | Yeti, Penman Superior Court of New Jersey July 21, 2012 Page 2 Please note that, as per a separate being made to Judge Chrystal, this motion is returnable on short notice on August 3, 2012. J thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Yours truly, HILL WALLACK LLP Attorneys for Cranford Development Associates, LLC, et al ee Hon. Lisa F. Chrystal, J.8.C. Philip Morin, Esq Carl R. Woodward Ill, Esq Douglas Cohen, Esq. Elizabeth MeKenzie, PP, AICP (ewporepocsousrsxounass40y 1b HILL WALLACK LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 Cameaut Cer, CN 5226, PcevoN NJ 08540-5226 ‘razmona 609) 926 0808 Fac 009] 402-2882 Seman B1sooRr, 0, Part, Lavo Use Lissa A¥D APCATONS Demror a: (09) 734-6957 SDR SHTLIATLACR CO July 21, 2012 Hon. Lisa F. Chrystal Superior Court of New Jersey Union County Court House Lith Floor 2 Broad St. Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 Re: LEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. v. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al, DKT NO. UNN-1-0140-08 CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC et al v. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al, DKT NO. UNN-1-003759-08 Dear Judge Chrystal: Enclosed for the Court’s consideration is a notice of motion in aid of litigant’s rights together with a supporting appendix and proposed form of order. To enable construction of the low and moderate income housing development provided for in the Court’s order of December 9, 2011, CDA seeks relie! from the failure by Cranford Township to consent to CDA’s regrading a portion of Birchwood Avenue in the immediate vicinity of 215-235 Birchwood ‘Avenue as part of its construction of the development. CDA requests that the Court hear this motion on short notice because the proposed road improvement is integral to the application for site plan approval currently scheduled to be heard by Court-appointed Special Hearing Officer Douglas Wolfson, Esq. on August 8, 2012. CDA originally requested that Cranford Township consent to the proposed road improvement on May 24, 2012, At that time, it provided the Township with fully engineered plans and Supporting data intended to show that the proposed improvement would have rno detrimental effect on other residents of Cranford. Regrettably, although (eswooxpocsonds monanss8e7,3) July 21, 2012 Page 2 eight weeks have passed, Cranford has not acted on the request. The imminence of the hearing before the Special Hearing Officer makes resolution of this issue urgent. {As set forth in detail in the Certification of Michael Dipple, the proposed road improvement is essential to enable CDA to secure necessary permits from the NIDEP, The failure by Cranford to consent to the road improvement would have the effect of fully stymying construction of the development authorized by the Court in its Order of December 9, 2011. It is a type of improvement that is typical in construction projects and is expressly provided for by the Municipal Law Use Law, NJ.S.A. 40:55D-42 CDA requests that the Court enter an order requiring Defendants ‘Township of Cranford et al to take all of the formal actions necessary to permit Cranford Development Associates LLC to regrade a stretch of Birchwood Avenue to elevate it to a level one foot above the flood hazard area design elevation in accordance with the plans prepared by L2A Land Design, LLC as part of its construction of the proposed inclusionary development at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue, ‘There is an alternative to the Court’s actually deciding this motion at the present time. Because Special Hearing Officer is about to hold a public hearing ‘on CDA’s site plan application, which includes the proposed road improvement, the Court could direct him also to make a determination as to whether Cranford should be obligated to consent to the proposed road improvement. ‘This is essentially the same relief granted by the Court as to other municipal permits in its order of March 22, 2012. If the Court follows this course, it could properly postpone decision on the motion until it receives his report. Indeed, this might be least burdensome and most efficacious way for the Court to handle this motion. ‘On behalf of CDA, I request that the Court hold ¢ conference either ir person or by telephone to address this urgent matter. I thank the Court for its time and attention in this matter. Respectfully submitte HILL WALZACI By: jen Bibdorfer, Raq Ce: Carl R, Woodward ill, Bsq. Philip Morin, Esq. Elizabeth McKenzie, PP “rmpompocsetstsconnasst 1) July 21, 2012 Page 3 Douglas Cohen, sq. mswDoxDocsonsisebo0N507 1) ILL WALLACK LLP Stephen Bisdorfer, Esq. 202 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08543 (609) 924-0808 (609-452-1888 (fax) seisdorfer@hillwallack.com Attorneys for Plaintifls Cranford Development Associates, LLC, et al SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-L-0140-08 UNN-L-003759-08 LEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. Plaintiffs, Civil Action ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE | ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, NOTICE OF MOTION IN AID OF Defendants; LETIGANT’S RIGHTS AND FOR OTHER RELIEF and CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN KRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK HEKEMIAN, Plaintiffs, | | | | | TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF 10: CLERK OF COURT Philip J. Morin Ill, Esq. Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader, LLC 218 Route 17 North Rochelle Pare, NJ 07662 Carl R. Woodward Ill, Esq. Carella, Bain, Byrne, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Elizabeth C. McKenzie, P-P., P.A. 9 Main Street Flemington, NJ 08822 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thet at 9 a.m, on Friday, August 3, 2012, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, plaintiff Cranford Development Aogociates et al (“CDA") will appear before the Law Division of Superior Court, Union County Court House, 2 Broad Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207, and move on short notice for entry of an order in aid of litigants’ rights and other relief, as follows: |A, Anorder permitting Cranford Development Associates, LLC to be heard on short notice prior to the commencement of the hearings conducted by the Special “Hearing Officer on the application for preliminary and finalsite plan approval; and BB, An order requiring Defendans Township of Cranford et alt take all forme actions necessary to permit Cranford Development Associates LLC atts own expense to regrade a stretch of Birchwood Aveave to elevate itt a level one foot hove the flood hazard ara design elevation in accordance wit he plans ‘repured by L2A Land Design, LLC as part ofits construction che proposed inclusionary development at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue and requiring Defendants to cooperate with Cranford Development Associates, LL consroctng ha improvement. In support this motion, plaintiff will ely upon the enclosed brief and appendix. Pursuant to Rule 1:6-2, Plaintiff hereby requests oral argument, Dated: July 23, 2012 HILL WALLACK LLP. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cranford Development Associates LLC et al L phen Bisdorfer, CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE | certify that the foregoing notice of motion and supporting brief and appendix have been served this day or earlier by e-mail or fax and by delivering copies to counsel for all parties at the addresses shown above. I certify that foregoing statements made by me are true. Tam aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment. Dated: July 23, 2012 HILL WALLACK LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cranford Development Associates Lille — HILL WALLACK LLP Stephen Bisdorfer, Psq 202 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08543 (609) 924-0808 (609}-452-1888 (fax) seisdorfer@hillwallack.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cranford Development Associates, LLC, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-1-0140-08 UNN-L-003759-08 “LEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, ORDER GRANTING RELIEF IN AID Defendants; OF LITIGANT’S RIGHTS AND FOR OTHER RELIEF and CRANFORD DEVELOPNENT ASSOCIATSS, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEXEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN’ KRIKORIAN as trustee fr RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK 4EKEMIAN, Plaintiffs, TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THETOWNSHIP | OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants. _ ‘This matter having come before the Court on the __day of 2012 on the motion by plaintiff Cranford Development Associates etal CDA”) to heard on short notice and for entry of an order in aid of litigants’ rights and other reli in the presence of counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendants ‘Township of Cranford and the Planning Board of the Township of Cranford; and ‘he Court having reviewed the papers filed by the parties and heard the arguments of counsel; and 'tappearing to the Court that the requested relie! should be granted tor good cause as set forth in its written/oral opinion, Its on this__ day of. , 2012, hereby ORDERED: 1. Cranford Development Associates, LLC may be heard on short notice prior to the commencement ofthe hearings conducted by the Special Hearing Officer on the application for preliminary and final site plan approval; and 2. Defendants Township of Cranford et al shall take all formal actions necessary to permit Cranford Development Associates LLC at its own expense to regrade a stretch of Birchwood Avenue to elevate it to a level one foot above the flood hazard area design élevation in accordance with the plans prepared by L2A Land Design, LUC as part ofits construction of the proposed inclusionary development at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue 3. Defendants shall cooperate with Cranford Development Associates, LLC in constructing that improvement. 4, Nothing in this order is intended to determine whether Cranford Development Associates LLC is entitled to preliminary or final site plan approval; that dete-mination shall abide the decision of the Soecial Hearing Officer 5. ‘A true but uncertified copy of this order shall be served upon all parties within days. Hon, Lisa Chrystal, JSC This motion was not opposed — opposed —_ TLEHIGH ACQUISITION CORP. Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants; and CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT. ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability ‘company organized under the laws of ‘the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN KRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK HEKEMIAN, Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP (OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-L-0140-08 UNN-1-003759-08 Civil Action BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AID OF LITIGANT’S RIGHTS AND FOR OTHER RELIEF (Of Counsel and on the Brief: ‘Stephen Eisdorfer, Esq. HILL WALLACK LLP 202 Carnegie Center Princeton, New Jersey 08543 (609) 924-0808 Attorneys for Plaintifis, rnmetarenn ete pment ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY... ARGUMENT, 6 ‘THE COURT HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO ORDER CRANFORD BOTH TO "ACT ON CDA'S REQUEST AND TO GRANT IP secscns CONCLUSION. 12 Order granting builder's remedy, December 9, 2011 (Onder in aid of litigant’s rights and other relief, March 22, 2012... Certification of Michael Dipple, P.E. with Exhibit NUIDEP Division of Land Use Regulation, Deficiency Note, Cranford Development Associates, March 8, 2012 owns Atte L Road Regrading Plan ... At 2 NB. Attachment 2 is not bound with the Appendix but is provided separately. Certification of Douglas Cohen, Esq. with Exhibi Minutes of Cranford Township Committee, February 14, 2012...... Att. 1 Minutes of Cranford Township Committee, March 13, 2012.. Letter from Mayor D. Robinson to Gov. C. Christie, December 22, 2011.. Att 3 {eter from Commitieeman K. Campbell to MIDEP, January 4, 2012. At Letter from P. Morin, Esq, to V. Opara, NIDEP; May 8, 2012........ Att: 5 letter fom 8, Eisdorir, Beg to Mayor David Robinson, May 24, 2012 Att. 6 Letter from P. Morin, Esq. to S. Bisdorfer, Esq., June 4, 2012 ...... Att. 7 Letter from 8. Bisdorfer, Esq. to P. Morin, Bsq., June 15, 2012 ..... Att. 8 (en 00ST] ded SONORA Certification of Stephen Bisdorfer, Esq. July 21, 2012. (Pda CODA} (as 3OEODAAD 1) ii Plaintiff Cranford Development Associates et al (collectively “CDA") submits this leter-brief in support ofits motion in aid of litigants rights ‘To enable construction ofthe low and moderate income housing development provided for in the Court's order of December 9, 2011, CDA seeks relief from the failure by Cranford Township to consent to CDA's regrading a portion of Birchwood Avenue in the immediate vicinity of 215-235 Birchwood Avenue. The type of improvement toa street fronting a development prozosed is typical in construction projects and is expressly provided for by the Municipal Law Use Law, N.J.S. 40:55D-42. In the present instance, the proposed road improvement is essential to enable CDA to secure necessary permits from the NIDEP and will be performed without cost to Cranford as part of the construction of the inclusionary project. As set forth in the accompanying certification of Michael Dipple, P.E., this improvement will have no detrimental effect on other residents of Cranford. Specifically, CDA requests that the Court enter an order requiring Defendants Township of Cranford et al to take all of the formal actions necessary to permit Cranford Development Associates LLC to regrade a stretch of Birchwood Avenue to elevate it to @ level one foot above the flood hazard area design elevation in accordance with the plans prepared by L2A Land Design, LLC ag part of its construction of the proposed inclusionary development at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue. CDA does not seek to require Cranford either to perform any construction itself or absorb any of the cost of the improvement, which would (460 AE) (pds HSNO) 1 be borne exclusively by CDA. It merely eeeks to compel Cranford to permit CDA to make this improvement. CDA does not intend that any relief granted on this motion would predetermine its rights toa preliminary or final site plan approval forthe inclusionary project. That issue is the subject of public hearing before the court-appointed Special Hearing Officer Douglas Wolfson, Baq, which is scheduled for August 8, 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTO! ‘This Court ruled on July 29, 2011, that defendant Cranford Township is in violation of its fair share housing obligations and that CDA i entitled to a site-specific builder’s remedy, namely the right to construct an inclusionary development consisting of 360 housing units on its property located at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue, including low and moderate income units. On December 9, 2014, the Court entered an order embodying this decision, which is set forth as in the Appendix as Exhibit A. On January 29, 2012, the Court granted a motion in aid of liigant’s rights filed by CDA seeking relief from obstruction by Cranford in the issuance of municipal permits, Finding that the municipality had acted in bad faith, the Court ordered that CDA could apply to Douglas Wolfson, who had previousiy been designated as special hearing officer, for relief from failure to timely act on an application fora permit or approval “within the time required by law.” The Court entered an order embodying this decision on March 22, 2012, which is which is set forth as in the Appendix as Exhibit B. (ods 46300 SAE 1 (de Oh 001 2 On December 14, 2011, as anticipated in the Court's decision, CDA ‘made an application to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for a so-called “flood hazard area permit.” Certification of Michael Dipple, P.E. 42 (hereinafter "Dipple Cert.”), which is set forth in the Appendix as Exhibit C, It did so with written notice to Cranford Township. Id. at {3. The application sought, among other things, for approval of the plan for re-grading of the site to redelineate the boundaries of the flood hazard area, for approval of proposed construction within the flood fringe area, and for approval of storm water management plan. id. at $4. ‘The Township actively and strenuously opposed this application and publicly requested that its citizens also do 80 as well. It has lobbied the Governor and other state officials to use their powers to prevent the application from being approved. Certification of Douglas Cohen at §2 and Exhibits 1 to 5, which is set forth in Appendix as Exhibit D. [At the direction of the NIDEP, CDA submitted further information to the NJDEP on February 8, 2012. Dipple Cert. at $5. (On March 8, 2012, the NJDEP issued a deficiency notice. The notice identified only one substantive deficiency, namely, thet the application does not conform to Nu.A.C. 7:13-11.5{h). Dipple Cert. at $6 and Deficiency Notice attached as Bx. 1. Upon inquiry, NUDEP specified that the alleged deficiency involves N.J.A.C.:13-11.5(h)(2). Dipple Cert. at 47. ‘That regulation provides: (Povaoloq 0 MEAT, 1 (des NDA) 3 (h) The Department shall issue an individual permit to construct or reconstruct a public building only if the following requirements are satisfied: 2. For a new building in a fluvial flood hazard area, the applicant demonstrates that the building is served by at least one roadway, the travel surface of which is constructed at least one foot above the flood hazard area design flood elevation. NJDEP has advised CDA that the deficiency is that so-called “Building A, which is a deemed to be a “public building’ under the NJDEP regulations and which is located in the flood hazard area, lacks a “roadway” that lies at least one foot above the flood hazard area design flood elevation. The NIDEP deems the portion of Birchwood Avenue fronting on the property to be part of the “roadway.” Both driveways that serve this building exit onto portions of, Birchwcod Avenue that lie at elevations lower than the flood hazard area design flood elevation. Dipple Cert. at 48. In response to this deficiency notice, CDA prepared a fully engineered plan to regrade the portion of Birchwood Avenue in the vicinity of the westernmost driveway to elevate it to a level one foot above the flood hazard area design flood elevation. There is no other feasible means of complying with NAL }-11.5{h)(2), as construed by the NIDEP. Dipple Cert. at 19 and Road Regrading Plan attached as Exhibit 2. The plan provides for additional flood storage within the flood fringe area to offset any flood storage lost by regrading the street. It provides detailed calculations and analysis to demonstrate that the plan would fully comply with NUDEP flood hazard and stormwater management regulations and would have no negative impact on (Fedo 1 ede 1 SONOUARAEZ: 1) 4 other Cranford residents. Dipple Cert. at 410 and Road Regrading Plan attached as Exhibit 2, Sheets C-07 to C-14. (On May 24, 2012, CDA formally requested in writing that the Township of Cranford permit CDA to regrade the relevant portion of Birchwood Avenue at its own expense in accordance with the proposed regrading plan. Cohen Cert at {3 and Letter from S. Bisdorfer to Mayor David Robinson, May 24, 2012 attached as Exhibit 6, 1t provided Cranford with the full set of engineering plans, including all of the supporting calculations and analysis to show that it ‘would have no detrimental effect on other residents of Cranford. CDA offered to meet with Cranford’s professionals to answer any questions they might have. It requested that Cranford act on the request within 20 days. Id. at 44. (On June 4, 2012, Cranford responded. It did not act on the request, but sent a letter asking for the supporting documentation for the plans and copies of all submissions to the NJDEP, whether or not they bore on the request. Cohen Cert. at 45 and Letter from P. Morin to S. Bisdorfer, June 4, 2012 attached as Exhibit 7. On June 15, 2012, CDA responded to the municipality's letter of June 4, 2012. CDA pointed out that all the supporting documentation had been included with its letter of May 24. Cohen Cert. at $6 and Letter from S. Eisdorfer to P. Morin, June 15, 2012 attached as Exhibit 8. t provided copies to Cranford of submissions to the NIDEP in connection with its application to the NJDEP, whether or not relevant io this request. CDA once again offered to ‘meet with Cranford’s professionals to answer any questions they might have. (Foon 4300 571s SOLAR) 3 Ttonce again requested that the municipality act on its request within 20 days. Cohen Cert, at 7. As of today, Cranford has still not acted on CDA’s request. It has not even acted on CDA’s offer to meet with its professionals. It has had all the plans and supporting documentation for more than eight weeks—since May 24, 2012. It has neither granted the request nor denied it. Cohen Cert. at §8. Currently, CDA is scheduled to commence hearings on its preliminary ‘and final site plan application before Court-appointed Special Hearing Officer Douglas Wolfson, Bsq., on August 8, 2012. Cohen Cert. at $9. The site plan application incorporates the proposed regrading of Birchwood Avenue. Dipple Cert. at 412. ARGUMENT ‘THE COURT HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO ORDER CRANFORD BOTH TO ACT ON CDA’S REQUEST AND TO GRANT IT As set forth in the statement of facts above, CDA cannot construct the inclusionary development project provided for by the Court in its order of December 9, 2011, unless it secures a flood hazard area permit from the NJDEP. The NJDEP has formally notified CDA that the only obstacle to its securing that approval is that the proposed project dees not conform to N.J.A.C.:13-11.5(h)(2). That regulation provides: (h) The Department shall issue an individual permit to construct or reconstruct a public building only if the following requirements are satisfied: rood 1 (nA SONA) 6 2. For a new building in a fluvial flood hazard area, the applicant demonstrates that the building is served by at least one roadway, the travel surface of which is constructed at least one foot above the flood hazard area design flood elevation. ‘Specifically, so-called “Building A,” which is a deemed to be a “public building” under the NJDEP regulations and which is located in the flood hazard arca, lacks a “roadway” that lies at least one foot above the flood hazard ‘area design flood elevation. The NJDEP deems the portion of Birchwood ‘Avenue fronting on the property to be part of the *roadway.” Both driveways that serve this building exit onto portions of Birchwood Avenue that lie at clevations lower than the flood hazard area design flood elevation, ‘This obstacle can be overcome by regrading a relatively short stretch of Birchwood Avenue in the vicinity of the westernmost driveway to a level one foot above the flood hazard arca design flood elevation. Because Birchwood Avenue is a public street, CDA cannot make this improvement without the consent of Cranford Township. On May 24, 2012, CDA requested in writing that Cranford Township consent to this improvement. It provided Cranford with a fully engineered set of plans for regrading a portion of the street. The plans show how the regrading will bring the project into compliance with all applicable NIDEP flood hazard permit standards. Because regrading the street involves changing the contours of the portions of the strect within the State-regulated flood fringe, it has the potential to reduce the amount of water that would be stored on the street in the event of flood event, To anticipate that possibility and prevent it, the plan provides for the provision of additional flood storage within the flood (Pde 461300 NE) da I SOEOLMDAEZ) 7 fringe area, The plan inclide a detailed analysis and calculation, showing that with the additional flood storage, the regrading will have no detrimental impact ina 2, 10, 25, or 100-year regulatory flood event. ‘This type of off-tract improvement to an adjacent public street is not only typically permitted in New Jersey land use matters, but, as codified under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.8.4. 40;55D-49; it is often required as a condition of site plan approval. See, e.g., Divan Builders v. Township of Wayne, 66 N.J. 582 (1975]; Deerfield Bstates, Ine. v. Bast Brunswick Tp., 60N.J. 115 (NJ. 1972); Ellis v. Larchmont Pharmacy Plaza, Ine.208 N.J.Super. 359 (App. Div. 1986); see generally, New Jersey Builders Association v. Bernards Township, 108 N.J. 223, 228, 234-37 (1987)(reviewing history of municipal requirements that builders construct off-site improvements). Cranford’ failure to permit CDA to regrade the relevant stretch of Birchwood Avenue fully stymies inclusionary development at CDA’s site. Without that improvement, CDA cannot secure a NJDEP permit necessary to construct the Court-approved project. There is no legitimate justification for Cranford’s posture, merely obstruction and delay. Cranford’s non-response to- DA's request is yet another episode in its continuing strategy of obstruction and delay in response to the Court's order. For inclusionary developments, the courts have consistently held that ‘under the constitutional principles enunciated under Souther Burtington. County NAACP v. Mf. Laurel Tounship, 67 N.J. 151 (1975), and, 92 NJ. 158 (1983), “municipalities have an affirmative obligation to facilitate provision of (Fidos 0A, edo TOA 1 8 the infrastructure necessary to make development realistically likely” Toll Brothers, nc. v. West Winsdor, 303 N.J. Super. 518, 543 (Law Div. 1996), aff'd on opinion below, 334 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div, 2600), aff'd in pertinent part on opinion below, 173 N.J. 502, 858-59 (2002). The courts have held that to facilitate infrastructure necessary for the construction of inclusionary developments, municipalities must, for example, vacate adjacent public streets, ‘Menk Corp. v. Township Committee of Barnegat, 389 N.J. Super. 263 (Law Div. 2006), or reverse the vacation of such streets, Howell Properties, In. v Township of Brick, 347 Nl. Super. 573 (App. Div), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 192 (2002). Similarly, they must affirmatively assist in the provision of public water and sewer service. Toll Brothers, Inc. v. West Winsdor, 173 N.J. 502, 558- 59 (2002); Dynasty Building. Corp. v. Upper Saddle River, 267 N.J. Super. 611, 616(App.Div. 1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 467, appeal dismissed, 135 N.J. 468 (1994); Samaritan Center, Ine. v. Englishtown, 294 N.J. Super. 437 (Law Div. 1996). ‘This Court has the power to order Cranford permit this improvement. It is well established that the courts in New Jersey have the inherent equitable power to effectuate their own decisions. See, e.g., Welser v. Welser, 54 N.J.Super. 555, 563-65 (App. Div. 1959), As Judge (later Justice) Schettino declared: "Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that they are enforced when they are called upon to do so. To deprive a court of power to execute its judgments is to impair its jurisdiction, and the general rule is that every court having jurisdiction to render a eu os06 ASAT) Fe POONA 9 particular judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it, and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement.” Id. at 564. ‘The Supreme Court has particularly emphasized the breadth of the remedial power of the trial courts in exclusionary zoning cases so as to fully vindicate the constitutional rights of low and moderate income households. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mt. Laurel Township, 92 N.J. 158, 285-90 (1983). The trial courts have freely exercised that power to prevent a wide variety of local obstructions to the construction of low and moderate income housing. See, e.g., Howell Properties, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 347 N.J.Super. 573 (App. Div. 2002) (prohibiting vacation of road by town adjacent to inclusionary project); Samaritan Center, Inc. v. Borough of Englishtown, 294 N.J.Super. 437 (Law Div. 1996)(ordering municipality to cooperate to provide public water to affordable housing project in adjacent community); Menk Corp. ». Tounship Committee of Bamegat, 389 N.J. Super. 263 (Law Div. 2006)(ordering vacation of street required for construction of inclusionary project}; Tomu Development Co, Ine v. Borough of Cartstadt, 2008 WL 4057912 (App. Div, 2008) (appointing compliance monitor to perform municipal permitting function); Dyrasty Bldg. Corp. u. Borough of Upper Sade River, 267 NJ.Super. 611 (App. Div. 1999) (ordering regional sewerage to cooperate developer of affordable housing to provide sanitary sewer service; of: Baker Residential Ltd. Partnership v. Township of Randolph, 2007 WL. 2247428 (App. Div. 2007}(enforce settlement agreement against municipality) ‘edd SOLER oli 300 DAKE) 0 ‘The courts have held that where the defendant's actions obstruct effectuation of a judicial decision, the plaintiff may properly bring that obstruction before the court in an application in aid of litigant’s rights and the court may properly grant any equitable relief that will remove the obstruction. Abtott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332, 342, 359, 368-72 (20111); Loigman v. Middletown, 308 N.J.Super. 500, 503 (App. Div. 1998), see also Abbott v. Burke, 170 N.J. 537 (2002)( Abbott VIII); 163 N.J. 95, 100-01 (2000) ( Abbott Vp. In particular, the courts have held that alleged municipal cbstruction to the implementation of judicial decisions granting site-specific builder remedies can properly be brought before the Court by miotion in aid of litigant’s rights and that the courts can properly grant any relief necessary to remove those obstructions. See, eg., Morris County Fair Housing Council v. Beonton Tp., 220 N.J.Super. 388 (Law Div. 1987)(relief against obstructive tactics by planning board in considering site plan applications for inclusionary development), aff'd on other grounds, 230 N.J.Super. 345 (App. Div. 1989); of: Mount Olive Complex v. Township of Mount Olive, 340 N.J Super. 511, 531 (App. Div. 2001) (appellate ccourt finds long delay by builder in secking relief “inexcusable” because “courts hhad already established that parties to Mount Laurel consent decrees could vindicate their interests through motions to enforce litigants rights"). For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff CDA respectfully urges the Court to enter an order requiring Defendants Township of Cranford et al to take all of the formal actions necessary to permit Cranford Development Associates LLC (soln S00 26271) (das 4L SONORAN) u to regrade a stretch of Birchwood Avenue to elevate it to a level one foot above the flood hazard area design elevation in accordance with the plans prepared by L2A Land Design, LLC as part of its construction of the proposed inclusionary development at 215-235 Birchwood Avenue HILL WALLACK LLP Astor By Dated: July 21, 2012 (tole 0. NDSUET 1 Fd 002A) 2 [ERIGH ACQUISTION CORP, Plaintifis, UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-1-0140-08 vs. ‘UNN-L-003759-08 TOWNSIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Civil Action Defendants; FOR ‘Of Counsel and on the Brief HILL WALLACK LLP ‘Stephen Eisdorfer, Eeq, 202 Camegie Center Princeton, New Jersey 08543 (609) 9240808, \torneys for Plaintiffs R COURT OF NEW JERSEY ‘COUNTY = LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-L-0140-08 ‘UNN-L-003759-08 ‘Civ Action “This matter having came before the Court for decision on July 29,2011, ‘8 to all euaining issues pertaining tothe claims mado by Cranford Development Associates etal andthe defonsesto those clan fa. the preseace cf Stephen Bisdrfer, Beg, cone fr plaintife Cranford Development Associates etal, and Casi Woodward, Bq. and Brian Fenlon, Exq., counsel for defendants Township of Cruntord et al; and ‘The Court having previously reslved certain iamues by orders ranting ‘pastial summery judgment entered on March 20, 2009, and June 23,201 4 and lsues pertaining to claima made by plaintif Lehigh Acquisition Corp. having been resolved by negotiabed settlement approved by the Court by order entered on Jenuazy 28, 20115 and “The Court having considered the evidence presented at the plenary bench tial conducted on August 2, August 2, August 5, August 9, August 19, ‘Auust 11, August 12, August 16, August 18, and September 27, September 28, and Septeraber 29, 2100 inching the reports ad testimony ofthe court- eppointed special minster, «view ofthe property at 216-295 Birchwood Avene ‘tadoen by the Court in the presence of counsel and engineering experte for all parties; pretiél briefs, oat-eal written eummation® and proposed findings of {ect and conchusicas of law submitted by the pasties and oral aly 29, 2011, to grant a ste-speciic builder's remedy to plaintiffs Cranford DE a. Development tl on specified terme and to award other rei, 7 Itis on thie of fi, hereby DECLARED and ORDERED: 1. Awof November 12, 2008, the date of the filing ofthe Cranford Development Associates itgation, the activities undertaken by Cranford ‘Township to mect its constitutional fair share housing cbiigation fll atleast 54 ‘unite short of meeting its so-called prior rund (1987-99) obligation and present indigenous need obligation. It fol hort of meeting te fair ehare housing obligation by a east that margin rogardiee of what ite prospective (ost. 1999) need obligation might be. 2. . Upon defendants’ xsl motion for reconsideration, based on the sdttional evidence addused at trial, ofthe Court's order of June 28, 2010, trantng plants’ motion for partial summasy judgment on the defense of good faith negotiations, the June 23, 2010, order is reared and defendants’ motion is denied. 3. Because plintita have satieted allo the entra for a site-epeciic ‘builder's on their property located at 215-285 Birchwocd Avenue, Cranfrd, NJ, they are entitled to canatruct an inclusionary residential development on staat property consisting of up to 360 multifamily residential unite, of which 15 percent shal be reserved for; and afordable to, low and moderate income ‘mousebold, 4. Paiotifa are entitled to construct the inclusionary development in accordance with the concept pla, entitled Concept Site Plan, prepared by the Leeward Group, July 90, 2010, offered in evidence as P63 and P-GSA, subject to the following conditions: 2) The development may nckude up to, but no more then, 960 smultifamily residential units, » 2. ‘The maximum height of Building A ehall be three floors of residential ‘unite above one level of parking. ‘Tee average setback ofthe buildings fem Birchwood Avectue ellbe 30 fot, with @ minimum setback of 25 fect Buildiog A, the gurage aud the viutave pauking hall be redesigned to {incorporate an additional 10 feet of landscaped bute: along the eastern. lotline 288 Birchwoed Avenue, The landscaping shall consist of evergreen trees ‘An additional row of evergreen trees shall be plated elong the southern, edge of packing ot ‘Sufficient parking shall be provided on the property to maintain a tio of 1.85 parking spaces per residential unit. If provision ef that mumter of ‘packing spaces requires construction of an additional level of garage pecking, plaitifs chall construct that level as part of the initial construction of the marage. ‘Total impervious wuriace of the project, ae defined im N.JA.C. 7:8-1.2 (éeGnition of impervious eurtace”), oF such successor stormwater ‘umagement regulations as may be promulgated by the State of New Jersey, shall nt exceed the existing impervious surface. [Nobuildings permite shall be issued for this project unloss plaintife hhave secured all neceseary permite from the New Jereey Departmeit of ‘Snrironmental Protection. 1) Thelow and moderate income unite shal conform tothe terms of Unifora Housing ASerdabitty Controle promulgated by the New Jersey Department of Community Aire, NalAC. 5:80-26.1, or auch successor standards as may be promlgated by the Stats of New Jersey. 4) Plains may alte the lageut ofthe project eet forth in Rabbit P63 land F-68A to bring the project into oonformance withthe foregoing conditions and the terms of any permite Issued by NIDEP. 5, Within 120 days after enty ofthis order, defendants, acting in consultation wth paint and the Special Master, shell amend the master plan and zoning ordinance of Cranford Township 90 as to permit development of the property at 225-238 Birchwood Avenue ia aocordasce wit the Paragraphe 3 and ¢ ofthis Order ex a matter of right and without the need for any variances, exceptions or waivers. ©. The Court declares that, upon adoption of a revised housing element and {air chave plan inoorporeting the folowing claments, rovison ofthe necessary documentation to the Special Master, and adoption of the necewsary ‘implementing ordinances, Cranford Township will have satisfied ita constitutions fair share housing obligation, acluding ite prior round need obligation, its present indigenous need obligation, and ite prowpective (post- 1999) need obligation and wil be eligible for entry ofa judgment of compliance: ‘Cranford Development Avsoctatse project Lehigh Acquisition project Tincotn Apartments (age-restriete:) houring! ‘Alternate Living Arrangements 20 Riverside 16 ‘Needlepoint Homes 1 Substandard units previously re‘sabiltated by Union County — | 15 ‘Substandard units to be rehabilitated through program tobe | 40 implemented by Cranford Towns! 7. Within 120 days after entry of thie order, defendants, acting in consultation with plaintife and the Special Master, shall amend the Housing Element and Feir Share Plan of Cranford Township to conform to the terma of paragraph 6 above, provide to the Special Master the documentation necessary to demonstrate that the starred items in paragraph 6 create realistic housing ‘opportunities, and adopt all necessary implementing ordinances, 8. Blizabeth McKenzie shall continue to serve as Spocial Mestor. She shall ‘consult with the parties to facilitate the implementation of this order. Within 150 days ofthe entry ofthis order, the Special Master aball submit a written repost to this Court as to extent and adequacy of the actions taken by defendants in implementation ofthis order, 9. Commencing from the date of entry of this order, the reasonable fees and expences of the Special Master shall be solely thi responsiblity of the defendants and shall be paid on timely basis, 10. ‘The Court appoints Douglas Wolfson, eq. an Special Hearing Examiner {in this outer. The Special Hearing Examiner chall assure the juriadiction of ‘the Planning Board and conduet public hearings consistent with the ‘requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law on applications for preliminary ‘and final site plan approval for the Cranford Developments Associates’ project consistent with terme of this Order. The Special Hearing Pxaminer shall ‘thereafter make a recommendation to the Court concerning approval of the ‘epplicaions. The Court shall either grantor deny the applicants for [preliminary end final site plan approvals as well as any relevant ancillary variances pureuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(0), exceptions or walvers purmuunt N.J.S.A 40:58D.51, and de minimus exceptions to the Residential Site Improvement Standaris pursuant to NWJA.C, 5: 21-8.1. The Court also rrecorvee the right to attach roanonble conditions to any approval. seen netnuenmanueoyeatoccr ine a ERE Ce ne re 12. Upon compliance by defendants with paragraphs 5 and 7 of this Order, the Court shall, upon application by any party, enter of a final judgment of compliance for a period commencing with date of the entry of the judgment and ee wa manus arene vc tom one na preparec by plaintiffs’ enginegring expert Michael Dipple dated August 6, 2010, “rnmathotr ower womnyutneatope ties ‘Feports, letters and maps dated August 6, 2011, August 19, 2011, and September 2, 2011, i8 hereby denied, 14, Defendants tial motion to bar as “net opinion" testimony by plaintiff ‘Planning expert David Kinsey ccacerning parking is hereby denied. 15, Plaintiff" claim for attorney fees and litigation expenses under the New ervey Civil Rights Act, NJ'S.A. 10:6-2 and R. 4:42 is hereby denied on the grounds that plaints hive not made out a claim under the Civil Rights Act ‘that can be granted and plaintifle are not otherwise entitled to attorney fees or litigation expenses in connection with an action in Yeu of EXHIBIT B CARBLLA, BYRNE, CBCCH, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNEI.LO, 5 Becker Farm Road ‘oweland, New Jersey 07068-1739 73) 994.1700 (973) 994-1744 (x) ‘Attorneys fr Defendants Township of Crnfor, Mayor and Coun ot The Townhip of Cranfordand Planing Boer, ofthe Towntip of Cranford TERIGH ACQUISITION CORP, Plains, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD end PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP (OF CRANFORD, Defendants. and (CRANFORD DEVELOPNENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a lite liability Company organized under ta laws ofthe State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN KIRKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK HEKEMIAN, Paints, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND ‘COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF (CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD ‘OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-L-0140-08 UNNL-003759.08 Givi Action ORDERIN AID OF LITIGANT'S RIGHTS ‘AND FOR OTHER RELIEF ‘This mater having come before the Court on the 29h dey of January, 2012 inthe presence of Stephen Hisdorfer, Eaq., counsel for plaintiffs Cranford Development Associates et 1 CCA"), and Carl Woodward Il, Esq, nd Philip J. Morn I, Bs, counsel for defendants (Ceanford Towaship et lon the motion of plaintiffs for entry ofan order in ad of itigmats' rights snd other relit, nd ‘The Cour having considered the papers filed by the parties andthe arguments of counsel; ‘The Court having determined for good cause shown and based upon the findings of fact and conclusion of set forth inthe oral opinion rendered on January 26,2012, tht plants CDA sented wn AIBN, onan mcnonns follows: 1, Efthe developer, or person acting on bebal of the developer, ofthe proposed inclasionary projet to be lated atthe 215-235 Birchwood Avenue, Cranford NS duly applies {for & permit or approval from the Township of Cranford (or any ageney, board, officer agent or employee of the Township of Cranford) and that permit or approval aplication bas not been be scted upon within the tine required by law, the developer may, if it 0 chooses, apply wpon notice tothe defendant tothe Cour-sppointed special hearing officer, Douglas Wolfs, Bag. (the “Hearing Officer, for relief 2, ‘The Hearing Officer shall make a determination ast the developer's clim and render « recommendation thereon forthe Court, tiling such procedures as that officer shall doom fir, reasonable ad expeditious, including recommending the grant of such reli, if ary, ss the Hearing Officer docms just and uitable, The Hearing Officer shall promptly flew ‘written memorandum of hs recommendations with the Cout whic, if appropriate, shall include proposed findings of ict and conclusions of aw, and shall serve copies upon the parties. Within 10 days afer being served with the Hearing Officer's recommendations on any dispute, any party may seve writen objections thereto upon the other partes and may movs the Court for section upon the Hearing Officers recommendations and the objections thereto. After # hearing ‘onthe motin, the Court may) adopt the recommendations and any relief issued by the “Hearing Officer, (b) modify or reject it in whole or in part, (c) receive futher evidence oF (4) eoonamit the mater othe Hearing Officer with instrtions. Ifno timely objections ae filed, the Court may, in its discretion, ferthwith enter an Order adopting and confirming the ‘ecommendktions and any reli proposed by the Hearing Officer. A party filing to timely ‘object in the tral court tothe Hearing Office's recommendations shall be presiuded trom raising objections thereto on appeal. 3. Forpurposes ofthis Onder, where a statute or ordnance sets a dealin or ‘timetable for municipal action on the developer's application fr a permit or approval, "in & timely manna” shall mean within the deadline or timetable established by the sate or ordinance. 4, Mr. Wolfson shal be compenssted in the aime manner as proved in the Courts ‘Devember 9,2011 Onder. 5. The procedures esblished in this onder shall not apply to any applications by the tee arse rd ‘sh Hain 14 Cad Ave, te cles renin epic o dhyDEP Metin laine thc DEP repo ieee ut DEP a pic hewing pit ‘pte fn orate eu uc rg BP i rte netic Ste wine our csr ich ints at ‘aed tbls mage re Bho vee se ‘Toumbip toreyMor dic hsm ey Me i. ane ar ht be “nti Camm oe pe ny dopa abe Br Aves aa bt abr oer ote neds wy tenet woul ute Tovey Case stra, Sh Gr Towns Coomues ha psoas leur be cor cern at Ara. 1a A ena ae st Al Sah cused FA Sq end ie ‘Sine ofa ects ohn hac fs Ferd owl be ie ‘Sirunon ee Frt Gl Spa's crv Tow soa ge ir 3 Al Sad ‘ng Su Hurtane Vee dit ees ote of eb Abo ine ees (iets epitope! aia elena Me Na re at ‘Snr won beh fr ee Ad aon Feary e121 enn ew ie ick Km 2 Fill Set es samurai tt Gover ise it ree oft Bic ‘vce anlar rs. Comme Towa Egos Mane rife Seabed er ey er pen sp ee ‘Srcpent oftigorry weds np nly of cer we Sate ‘Sra Tomita cng angry at or be te Cerone Sept ta cece eben mS ‘Bemis Cl Tow ty Me Ric dt tr wou eset a a ie Me Hon ane Tomsip Comes mi angie ep Sethe fe ped ‘poste Bron Ave Ngo fete fw sult mo ee Rabin ed ht no Sci sb a i ie at he Town Conmiter multe ronson re nnn Ri. 20 i Sst cmd ping oman Ste tbe ced na nono ‘ete arg tte wag ree Stl eee wl wero Cm | ‘Sty pelpe we ore! cag cpg nr be ce er Rie el tt i reomaring eo wa te ee S15 ht sd a lie ithe Sabb New pw Fae ‘Sit ang Pn wd 2012 Toe Coamee wou pet sn Mor tia lt edn ap a and an eocag Somonby he Soup Came Mak Sih 25d Avs domed opr sme i sb Scie opty “ee emorelr shen Tomaip Ce oad i repo Mayr Roce teres pt om th Town Coma one th pace anion (i Tomy Commins wideout Sih fn hi ee iol son plein cree opty pen ecient sons, Mayor Rate oe eine ming etn of ema PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS Nowe ‘CONOAISIONER REPORTS'COMMIENTS ed Ft Sn nro eed ow Fay 16 201 nd come sso spat eee + Dekada Avene propery. land at erry cit of 6 ef kof echt tg Gh psa Scepie Tacks omar te opty mae ‘Fema eon oss rr mde Gear eo Diced ete on i oe tee ake ce eed Sp ae Tomaip Commies cyan oe Sovcpaet of pep) a pel ‘Sus of Cand une perc of opp sc A nae t ‘ei! wh he oped Behr Ave poet a el mc ‘Commision ar Oe Mana any Rie Mayors Cu cing we hon Feary 5, 20127007 ad ‘rma rede tat op pe Prov inion esis ting + Dna mal chloe Toop elo a fred ies a ewe 0 ‘gee owes bodega ote aa te ard m+ ‘mts oe ume ooaved ily rif chee tebe Feary 15,2012 vied rat far ay ‘Sern ra pete end es, + Doane te dio of Fn Squealer, [ergs aes me pve men ee ree Mae David, Roi ied arto he aed employes wih be Drom of Pac Wat a ee ‘esis oa ef ie Crier, + Tiny Sent Tp Ne 7 eg es gins, 1 Copia nee Bar ren Cmcet ata Act Scholinp ‘Sed te uaa rector ee + Dome! ent Al Sut noe dvi itn skeen, 1 vida epg Ramey Rr Mays Cons meg end acd eu abe Shee 1+ Dn fe dian f Fn AS ing sted at pleated + Dod te Reser Palen Sted So rope Tha! fe Dene oA ‘aft fra ocew he arse porn, + Dininodhe gan epeing of dna Das nd th esa ft ahs ube elon es Cas + isnt ep vets fr Fr i So apd Crib ld ES ‘vient eve as sve ys eo ea ta ovis at vr aro (nmin of Commis Capel met y Commins Ano Nt nd pa te Towp ene eoumed 925 PM Rees es, Terione Be ec Fey 14,202 Tovap Cate EXHIBIT 2 ‘Defias of he Ome Metin he Touniy Came fhe Tensip of Cig, comets, Sn ofA yc Mare 13,303 pas Cone Come: "RRSMEETINGIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE “OFEN FUBLICMETINGS ACT” AS ADEQUATE [NOTRE OF Ns MECTING HAS SEEN FROVIDED BY WALLING THE ANNUAL SCHEDUL! OF ‘MEETINGS TO THE CRANFORD CHRONICLE, UNIDNCOLNTY LOCAL SOURCE AND THE STAR LEDGER BY POSTING SUCH ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDLLE ON A BULLETIN BOARD NTE "TOWNHALL RESERVED FOR SUCH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND TH FLING OF SAIDNOTICE ‘Wilt TOWNSHIP CLERK OF CRANFORD. FORMAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ATS MEETING YFRESENT: Miner David W. Robin ‘nme of Deety Maer Kahin, ced hy Connie Oy wpe ie we ‘Shoes pray eon woe Sa ls eng 75.1534 een ee Ose be ANNOUNCEMENT Crifte presto Cafe Nine nd Under U) (Champions Beall Ta po ee Ses ng wing teks ven ain rte oeschin cial lag ies,| shes eer ery a re acer ali ‘achesion Gs eat Qpr tment vs ts, ‘een res nd go sie ar a eh ‘at sdnon Serato eign proton et ryt det ‘wala Mehta mnie Yet th on ae bn owt! ese olan Sera oie. TOW, THEEPORE Dea WHat Maer fred nether of You Ar Mo (enue the ner of ule scl rane i ts | DEREAS, Crd Fay Care a apr ing ft ig tl er epg eces tate oak cap fren mp Soave: ‘WHEREAS, rar Fay Car eid gage eve ea gi oft ets etn ese fe eprint a ins ge ‘WHTNEAS, Cone ay Coy enced yt How of Decor conriing usin of cia Cnr agreed Wy Crt any Cnn sev pts al PTA ‘ea ap el cnn ow: THe rvOKE. BEY RESOLVED tte Towns Commits be Tovsip Crd oom ent Css Ce Acne 5 eae svi Soman INFORMAL MEETING ‘Morton ped infra main rin ft mae aan ee we ys Mic Sai 20 Sra Ste ma sent a mcg alt compote eg, {Se Brawont Avene od require a Mier Rois xn hat i porn of tng sew pic omen gd em [ere ds Suv ihe woud be pray op neuen ee Henn fortran, Mayer Rb co! hen eng pain eng ‘ORDINANCES - Finland and Pian sinmas Ns 2028: ‘Piper Gey te ny Onna, 2012.05 eae “AN ORDINANCE AMEND, SETON 163m SCHEDULE 1 OF CHAPTaY 13g "cViseD ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNS OF ‘CRANFORD, NEW JERSEY (196), TOINCMEASE HE\Ger LIMITATIONS ON RESIDENTIAL. [DWELLING UNS WITHIN TE 1 THROUOSER-?ZONNGDSTRICTS” Sud dn ving en eave! mors cae iC Capel pet ‘pol erng Hews oo sear Coser amp ce peering Onan cn Sem Ahm avo ~~ ‘ORDINANCES - Bint Reading Deine Na 2012.8 ‘eng Cyl ly Oni 201208 te AN ORDNANCE FIN THE Gideon Mew maseyroxneveARD ‘Scenes rte aang adn of Caine: ds Nes ssl mason ang spun end ve fe Towsip Cmte esos, Se gee Moe Kat Ginn Cap wf Ny ‘sean Nene ‘eae Nee ‘Pinal Rang nd Pi Haring Ag 18,22. [RESOLUTIONS - By Coen Aged (On moi of Commie dy Ne ni! by Conia Cpl np te ning ‘Scone we opty cme aa esbon No. 202146 ‘EMER SS a ry 28207 he Towip Cm tad actin No 201134 ‘nrc be npc of Cee Het ex Color fr be Towa of cr a ‘ERE, pn KSA OAS, ry mip aca hl ld fee rn of {bu (Oe ere it ya ir et onig Be pont Vcc er an ‘Spina ftom ab Sed ape reel oe ous a yan tc A 382 Spi mp iim ot RRA vem ete ef mitt met tind ‘$0 THEORET RESOLVED ye Tom Comins Tei Cand at Sete Starnes pat eal freee coe ‘BE TTURTIEN RESOLVED at nid psn fire A 21; an [BEIETURTHER RESOLVED st cco turetsin Rr Det ‘Crna Saves Downes of Conant Afi ‘BETTORTER RESOLVED Ree No 2012300 fey ple [BERPRERONED iy twa Caanc of eT Cm tt Cte Hib ted hcl tpl we SP Cabo n nnged ur eng Dee 1,20 ea BBE TT FORTIER RESOLVED fu Cubs Heian bended s apposed e Nanci ‘Thee Serer fora oer term edn Decne 31,2012 ‘Retueese suet RIERA? Yona of rm athena prope Coen High fr ang Avene (cP Cassa Avan Or on Ciao Std IME ay sn) poem! Cnn ‘IEREAS HS Feo spr, ne 38 at Flt Aeon Re New Sry Td epee pc SE ‘Ge Tecronr, BEIT RESOLVED, ye owaip Comoe Toei is oye Mee 201 tu aod Repro Ie eye ee Cosson iit Cage Ave On Pol snd Gera Au Oat Post Gain Sts ‘a 01 one nme ih pe! SH, 0 ed [BE TF URTIEN ENOL VED, hs Seer Twa eny mize eo ‘prec ih RS Foe Eup nf 1? mn sn We gt ec i et ‘amin Ne 20: BRERA RL crams coil hein fn vi en eine of {be Toms ‘SHEREAR oe rc 6 201 fe (9) oe msi rh demand ri ‘tangs pet unr Choe Ca ‘SHTREAS 2 Carey Reto, In 7 anand ean, West Org, Now ery AMD owes ‘pnb frat ob pee 6,0. RQW-THLREFONE BT RESOLVED, bs Tomip Cnt Tv Cmid o [hs 1 yf March at I Cary Ring ne taht B ered ena i ic ‘mean fol arsed eno oh rf Cae Ca Cree ‘TRIREAS be Township of Cr int» Raga Quits RP) fgg vos Simbu ees a a ua cme 7 ‘IDREAS ie oop of Conch a a ie cp expt wd el ‘ene ear tira * vee Joy aeenr anew acne a rodeo 1 Be ping ci 20 B20 Ly Cone IO 2 Brien re ‘Ghee dort brow Cae 0 Ome 5 owt beemrne Sernpare 9a Sedan 0 172 ‘Gat nemo {eStart 3 eng 3 Gasman Seo Pa O82 Greta [eioRea Nom Ber OS 5 Sector Roe $i GB, Nr Bes 02 Gam george LC Moka re cmora OO 3 Yonnmene {isco RS, Pn, 75 10 ie cn ne {share Wet Ome) oS 1 te Comey {Boker oe Ba Crd 6 1 Man Me ‘anne 2 0p 7 1. hina teagan Ma YO 1 ara Rene er cae tut rs om 0 OS 1 Legg i Adem ae 08 16 Macnee at hm ping 30, Poe 7 1 Nae one Om ar oe an 1 Renin Vorsk Ame Easier Fan Soman OO 2 Since F 2a a Rane, 0076 21 Tabtaomeaee Bes Tou etn 1 78252 2 VaCetfagmatng Anca: ov cay ib ate M84 3 Vovalv- rte eu tm aNICS Asay it stn abe ound an win tmtydy wopien eglion No 2012181 TMESSETION AOTOniz14¢ ASSESSOR AND ATTORNEY 10 EXECUTE SHPULATION OF ‘SEFTLEMENT WITH RESPECT TD TAX APPEALS \WITEREAS be Tove Cig fe Twn Cerys Recon 200215 0 ary [Ton deening vrs Save pea ieee ar ox 202 iow 1, Pa Per, eb Ft, 26 Rat 17 Neth, Sut 300, Rae P New ey oe! 2. abet & Ream toys Le, 1D Nah Ave Ea Ct Ne ey 7016 2 Rib M Coley, 12 Mai Se, Fig New ey 2.856 1 May, Ney & Cpe 1, Te Gey Ce Non 5 ig ac Oe ty Ag Beer Fen Rents No ey ‘HTEREAS ie Tove Ta nr Tenet Atay, il Norn IE de ‘Recs prone ses rx pe pcr tte ho ea rope ‘Seamer Towaip of Cr nr peal ts Un Cosy Bn of eon ‘Sate ex car ew heey ‘WHEREAS be Towa Caza fe Towap of Ce wb ae he Sion ‘Seems tac pen ele Une Cnt Dae or wt Tex Cont Nw ey, ‘Now, THEREORE, BEIT HESOLVED yh Tovsip Cami Twi Comfon it (betes Asem Pe: unc Tovah Anny Pip Mos, ote meio! ‘eet come xen lv ped yh Tommi Ate, ry tir ESE relia Toby arc teapot ‘Se Cay ow Tse Ts rt few any BMRA SPS, caine te Twp of Cntr! pd ato 2210 ay 1012 egg vr fr ror ope oso ea e701 ve 1 Bg os eh, 218 R 7th St 33, Raa Po, Newey 2 ano & Rent AtcrnytL,10 Noh Aves at Cad New Jee 07016 3 Rebar M. Cn, 12 Ma St Paign New ey 082-0642 {Dt vey & Co: Te Gey Ctr Nea ew 5 Gane BC Olin dy & Apacer ar on Rain Now cy _REREAS, is np ony fe Tomi of Cn it apn ping (amend aco ary 38 eis 20018 ‘REPRESSED be tomaip Conia of Coin 3 yo Mie 2012 (ete Tox Cals heey tern teed nig eps res ‘Great fr: Sepa Rend $2573 Dine Metat 2 See Greg 016 Bl Lt Rea $44051 ‘agin Sec Jp Sein ‘Alon 25803, ‘Reine ast, BETTREROLY Dye Tomahip Const of te Towa of Crh ut fe Tomsip Cl te ‘hey bashers avr fr re rung ce se ene Tens Co es 200.15, BERTREROLSED be romp Com oe Towa of Ct ht Cr Clb nd ty ‘Sipe es Ease Seay ie use Dope Mar 1, 2072 rte Tons ‘Novy, THEREORE, MEF RESOLVED ty Toei Came fte Toa of Ct, New ee ermen Srey Gr 19 Sprig Area fl, ex Proves, ow ‘Srey on he melirly fone se ie Pane Mapes Svs ‘ae Towa cf Cred tesa eee 1080, 2. Beebe an Ming Clk ay tl rd ton Gene Sng Crs 3 Biomater pA AIA ‘oe a in, Depry Mayor Kai, Comminio i Na, Capel ed Oey ova ‘Naa Nene PROFESSIONAL.CONMENTS ‘Temmbo tone Filia Mera I ‘FPR Va pte of pti with te ichwod Aven sper ae heat ney ae es crn er oe nr ar ket Saas ergy Den pon {Stein Bad ws ered Ap, mo isha por ong eens Ale nso hep wend eal be Mil Big ow ‘Sr Soro Pang Buc ting cancer a Pear Bod mein ‘Fosnalp Conley rons lenge fe repr aco “Tevntp Ate Ma so oie a pe pig ev of ee Reo Av ‘open OEY ep es ots se ack emer toeer DE st eee emt mena Sep em i ea ‘Sone da pei y te Town's Engine Dower Alexie at ek bog (ule pct goo sn at sr ll oxi ete ‘pry toned hie ann fm evo oS Ds wee a Ge als Pree ‘Whe pat Fle Hames Ae pra re ha el nas we ee i DE slo Erte pn em ec tne Oo Amis iyo ened he pe cms pon fe macing a mt ie were yor gh Laliniog 25 Wad Ta nome he Tewatp Comm bt ee been ty Pen Armes oon or we Ae manda pert tat eg pepe Eig nie bg cana mene me “Tometp Arn Mv fra Me Lin tat ec ps es plato DEP ‘Slay Sf tae en tet cng nwa ven Ar ch he ‘Spout Ase ac cman oda we Poe est fe pion ii ds ats y ees unig at DEF ps ening wi apse CY ecient Aner lpr oer “Tey Atria MLC toe andre (10) ta we eed Tela tt epee pons and megan i DEP peat Me Lint eTown wl nash ol at DEP wil ei i ej iret Den sae reg pean te pe. ‘Rina 1 ton Rod dice! mgm rang pet of Bow of aint SUD BRime Aru Danan rng eon opr ede Econ’ ‘ipo Nap Ka Conan Ao No lp pn ye wc ‘esse it etl be prope a woud ea a prt tt ol yan be lads Coates. “Doosan. ene Aras rm Cet Fanl fie’ (CFO) poten die ‘Beto a ese re Aa epi werl ekrs y om Ca ‘ay he br cmon woe res Diy Mins Kain sed fit le CO's pat hh as ee ‘Sdn ie nacre ule oon Aue! as at ee ye ‘Sree sla pt Duonel te tie rr td Spi ee fees psn gio nan Al oat Se Mz ene eae compar the er of ca hn es ing il oe (GG Alo uiedhow cy Sou coma wee eat ben sein Tovah. ‘ua Towsip Aire Che Mao ae ti om using fe woe ‘nitese bee) ans wa Dat Mer Kai i xn th i sting fe ex ae por en th wer prove sohew te Tomi ean Typ Aditi Man sre Mi Hae hat ert i Becca anti sorte oe 100300 Fenn dace he pe te ha a meno by Ds Mar Kai tae ‘elt sag dual cpt On Tonaipas poem. ‘Dep Mir Kshs ei it 0 inv el oy bap a CFO bce Sale ‘ae a CFO bean ployee spay Se a or cea Sartore ‘er cet Dose ope! gsc at wad oct seis wh Tope ia Tooaip Cave et en mln sen eo erg eter cmt Migr Rainn de fra ming yor ote meeting YROFESSIONAL COMDUENTS ded comme oncogene coer el ii vet (Oa > ‘hws ede de ple Sand ar ete ig pone ‘Secaln ot inc he bdr ep ate Se ae eps (Soe wes oid md espa tones woully em pas pres ‘Brno ct pao for pee Stl tnt roger ‘Sevan’ srl ty tne nen sont ecm md ei (Simona Dae save wh Toy of are a ead ‘SSSI hors seve te ie Towsly Adwords his bet Sete Town of Cnn ‘Leen trae Pie J Mora Shed tc herp o eve 3 bah te Teas Cl me nin Tow Adie ‘COMMISSIONER REFORTSICOMMENTS. ‘Sonninine Kea Cami iene wept erin Tne Adare lc Mie Tow ‘tara ad maa spots Wi + Dime ie Png Bart ing etl Ae 12 epdig he Band Aves ‘Sept lntred redone rom oemed nr ohne penne robo mde ptf rd apa yma dg peel oie ‘Secu a sr sommes nae ot ei po ea + Pred nas eng Sing he Ray Ks, ein ate rj shod be ‘Body ted wee Cen be Engen opt open bese hecme Dita wr oth Tas fC eet nsur re to patnoa + Wished everyone «Happy S. Patie's De. ‘Commie La Aaa Nh mud mere apn f nor Townp Asari Mac se ‘ones aime + rid mp een oe Ce ee, Dose te a ais ‘Sig the Toms Commins ws oem set Toa ‘Comes vou beeing na wb pln w al Th rp ‘Stole iy rove ue te Tevanip Gms ed os he ‘Tomy Commi cps mass dco Sede Conga Care Ply Car stag 7° Ae, 1 Nile oeyer lag Parse ‘et Meo Anti Kaas Copel i Nee ai Une) Bacal Tea ns Sate Cmniotp, 1 Tht Gone Pen Cao bing ero Fe ey view ie Gevertortes: + Dicaedhe Bae of ava’ ong ter pai meing ae ered with omit (hi Pa ued nt Poe an cee Dr Carian os ersopents aug or secre + Testes ery ON ee CFO sot Tenshi’ rdsu peo wih ‘Tew Cake Dns eae oer antes br C70 mvs a ag ‘Repl pic at wr sot rss Dome eset sie pee Seto ach ye + ‘Dood 02 Mes! Sat nf oi at sn eld he Manh, 2012 Aman a te Chas Pama Crane wl nc ‘Ma 24,302 row te gs el eps rs oa ‘mad et be den of metal a ea ke i ised + Gieptlta! te Nn nl Unk (U Sut Chalo Te Sate tot Cres may SSE ers pan aud tg cy pot Caed ‘Semensing Se pony tame, Cnn me eps Mayer Mat ac be ‘Pveneie tence roe fr sng ttf ten onan ‘ el a th sion wa neg seve ya te in ye Towa ‘Gms te mtu xeon apr Se he oe by Ciel ‘tes ong me ne sd mee ng renee (he mas gui ctr f Chet Men Roni nape Ca Maes ‘nn own Alms The ppm nanos oie Toei ‘Site Towap lth endnote Tepe [Spinetti fn arene Ft A ao pt Nan ae ‘ted to Donat Mana tg ha spire Maile ‘Se a he fowntiy Con: sss ion sae i Caen Tad ite Mae 13,2012 ‘Toman Gat EXHIBIT 3 ‘December 22, 2011 Dear Govemor Chris Christe: ‘As you are aware, Cranford Township is subject to a builders remedy lawsuit in which a judgment was entered allowing a 360 unit housing development on Birchwood Avenue, ‘a flood-prone area of town. We further appreciate the interest you have taken in what has occurred, as evidenced by your comments at & recent Town Hal meeting in Union ‘Township where, in discussing the difficuties municipalities face with the overreaching ‘affordable housing regulations, you made a point of noting that ‘the Cranford situation is foremost in my mind.” While Cranford will continue to challenge the factual and legal basis forthe trial court's

    You might also like