Transcript 8.16.10 Slachetka TWP Planner

CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES Plaintiff vs.
TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION CIVIL PART UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY DOCKET NO.: UNN-L-140-08 A.D. NO.: _____________ ) ) ) ) TRANSCRIPT ) ) OF ) ) TRIAL ) )
Place: Union County Courthouse Two Broad Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 BEFORE: Date: August 16, 2010
THE HONORABLE LISA F. CHRYSTAL, J.S.C. TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: CARL R. WOODWARD, III, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello) APPEARANCES: STEPHEN M. EISDORFER, ESQ. (Hill, Wallack, LLP) Attorney for the Plaintiff CARL R. WOODWARD, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Bain, Attorney for the Defendant Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein) REGINA CALDWELL
UTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 1582 Laurel Springs, New Jersey (856) 784-4276 SOUND RECORDED Operator: G. Plummer
I N D E X August 16, 2010 DEFENSE WITNESS: DIRECT Mr. Slachetka EXHIBITS P-66 P-67 P-68 P-69 P-70 D-13 D-14 15 CROSS 67 IDENTIFIED 74 84 84 105 114 42 42 55 16 66 66 66 18 EVIDENCE REDIRECT RECROSS
Regulation 5:97-6.4 Regulation 5:97-3.13 Site Suitability Checklist Map of Cranford Township with marking around town center Map of proposed site with marking around site
Waiver Request - 10/25/01 Approval of Waiver Request 12/4/01 D-74 Redevelopment Agreement - 1/8/09 D-107 Center for Urban Policy Research Impact Assessment - 12/11/09
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right. trial day. THE COURT: Cranford Development versus Welcome back, everyone.
Cranford Township matter. MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:
Thank you.
Today is August 16th, our eighth Are we ready to proceed?
So, welcome back. MR. WOODWARD:
I think its our ninth trial
day, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is it? I have -- oh, youre 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th, Thank
The 2nd -- you are right.
10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th, you are correct. you. Are we ready to proceed? MR. WOODWARD: Yes, Your Honor.
I -- Mr.
Slachetka is on the stand and Id like to call him. THE COURT: He can resume, yes. Your Honor, as we broke, --
MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT:
Yes. -- you had pending before you
MR. EISDORFER:
an objection to a line of questions concerning the projections prepared by Robert Burchell and that was the -- when we broke, you were -THE COURT: Yes. -- you were going to take
MR. EISDORFER:
that objection under advisement. THE COURT: reminding me. Yes, correct. Thank you for
How much do you think you have on that,
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Woodward? MR. WOODWARD: Frankly, not all that much.
mean we have -- and I just might say that we outlined what we proposed to present in our letter to the court of June 16, 2010, in which we talked about COAHs third round methodology and we talked about the Bloustein report, as we call it. And basically, my focus on this
was to see whether or not Mr. Slachetka -- certainly were offering this report, because there is specific data in that report related to Cranford. Every single
municipality in the state has a line item, a series of line items for different categories. And, you know, we
had presented this report back to the court in June, I believe it was, or even earlier, and we showed -- you know, and in our trial brief, in fact, we actually do the arithmetic, because thats really all it is -- to show that this report shows a very different set of facts related to the growth projections that Cranford is likely to undergo for the next 20 or so years. And
at that time, when the issue was raised by counsel, you ruled that this was appropriate to be considered by the court. We basically stated, in our June 16 letter, I didnt identify -- my
what we were going to do.
fault and I apologize for that -- that it would be Mr. Slachetka that we would be putting this in through, but
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hes our only planner.
Hes our only expert witness in
this area and so, theres no real surprise for counsel. I dont have that much to do with it. I want to finish
my direct examination of the witness in another area, but I do want to question -- ask him some questions about specifically what the Bloustein report means in regard to the work that hes done. MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, let me read you It says the township
what the July 16th letter says.
will further argue that COAHs third round growth projections are so fundamentally flawed as to render them arbitrary and capricious and same should not be utilized by court in assessing Cranfords fair share obligation and in fashioning any prospective builders remedy potentially due to COAH. And so, in effect,
they are being simply offered to challenge the validity of COAHs methodology. And it seems to me that thats
a plan that this court cant entertain and its irrelevant to these proceedings. I have two further
concerns, which is,(A), although we have counsels representations set forth here as to what the partys intentions are. We have no report from Mr. Slachetka.
I point out that Mr. Slachetka filed -- submitted reports on July 1st and July 26th sandwiching this document, but none of his reports comment on the
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Burchell projections. Finally, the Burchell They are
projections themselves are not admissible.
hearsay and they are not subject to any hearsay objection. In particular, they are not subject to the
hearsay objection for statistical data under Rule 603(c)8 -- (c)6, which is limited to statistics gathered by a public official whose responsibility is to gather those statistics. public official. of thousands. Mr. Burchell is not a
Hes just a university professor, one
And its limited to statistics as to
existing facts, not opinions, projections, possible future stock. It is collection -- the classic example
is census data, where its a compilation of existing facts. So, on each of those grounds we believe that
this is objectionable. THE COURT: As to those two, Mr. Woodward? Well, first of all, Your
MR. WOODWARD:
Honor, in responding to a request for information, or providing discovery regarding an individuals report, you dont have to have a report from Mr. Slachetka written and signed by Mr. Slachetka. is tell you what hes going to say. the discovery rules in our court. All I have to do And that is under
I can say Mr. I didnt use
Slachetka will testify to the following.
his name here, but I told you what he was going to
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testify to and so did counsel. Counsel has known for
months exactly what goes into this report and exactly what it is and how we intend to use it. raised before the court. on that issue. The issue was
This court has already ruled
Now, with respect to hearsay, this is a These documents --
record that was contracted for.
this document was contracted for and prepared by Rutgers University, by the Center of Urban Policy Research, at Rutgers University, and it is trends and projections, planned projections and impact assessment of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan by municipality and county. data. This relies on census
And if, for example, I may take a look at -- you But
dont -- do you have D -- you have D-107, I think.
I can provide this one to you, just so you can follow the argument. This is the original D-107. You can just -I have some
tabs on it, Your Honor. THE COURT:
Thank you. -- follow along. If you would
MR. WOODWARD:
take a look on page 16, Your Honor.
Page 16 shows the
census data for 2000 in the left-hand column opposite Cranford Township. If you see theres a column, or
category, Union County and the third town down is Cranford Township. And it says 2000 population in that Then it
column; it says 22,570 people -- 78 people.
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 says 2000 to 2004 change.
Theres additional data that
has been developed that shows that theres a loss of 270 people. And between 2004 and 2008 theres a loss So, that the 2008 population is
of another 413 people. 21,895 people. is 683.
The net loss for the 2000/2008 period
The net change calculated, according to the
type of analysis -- and I believe they use calculus to do this, Your Honor -- is a net gain by the year 2003 (sic) of 13, 25 more between 2013/2018, for a total 2018 population of 21,938. And then if you follow out,
it takes the projection beyond 2018, which really doesnt concern this case, but goes out to a total of 22,004 people. Thats the kind of data this report
contains and what it shows is, unlike the rather large population growth calculated by COAH, they have a different methodology and a different calculation which shows a net stable population thats basically unchanged. Now, with respect to Mr. Eisdorfers
objection regarding being hearsay and not a government writing, I would cite to you Rule 803(c)8, which says, among other things, entities employed by governmental entities and agencies for work to be performed in the public interest are considered, quote, public officials for purpose of admissibility under 803(c)8, State versus Malsbury, M-A-L-S-B-U-R-Y, 186 New Jersey
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Super. 91, Law Division 1982. So, theres authority These people
for the position that were taking here.
are public officials because theyre performing under contract with the government, doing work in the public interest because this is an evaluation of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, which is an official action of the State of New Jersey. MR. EISDORFER: respond to this. Your Honor, let me just
I think if you go and you look at the
table Mr. Woodward has showed you, okay, the first column is census data. THE COURT: to, page 16? MR. EISDORFER: the census data. Yes, the left-hand column of Every -The very table that he pointed
We have no objection to the Thats gathered by the Bureau
admissibility of that. of the Census.
The next columns are not census data. So, youre talking about the 2000
THE COURT: population?
Thats right.
That you have no -Thats census data. The next
MR. EISDORFER:
two columns are not census data.
They are -- in the
beginning of this report there is a ten page explanation of where tho -- how those are calculated.
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All the columns beyond that are projections and there is an extremely complicated -- its not simply calculus. process. Theres a very complicated iterative Its controversial.
10
The history is these are
the folks who did the COAH counsels affordable housings data prior to 2004. In 2004 the Appellate
Division had rather nasty comments to -- about them in its opinion striking down the 2004 regulations. did not rehire them for the 2008 regulations. COAH
They are
now offering a competing set of projections to those in the COAH regulations. But the methodology is extremely The --
complex and full of assumptions and judgments.
it has not been -- there -- the state mission does, indeed, have the authority to adopt projections. has not adopted these projections. It is merely It
contracted for them and it has said, in its draft plan, this is merely one of five different sets of projections that were -- that we will consider in formulating our state plan. So, this is -- and its
all unofficial at this point. THE COURT: So, can I just ask you this I mean while my inclination
question, Mr. Woodward?
is, and I already ruled at one point that I would allow it and that the court could assess its credibility and make the appropriate finding as to its relevance at the
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -THE COURT: time that I ruled.
11
If, indeed, it hasnt been adopted
by COAH and its a competing set of statistics, so to speak, as Mr. Eisdorfer argues, then why should we waste our time with it? there any reason? MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Well, -Or should -- you know, is
What is the relevance? Heres -- Your Honor, heres
MR. WOODWARD:
What is the relevance of it then? Heres the problem. Mr.
MR. WOODWARD:
Eisdorfer says that well, this is a competing set to what COAHs determined. Well, what COAH determined,
through the reporting agency that they hired to do the round that they now are relying on, -MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: Also Rutgers professors. I disagree. It also includes But we can
people from the University of Pennsylvania. argue about that at another time.
The fact remains,
Your Honor, that the COAH projections cull out as vacant developable land in Cranford the Garden State Parkway, the front lawn of the municipal building, the high school property. If thats not a gross Its fantasy
miscalculation, I have no idea what is. land.
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. THE COURT: this to know that. MR. WOODWARD: And that -THE COURT: Right? Well, that brings me -Well, I understand, Your
12
Well, but the court doesnt need
MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:
I dont need this to make that --
to come to that conclusion. MR. WOODWARD: Well, yeah, but on the other
hand, what were hearing from the other side is well, the towns got a growth share obligation of 328. And
that 328 is based on fundamentally flawed data, which includes the Garden State Parkway, the municipal building, the high school, a good part of the Rahway River. Thats the sort of fantasy land that were And what
dealing with in this particular situation.
were showing you here -- and, Your Honor, this brings me to another point. At the time that you declared
this towns ordinance unconstitutional under Mount Laurel, what that meant, as I understand the law, is that the court takes over the responsibility for zoning and planning for this property. It has divested the
planning board and the township committee of any responsibility and, indeed, input, other than in the form of a proceeding like this, as to what the zoning
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of that property should be. A decision ordinarily
13
reserved for the legislative body is now being made by the court, and thats the law under Mount Laurel. the other hand, it would seem to me that the court would want to hear a variety of points of view. You On
know, the law says that the Mount Laurel -- excuse me, the COAH regulations apply to the extent possible. Well, if it doesnt make sense, or if theres something else, as part of the courts evaluation of this, that would weigh in the courts decision to making a determination as to what the zoning on this property was going to be, then it would seem to me the court would want to hear it. MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, -But that, of course, is the I am saying this
determination that you have to make. is appropriately admissible.
It is significant
documentation that, frankly, tries to take into account information that the COAH regulations completely ignore. MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, the counsel makes
a systemic argument about how this methodology is flawed. He says they look at the wrong pieces of land.
They use the wrong methodology for projecting growth. Thats an argument to be made to the Appellate
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Division. court. Thats not an argument to be made to this
14
And it, in particular, puts the court, were the
court to follow along that line, it would put the court in violation of one of the fundamental principles of Mount Laurel II and of the Fair Housing Act, which is that there should be a single uniform methodology applicable to everybody. Counsel is saying to the
court that it should have an idiosyncratic methodology, different from what the Counsel on Affordable Housing has granted 60 substantive certifications under its regulations. Therell be those 60 certifications and
then whatever this court does, which will be based on different standards. THE COURT: So, but maybe he should put it in
the record for the purposes of the Appellate Division. MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, the Appellate You know, this -- the
Division is hearing this case.
court has already ruled this is not the case in which to make a challenge to the COAH regulations. a case in which Cranford is a participant. THE COURT: A party, right. So, Your Honor, for all those There is
MR. EISDORFER:
reasons, we believe that this is -- this line of questioning should not be permitted to be pursued and this document should not be admitted into evidence.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proceed? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: All right.
15
Im going to allow it
very briefly and Im going to entertain your argument at the end and -- in your trial brief at the end and in your summation about whether the court should disregard it. Okay, Im going to allow it briefly. MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor.
You know, and as I said before, I
mean this is a court sitting without a jury and I can, after I hear it, assess your legal arguments as to why the court should be -- should disregard it. find that legally appropriate, will do so. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor. If I And if I
might have my original back. THE COURT: D-107 in my material? MR. WOODWARD: Yes. Yes, maam. May I Sure. And you say I have it as
MR. WOODWARD:
STAN SLACHETKA, DEFENSE WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. Mr. Slachetka, Im showing you whats been Are you familiar
marked as D-107 for identification. with this document? A. Yes, I am.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. Q. Could you tell us what it is?
16
Its an impact assessment of the New Jersey State
Development and Redevelopment Plan and it was prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research on behalf of the Office of Smart Growth, in the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. December 11th, 2009. Q. And have you reviewed this document? And its dated
Yes, I have. Q. Now, with respect to this document -- and I
think before I asked -- started to ask you about this on Friday, I was inquiring about the vacant land adjustment and the housing element and fair share plan that you prepared for Cranford. A. Yes, I do. Q. All right. In that vacant land adjustment Do you recall that?
portion of your housing element and fair share plan did you reach a conclusion as to what you believe the vacant developable land in Cranford was? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall what that was?
Yes, that the township had a very limited amount
of vacant developable land that would contribute to the realistic development potential for the township. Q. And did you review, after you received it,
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. the Bloustein, or the D-107? A.
17
After I received the D-107 I reviewed D-107, yes. Q. And did you look at D-107 in terms of the
data that was presented therein and the methodology used and apply that, or -- let me rephrase -- let me withdraw the question. Did you review it in connection
with the conclusions that you had reached with regard to the vacant land adjustment methodology that you had proposed in the housing element and fair share plan? A. Yes. Q. And what conclusions did you reach?
Well, that it basically confirmed my understanding
in terms of the limited developable -- limited development potential of the township, in terms of vacant developable lane, both in terms of the townships prior round obligation in establishing the realistic development potential, as well as in terms of the evaluation of the townships ability to obtain an adjustment in its growth share projections. In both
instances, the data presented here basically confirms the limited capacity of development within the township. MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id like to offer
D-107 at this time into evidence. MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I renew my
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. yes. CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. prepared? A. Yes, it is. Q. Under the cover letter of course. I was going to say that Have you -- is this a report that you objections. THE COURT: All right. Subject to your
18
objections, Im going to allow it. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. Now, Im going to show you whats been marked
as D-40 in evidence, which is dated March 19, 2008, a letter to Lucy Voorhoeve, Executive Director of the Council on Affordable Housing, signed by Mayor Puhak, and attached to that is a response to COAH vacant land analysis, prepared by T&M Associates, dated March 20, 2008. Have you ever seen those -THE COURT: Thats D-40 did you say? D-40 in evidence, Your Honor,
MR. WOODWARD:
Yeah, under the cover.
under the cover letter, the response to COAH vacant land analysis is the report that I prepared. Q. document? Now, what was the purpose of preparing this
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for D-40? THE COURT: I have it. Oh, okay. I apologize. A.
19
This is a report that was prepared as part of the
Township of Cranfords response and comment to COAHs proposed regulations, the ones that were proposed in December of 2007, that were under review at that point in time. There was an open public comment period and
the township submitted their comments and as part of that, the township engaged ourselves to prepare a report evaluating the report that was prepared by the National Center for Neighborhood and Brownfields Redevelopment on behalf of COAH with regards to projection of development within the -- within Cranford Township and throughout New Jersey. MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, are you looking
I have it.
CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. With respect to the document, the report that
you prepared, could you tell us what analysis you went through? A. Well, yes. First of which, I mean we reviewed the
methodology that was undertaken by the NC -- the NCNBR, which is the entity that did the work on behalf of COAH, the consultant that worked on behalf of COAH.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And we also did an OPRA request for the datasets and specifically the vacant land layer in the GIS, or geographic information system, that NCNBR relied upon to do their analysis. And then we compared and
20
contrasted that to our actual understanding of the vacant developable land within the township, specifically in relationship to the work that we had prepared previously with regards to the vacant land adjustment for the town. Q. Now, did you make a determination as to how
much vacant developable land there actually was in the township at the time of that report? A. Yeah. Actually, on page three of the report,
theres some references to the numbers that we had come up with. And specifically, that we determined that
there were 14 acres of vacant developable land within the township, after accounting for environmental constraints, deed restrictions, approvals and other encumbrances. And then -- and after accounting for
undersized noncontiguous lots in each of the various zone districts, we calculated that there was about 10.8 net developable acres within the township. And thats
specified, or presented, in the table on that page. Q. And what was the total amount of vacant
developable land that the NCNBR analysis provided?
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A.
21
Id have to go find it in the report, if you give
me a second or two. Q. If you take a look at --
Yeah, if you have a specific reference. Q. -- just below that table on page three, or I dont think the page is actually
the third page. numbered. A. Mine is.
Yes, the difference between the NCNBR
analysis and the T&M analysis is approximately 208.2 acres. They, in essence, they identified about 20
times more vacant developable land than we had identified in our analysis. Q. Now, did you try to figure out what it was
that NCNBR considered to be vacant developable land? A. Yes. And I think we identified a series of things
that they identified, including, I think you mentioned in your arguments with regards to the motion, things like the fact that the Parkway right-of-way was identified, or portions of the New Jersey -- or the Garden State Parkway right-of-way was identified, the front lawn of the municipal building. Lawned areas of
developed property were identified as vacant and developable land within the township. Theres a
variety of other sort of odd usage of the term vacant developable land by the BNC -- NCNBR.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. Q. Do you have an understanding of how NCNBR
22
prepared this analysis of vacant developable land? A. Yes. Q. Oh. They basically have, as I said, -Well, first of all, how do you know that? Well, first of which, we know it in part by
reviewing and evaluating their report on behalf of COAH, which is one of the appendices of the COAH report, in terms of the methodology. But we also know
it based upon, as I mentioned, that we did an OPRA request and saw their -- or at least got that information, the datasets available for the land coverages that they used. Q. Now, is that -- are the results of that OPRA Look at Appendix A. That is correct.
request attached to your report? A. Yeah, I believe it -- yes. Q.
Could you take us through that?
Well, -Q. What was COAHs response to you?
They -- this was the va -- they provided us with a When
coverage and also they identified the coverages.
I say coverages, part of the GIS layers are called -sometimes called coverages. The coverages that were
used to calculate or identify vacant developable land within the township. Q. And did you prepare any charts that dealt
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with or show the areas that COAH had determined, or NCNBR had determined were vacant developable land within Cranford Township? A. Yes.
23
Actually, the two maps that are attached in
Appendix B map out the lands that were identified. Q. Well, could you show -- could you talk to us
about the first map? A. Yeah. The first map -- actually, theyre
basically the -- they map out the same layer, or same coverage. maps. The first one is done with regards to tax
So, it may be a little clearer to see that. And the
Its based on parcel data from the GIS system.
second map is based on an aerial photograph of the township. Q. Well, lets look at the first map. Could you
locate the Garden State Parkway as it goes through Cranford on this map? A. line. Yes. Its the area -- its sort of a sinuous Its -- and
Its sort of irregularly shaped.
basically outlines the right-of-way of the Garden State Parkway would be with the -- it looks like its the cart way of the Garden State Parkway is taken out of the layer. But, basically, its a sort of red sinuous
line that kind of extends from top -- or from bottom to top in the eastern end of the township, or, in other
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 words, on the right-hand side of the map.
24
And you can
see the cart way line, which is basically where the road -- roads exist within the Parkway. a little bit more. Its probably
Its shown as an uncolored segment
and its surrounded on either side by corresponding red lines, which are portions of the Garden State Parkway right-of-way. THE COURT: So, just so were clear. The
right side of the map -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yeah. -- and that would be the Garden
State Parkway in the center, the white? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Thats correct. Youre --
Okay. Youre pointing to exactly
THE WITNESS:
where -- what I was referring to on the map, Your Honor. And the white shading, or the white space
between -- sandwiched between the two red layers, is the proximate location of the roadway. The remaining
portions on either side of it, with the exception of adjoining parcels that may be privately owned, but for the most part, those red -- that red area consists of the right-of-way of the Garden State Parkway. CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. Now, if you would look above, in the north --
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I would say the upper right-hand corner of the northeasterly quadrant, if you will, theres a fair amount of red shaded area. properties? A. Yes. Can you identify those
25
Actually, its in the proximate area of the
township that were talking about with regards to where the CDA site is located. In fact, you can identify a
portion of that -- well, just to orient everybody, the single family residential developments surrounding the area have been taken out and you see them. theyre shown in white. Basically,
Some of the other areas that
are shown in red are either wooded areas, areas of the stream corridor or other vacant land thats associated with existing developments, such as lawned areas of the rising development and other areas. Interestingly
enough, the portion that was clipped out that is shown in white, with regards to the CDA site, is the approximate limit of development or disturbance currently within the CDA site on either -- for either -- for both of the office buildings. Everything else,
including the areas of floodplains and flood hazard areas that weve been talking about, are actually shown in red and considered vacant developable land by the -by this analysis. Q. But is, for example, right on the upper
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26
right-hand corner, theres a fairly large area of red. Do you know whether thats municipally owned property? A. Yes, thats the recycling center, or a portion of
that is the recycling -- shown is the recycling center. Q. Now, in the center of this picture is a line
that runs and sort of snakes all the way to the bottom from the top. A. Could you tell us what that is?
Which line are you referring to? Q. In the center, theres blue and red mixed Do you see that? I mean those are areas -- the blue areas are
together. A. Yes.
areas that are within, I believe, if I can read the legend right, flood hazard and floodplain areas, primarily associated with the Rahway River. And then
the red parcels are also other parcels that were identified -- within that blue area are various red parcels that were identified as developable parcels, a combination of public and private parcels that were shown as vacant developable land in red from CDA. Im sorry, from the NBNBR (sic). Q. Now, when you submitted this report to COAH Or,
did you get a response? A. I dont know if I received a response or the
township received a response directly. Q. Have you ever seen a response?
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A.
27
I dont recall whether or not we received a direct
response, but if you have something that you want to show me. Q. With respect to the data that was used by
NCNBR to prepare the analysis for the Council on Affordable Housing, do you have comments on the quality of that data? A. Oh, yes. Q. I mean and theyre --
Could you tell us what they are?
Well, I mean, first of which, I mean I think this
is a gross misinterpretation in terms of the true extent and nature of the vacant and developable land within the township, with the understanding that the NCNBR consultants basically were charged with providing a statewide analysis of vacant developable land. So,
to do a job of that extent, they obviously had to rely on some gross data and information thats available at the statewide level. However, when you analyze it and
evaluate that data on a specific municipal-by-municipal basis, which I would anticipate would have been a very significant job for NCNBR to do. When you get to that
level and you actually know, based on practical experience and understanding, what the true nature of vacant developable land is in a community, both the land thats constrained by development, lands that not
28
-- are really not practically developable, such as lawn areas, the Garden State Parkway right-of-way, you can see how unreliable that that data and information is to rely on making a -- making any reasonable projections of potential development within a community. So, we
feel -- you know, we felt that it was a lack of reliable data, a misinterpretation of the data that was used and available, and it really resulted in an overestimate in terms of the amount of developable land and then, in turn, the potential development capacity for the community. Q. And did you make any particular
recommendations at your end of the report to the Council on Affordable Housing as to how they should deal with these inaccuracies? A. Yes. Basically, we felt that the -- first of
which, the recommendation was that this data and information should be -- should not be relied on and that, basically, the townships and any municipalitys evaluation and analysis to develop a plan would be a much more accurate methodology and approach to make these projections. And in terms of the townships
overall recommendation, that, basically, COAH not rely on that data and information. Q. By the way, to go back to D-107 for a moment,
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. the Bloustein Report. Have you found in your
29
experience, since its been issued, that any in the planning community rely upon that? A. In what respect, Mr. Woodward? Q. For use in terms of making projections and
determining what a municipalitys affordable housing obligation should be? MR. EISDORFER: grounds of hearsay. MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor. Hes experienced in the field, Your Honor, object on the
Questions like that have been asked of Mr.
Kinsey just as well. THE COURT: Well, -Whats your professional
MR. WOODWARD: opinion, in terms -THE COURT:
Why dont we ask him first
whether he has any knowledge or experience? MR. WOODWARD: Fair enough.
CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. Do you have any knowledge or experience with
respect to the use of the Bloustein report since its come out? A. Yes. Q. And what is your experience?
Well, its -- it, again, the Bloustein report is
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specifically being used in terms of an evaluation of the state plan and growth projections in relationship to the state plan. However, again, it is -- its a
30
further indicator and understanding that -- and, really, sort of an indicator of the consistency of the approach, in terms of the nature of development la -developable land within communities and ultimately, in terms of the order of magnitude that -- of growth and development that is actually occurring or will be actually occurring within the state. So, to the extent
that, you know, certainly I, in my evaluation, will rely on it as really as a supporting piece of information. Its not that we rely on it specifically
to do any COAH analysis, but that, again, it just is -its an independent and further confirmation of information that were evaluating and weve presented. Q. Now, Im going to show you next whats been
marked as -MR. WOODWARD: Oh, Im sorry, Your Honor. Oh,
Id like to offer D-40 into evidence at this time. its in evidence already, right? MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: THE WITNESS: D-40, yeah.
Your Honor, I believe -Its in evidence, Your Honor. I believe D-40 is in. Do you want it back, Mr.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Woodward? MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Thank you.
31
In evidence, thank you. Yeah, yeah.
MR. WOODWARD:
CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. Next, I want to show you whats been marked
as D-158 in evidence, the planners report. A. Actually, Carl, could -- thats my bottle of water
on the floor right behind the -Q. Ill get it for you. Be careful. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Q.
Now, did you prepare this report, D-158?
Yes, I did. Q. And could you tell us what it is and what was
the purpose of preparing it? A. Yes. Its entitled Planners Report, as well as
subtitled Crediting Update and Prior Round Obligation, with reference to the current case. it was prepared on behalf of Cranford Township by myself and its dated July 1st -- excuse me -- 2010. Q. report? A. The purpose was to -- well, several purposes. And what was the purpose of preparing this And
First of which, it was to look at the -- and evaluate the potential for crediting that would be available to
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.
32
the township under the assumption that the township was not seeking a vacant land adjustment, if, in fact, it was the case that the township was not seeking a vacant land adjustment and needed to address fully its prior round obligation. And in evaluating the various
compliance mechanisms, that, either through credits or other compliance mechanisms, what would be the order of magnitude that the township would be in, or what status would the township be in, in terms of addressing its prior round obligation in the -- under COAH regulations. Q. Now, lets go back just for a second. You
previously worked for COAH, correct? A. Yes. Q. Yes. And you were a principal planner at that -Yeah, chief of planning services and then
principal planner. Q. And while you were there did you review
housing elements and fair share plans that were submitted to COAH? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you also review crediting analyses
that were submit -- or, rather, vacant land adjustments that -- let me re -- withdraw the question. You
submitted -- you reviewed vacant land adjustment
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. requests submitted by municipalities under the COAH regs? A. Yes, I did. Q.
33
And did you also review requests for credits
that would be sought by municipalities for affordable housing, that it either was constructed or about to be constructed? A. Yes. Q. Now, could you tell us -- could you take us
through generally the report, what it does and what it shows? A. Sure. Q. What conclusions you drew?
And again, the report evaluated the townships
potential available credits that it had, as well as evaluated some of the compliance mechanisms that had been discussed as part of the court case and as part of the townships attempt to address its affordable housing obligation. And again, as I said, it was
really the evaluation was presented under the assumption or in the context of trying to, I guess the best -- probably the best way to categorize it would be filling the bucket, the prior round bucket initially before going into any other component. And with the
intent of establishing and evaluating the order of
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 magnitude that, one, the township was -- would be in compliance; two, evaluating the compliance planner,
34
because ultimately the court is going to be responsible for undertaking and completing the compliance plan. And then, ultimately, looking at that and really using this as a foundation to evaluate what would be needed, if anything, within either the CDA site or other parts of the townships compliance plan to fully address its -- the townships obligation. things. So, we looked at several
We looked at the townships rehabilitation Wed look at opportunities for crediting
obligation.
that the township had, including looking at supportive and special needs housing on behalf of the township. We evaluated the prior round obligation and some credits that were available to the township via the prior round obligation. Theres various appendices
that are attached that provide supporting information and data with regards to that analysis. Q. And tell us about what you did with respect
to the rehabilitation obligation and how that was determined and what the results of your study were. A. Sure. Just to kind of set the context, the -- as
we talked about previously, the rehabilitation obligation is sometimes commonly called the rehabilitation share by COAH and COAH assigns or has
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page two.
35
assigned a rehabilitation share to municipalities based on various census data surrogates that it uses to estimate the amount of units, the number of units that are in need of rehabilitation within a community. for Cranford Township COAHs estimate of the rehabilitation share was 55 units. And the surrogates, And
you know, include overcrowded units built prior to 1950. They look at units that lack complete plumbing
facilities and units lacking complete kitchen facilities. And again, those are three pieces of
census information COAH uses as surrogates to make a determination on that rehabilitation share. THE COURT: Then --
Are you referring to -- youre
referring to page two of your report? THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, Your Honor. Yeah,
The second paragraph summarizes that
information. BY THE WITNESS: A. Basically, COAH is not going out and doing an
assessment of each individual municipalitys actual rehabil -- number of rehabilitation units, or units in need of rehabilitation, because, again, they are doing this on a statewide basis. They have to rely on some
reasonable surrogates and theyve continually relied on these and similar surrogates, depending upon the census
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. information. In 1990 they used a series of surrogate
36
-- census surrogates and established a rehabilitation obligation for communities in 1990. When they adopted
their regulations in 2004, they updated that and created a new set of rehabilitation share numbers corresponding to the 2000 census. Q. And what was it that you did to either
confirm or distinguish the actual rehabilitation share that Cranford had versus the number that COAH had? A. Under COAH regulations the -- they permit a
municipality to actually go out and do an exterior survey of units within the community to make a determination, in fact, whether or not there are units in need of rehabilitation. And we went out with
Richard Ballucsio, I believe his name is pronounced, the construction -Q. Belluscio. With a name like ??, I, you
Belluscio, sorry.
know, I should be more attentive to how peoples last names are pronounced. The -- we did go out and we did We being COAH -- excuse me,
an actual exterior survey.
T&M staff went out and did a survey of the units within Cranford Township. Q. And what were the results of that survey?
The results indicated that -- ultimately, the
37
results indicated that the township was eligible for an adjustment downward from 55 to actually a 53 unit rehabilitation component or rehabilitation share. Q. And how was that determined?
Based on the exterior survey, we made a
determination that there was about 74 units within the township that had some level of -- based on an exterior examination, some level of need for rehabilitation. And COAH has a survey form that we followed and evaluated the -- we evaluated the units, along with Mr. Belluscio, with regards to whether or not those conditions, those exterior conditions would suggest that the unit would be in need of rehabilitation. We
dont do -- you dont do an interior survey and its separate and different than the surrogates that COAH uses, which is the plumbing and kitchen and overcrowding surrogates. Q. So, what was the total number of units that
you determined needed rehabilitation? A. It was 74 units. And then what we did was, based
on the COAH methodology, applied what -- whats called a PUMS multiplier and actually its developed by Mr. Burchells office, we were just talking about, the -Mr. Burchell from the Center of Urban Policy Research. That multiplier is established and theres different
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUMS multipliers throughout the state. But its done
38
on a regional basis and Cranfords within a region that the multiplier is identified as 0.714, which means about, you would anticipate that within Cranford Township, 70 percent, approximately, or 71 percent, approximately, of the units that were in need of rehabilitation have a low and moderate income household. Again, its an assumption based on the data
and based on the PUMS data or the, its called, I think, Public User Micro-data Sample. Q. And using the PUMS multiplier what did you
come out with in terms of the rehabilitation share for Cranford? A. Well, 52.8, or approximately 53, units in need of
rehabilitation that potentially would be occupied by low and moderate income households. Q. Now, did you make a determination as to
whether there were any rehabilitation credits that Cranford was entitled to against that rehabilitation share of 53? A. Yes. We had contacted the Union County and the
County Home Improvement Program and asked for a listing of units that had been rehabilitated by the county within Cranford Township since 2000. And that program
is administered by a private consulting group,
39
Development Directions, LLC, who works for the county. And they provided us with a list of 15. So, we
identified 15 potential credits that the township would be eligible to receive but for rehabilitation activity within the township. Q. And was all the documentation under COAH
requirements complete as of the time you prepared your report? A. No. I mean we got the listing of -- from the
county, which is included in one of the appendices of the report. And we understand that there needs to be
some additional information and data, particularly the time of the -- when the units were rehabilitated and some other information that needs to be compiled, to fully determine whether or not the units are -- would be credit worthy for the township. Q. Now, Mr. Kinsey, in his testimony, claimed
that the program that Union County runs for rehabilitated -- rehabilitating premises, properties, which Cranford uses, is not compliant with COAH regulations. A. Yes. Do you know particularly about that?
COAH has not certified the Union County
program as being eligible as a program that a municipality would be able to use moving forward to undertake a rehabilitation -- to address its
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rehabilitation share, or be the administrative entity that would be responsible to address a municipalitys rehabilitation share, for two reasons.
40
First of which,
the county program does not offer its services or does not offer rehabilitation opportunities for landlords for rental property. And then there was a -- theres
also the length of controls have to be consistent with the COAH standard. Q. Now, do you know, however, whether COAH,
nonetheless, has given credits for the Union County program or programs like the Union County program, even though they dont technically comply with the regulations? A. And I -- this is an important distinction between
-- we can talk about program eligibility, because, basically, from the COAH perspective, when theyre addressing and evaluating the rehabilitation share, whats important, from COAHs perspective, is that the -- a municipality, or township, or borough, or whatever, have in place or at least engage in whats called an administrative entity thats responsible for undertaking the program. They have to be qualified and
theres certain requirements that they have to have in place, including meeting all of COAH standards, as I said, for length of controls, addressing both rental
41
and non-rental properties, as well as having the -- all the various administrative support, such as an operative and approved rehabilitation manual. So, from
COAHs perspective in the rehabilitation share, its important to have a program in place moving forward. And COAH has never really said, at any one point in time, that you have to fully address your rehabilitation share within the confines of a -- of the period of substantive certification, but you have to have at least have an opportunity in place for a property owners tenants who are interested in participating in the program in rehabilitating units to get -- have those rehabilitated. But thats a separate
and distinct requirement or issue from COAHs perspective than whether or not a unit is creditworthy. Even if the Union County program or other programs that may not necessarily be eligible to be that administrative entity, how -- if they, in fact, have rehabilitated a unit and it meets COAHs criteria for being a rehabilitation credit, that that unit that has been rehabilitated is creditworthy. So, theres a real
important distinction that COAH places between the programmatic requirements as to whether or not a unit is creditworthy or not for rehabilitation purposes. Q. Now, do you know whether Cranford has
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. previously sought and obtained waivers, or a waiver, from COAH regarding operation of a previous noncompliant with the regulations rehabilitation program? A. Yes. Q.
42
Im going to show you what has been marked as
D-13 and D-14 for identification and Im going to ask you if you can identify these documents. A. Yes. Q. What is D-13?
D-13 is a letter to Shirley Bishop, who was the
Executive Director of the Council on Affordable Housing at that time, which is October -- the letter is dated October 25th, 2001, requesting a waiver in relationship to the townships rehabilitation program. Q. And what was the substance of that letter?
Basically, the letter requested a specific waiver.
At the time Cranford Township was under COAHs jurisdiction. It had petitioned COAH for substantive
certification of its fair share plan in June of 2000. And thats the cycle one and cycle two plan, the prior -- theyre commenting on the prior round plan. had, at the time, an actual rehabil -- local rehabilitation program that the township was running. However -- in fact, it had rehabilitated 170 units And it
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. within the township. And as part of that cycle one,
43
cycle two plan the townships rehabilitation share, at the time they called it the rehabilitation component, was 104 units. So, what the township was seeking was
credits for units that had been actually rehabilitated within the township, but because the townships program, again, did not meet all of COAHs criteria, in terms of being an eligible program, the township had to prove certain that -- certain facts, such as the actual length of time that a tenant or a property owner lived -- an actual low and moderate income household lived in that unit. And the request of the waiver was, based on
the documentation that the township had, the township was requesting a waiver of those actual limits, because in actuality, the low and moderate income household had, in fact, resided for an appropriate term. Q. And do you know whether COAH granted the
request for the waiver? A. Yes. Q. Yes. Q. Do you recognize that document? Take a look at D-14.
Yes, I do. Q. What is it?
Its the actual decision by -- and a variety of
44
other supporting documents that are attached, including the original request and some correspondences between COAH and the township. But its the approval of the Its dated December 4th,
townships waiver request.
2001, prepared by Sean Thompson, who was the principal planner at the time. And theres a report, a COAH
report, which specifies the framework in which COAH approved that waiver request, and the resolution of COAH -- the actual COAH resolution is dated December 12, 2001, which approved the waiver request. Q. Now, do you have an opinion, based upon your
experience and knowledge of the Council on Affordable Housing, and your experience in this field as a professional planner, as to whether or not the units, the rehabilitation units that have been involved with Union County, the 15 that are sought, should be credited? A. Yeah. Assuming that we have the full information
that we need from the county with regards to those 15 units, that its my opinion that the township could seek a similar waiver, if we were under COAHs jurisdiction, a similar waiver from COAH or a similar approval from the court for those units that in actuality met all the credit requirements for a unit in need of rehabilitation.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q.
45
And now, one other thing that was proposed by
the Plaintiffs here is that -- let me back up a second. So, whats the basis for your opinion, if you could state that? A. Im sorry? Q. The basis for your opinion that you just gave
regarding whether or not they should be credited. A. Well, again, because the units -- assuming that
the units meet all the criteria, in terms of length of -- the length of time that the units occupied by the low and moderate income household, the amount of money spent, the nature of the rehabilitation, that it addresses a major system, and all the other elements of the -- of COAHs criteria for a unit in need of rehabilitation, that, in fact, the township would be eligible for that credit. Again, drawing a very
important distinction between the actual eligible credit as versus a -- the eligibility of the administrative agent for any rehabilitation program moving forward. Q. Now, with respect to affordable housing, its
been proposed -- or, rather, rehabilitation housing. Its been proposed by the Plaintiffs that the construction of new affordable housing can be used to satisfy the rehabilitation obligation of a
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. municipality. A. Do you understand that?
46
I understand the concept. Q. Do you agree with it?
Well, in actuality, I think the -- from my Yes, you can.
perspective, you know, can you do that?
But in -- from a prac -- very practical perspective, really its not fully addressing the rehabilitation obligation or really addressing the needs of those low and moderate income households that occupy a unit in need of rehabilitation. In essence, if youre just
creating a new affordable housing unit someplace else, its not addressing the actual low and moderate income household that resides in the existing unit in need of rehabilitation. So, basically what you have is, youve
got the creation of a new affordable housing unit and then youve got the units that are still in need of rehabilitation. And when it comes around for the next
round, or next cycle, or evaluation of the rehabilitation obligation, which will probably be coming -- were now into 2010, were in the 2010 census, those units that re -- those units in need of rehabilitation, based on the census surrogates that COAHs used and COAH may be using in the future, are going to be there. So, youve got the creation of a
new unit, but youre really not fundamentally
47
addressing in practice, or in a very practical way, the unit thats in -- the units that are actually in need of rehabilitation. Q. Now, moving on to the next area of your
report, supportive and special needs housing crediting. Can you tell us what you did there? What you
evaluated, what you discovered and what your conclusions are? A. Right. In our evaluation and review we became
aware that, in fact, the township -- within the township there were four, whats commonly known as group homes, but what COAH categorizes as supported -supportive and special needs housing, within the township. There were four and on the top of page four
there are four of those, not commonly -- Ill call them group homes, Your Honor, for the sake of our discussion. Q. Those group homes are listed on page four.
And can you describe what it was -- what your
evaluation of these group homes were and whether or not you have an opinion as to whether they should be credited? A. Yes. Q. And when they should be credited? We did two things. We did, in evaluating
Right.
the potential creditworthiness of those group homes, or
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. the special needs housing, we contacted at the state
48
level the various state agency regulating entities for the group homes. We also received information from the
tax assessor, the townships tax assessor, with regards to the status of the group homes. In fact, in two
cases, I believe, that they -- the tax assessors office found -- provided us with the licensing information that was on file. And then we contacted
the group home providers to obtain additional information. Q. And is -- how many group homes did you find?
There are four separate group homes and within
each -- within those group homes theres a total of 20 bedrooms and as noted previously to the court, that the unit of credit is the bedroom for a group home. Q. Now, do you have an opinion as to whether
these units would -- these special needs housing units would satisfy or would receive credit from the Council on Affordable Housing? A. Yes. Q. Yes, I do have an opinion as to -And can you tell us what it is? The -- its my opinion that
Yeah, sure.
ultimately all four of the group homes will be creditworthy from the townships perspective. There
are some additional information that needs to be
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. provided by the providers and to have a complete, a full assessment of that, but from the information at least that weve seen to date, in my mind it suggests that all -- and based on my experience, suggests that all four of those group homes will be found to be creditworthy. Q. operation? A. Yeah. Theres, at least in some of the cases, Now, do you know when these units went into
49
theres -- there are -Q. And I direct your attention to Appendix C. And theres -- excuse me, this is just all So, Ill try to --
Right.
folded up in here. Q.
Take your time.
Ill try. THE COURT: Youll just have to tell me which
one is Appendix C, because I cant -THE WITNESS: MR. WOODWARD: THE WITNESS: as page eight. Appendix C -Page eight, Your Honor. Its on page -- yes, identified
Its after the rehabilitation -- the
list of rehabilitation units from the county and after the -MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor. This is what it looks like,
Your Honor, here, I have an extra copy.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Maybe -- is this it? Yes, thats --
50
Thats -- okay.
CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD: Q. All right. So, can you tell us what dates
these units went into -- or are considered to have been in operation? A. Sure. I also want to look at the table, too.
Okay, for the -- just kind of working down through the crediting information thats provided. For the first
of the group homes, which is the Surf Center of New Jersey, which is the 6 Hollywood Avenue group home, which has -- excuse me, its located at Block 514, Lot number 3. Excuse me, sorry. The CO date, or the date
of occupancy, is not available on that group home as of yet. Going to the -THE COURT: right thing. I still dont think I have the
Yeah, I dont have that one. You dont?
I mean Im not on the right page. All right. I have another
MR. WOODWARD:
copy if youd like to use it. THE COURT: is that what you -MR. WOODWARD: Yes. It says Hollywood Okay. Surf Center of New Jersey,
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Avenue. THE COURT:
51
Okay, Number 6 Hollywood Avenue. Yeah.
THE WITNESS: THE COURT:
Sorry, I have it. Oh, thats okay. And these are
THE WITNESS:
the forms that are -- theyre typical, the COAH survey information forms with regards to the information for each of these facilities. THE COURT: BY THE WITNESS: A. And for this one -- and Surf Center of New Jersey The first one is Okay, I have it.
runs two facilities in the township.
being at 6 Hollywood Avenue, and as I indicated, that we dont have the actual CO date from that -- for that information. We do have -- have been in contact with
Pauline Simms of Surf Center, with regards to information that we have requested and have provided them that, this form as well. The second is the second
Surf Center of New Jersey Group Home, which is the one at 125 Dietz Street, which is Block 569, Lot number 8, and that CO date is identified as June 10th, 2010, and had been a previously purchased back in 2005, but it had been on -- undertaking -- or they had been under -Surf Center of New Jersey had been undertaking renovations between 2007 and 2010. And theres a tax
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. assess -- a tax record associated with that property and its identified. Theres also a property
52
description thats attached showing the tax assessment information from 6 Hollywood Avenue, in Cranford, identifying it as a nonprofit and charitable property. And -Q. Slachetka. A. Yes. Q. Avenue. A. Yes. Q. You mentioned an attachment from the You mentioned -- thats the one on Hollywood By the way, going back to the first one, Mr.
assessors office. A. Right. Q. And thats what I was just getting into.
Would you take a look, theres an assessment Do you
data column that talks about exemption granted. see that? A. Yes. Q. What was the date of that?
Exemption granted was -Q. Yeah. Q. Well, let me put it this way. Well, yeah, -How long has Surf Center owned it? And
Yeah, thats from 1990 -- August 24th, 1998.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. theres also a license attached as well. I think the
53
problem is, Your Honor, that the attachments may be a lit -- may be out of order on this. Q. Well, in any event, in terms of determining
when the certificate of occupancy was issued, -A. Yeah. Q. -- that can be obtained from the
municipality, correct? A. Thats -- yes, that can be obtained from the But its my opinion that, in fact, this
municipality.
facility would ultimately meet the full COAH criterion. Q. Avenue. A. Yes. Q. The third one. And theres, by the way, Now, moving on to this one at 48 Johnson
Ill pull that out.
theres also a tax assess -- the tax assessment data for the Dietz property as well thats attached to that as well. The 48 Johnson Avenue property, which is run
by Community Access Unlimited, thats -- that CO was filed -- the CO date is February 11th, 1999. Q. So, this has been operating as a facility, a
special needs facility for that length of time, is that correct? A. Yes. And theres a license and -- a license
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. attached, a copy of a license attached, and also the tax information, tax data, tax assessment data thats attached to that as well. Q. Now, the last one of these is located at 54
54
Johnson Avenue, correct? A. Thats -- that is correct. Thats owned and
operated by the -- again, the sponsor is identified as Creative Property Management and it is 54 Johnson Avenue, and its CO date is August 25th, 1999. Q. So, --
And again, theres a license attached as well and
also the similar tax assessment data thats attached as part of that facility. Q. Now, turning to next to your Appendix D, was
there an affordable housing unit created by the variance issued by the board of adjustment? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. Could you tell us about that?
This was an applicant for a mixed use development
proposed and ultimately it was accepted and approved, in February of 2009, a, again, a mixed use development with one affordable housing unit in -- as part of the -- that approval. Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether this
qualifies under COAH regulations as a creditable unit?
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Yes, this would definitely qualify as a
55
creditworthy unit. Q. And I want to show you -- oh, youve attached Okay. Im going to show you
that to your report.
whats next been marked as D-74 for identification. Its a letter dated January 8, 2009, with, below it, a redevelopment agreement between Cranford Redevelopment. Have you ever seen this document before? A. Yes, I have. Q. What is it?
This is the redeveloper agreement between the
Township of Cranford and whats identified as Riverfront Developers, LLC, with regards to the redevelopment of the, whats commonly known as the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan Area within Cranford Township. Q. And what are the details of that particular
development, particularly in respect of the provision of affordable housing? A. Again, this is a mixed use redevelopment, which is
located across the street from the train station, in Cranford Township. And its one of the projects we
were involved in reviewing the various proposals for this project. And it basically provides for, as part
of the redeveloper agreement, it provides for the
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. creation of 16 affordable nonage restricted family rentals as the -- as part of the project. Q. And would these be creditworthy under the
56
COAH regulations? A. Yes, they would be clearly creditworthy under COAH
regulations. Q. And when would they be creditworthy?
Well, we have -- because we have a redeveloper
agreement in place, both the rental units would be immediately creditworthy. Any eligible rental bonus
credits would be creditworthy as well. Q. Now, as part of your exercise which you
conducted in this report, and if all of these units were applied to the prior round obligation of the township, what sort of conclusion do you draw in terms of what obligations for prior round remain -- would remain? A. Yes. Q. Yeah. Assuming that this was to be applied. And thats -- my conclusions are listed in
the table on page five in the report. Q. Sure. Could you take us through them? As we know, Your Honor, we have a prior And the various
round obligation of 148 units.
compliance mechanisms that weve talked about -- excuse
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me -- included the special needs housing that we discussed, the 20 units of credit that would be available to the township for those four group homes. We have the Lincoln Apartment senior rental units. Now, in this instance its a slightly different calculation, if we assume that we are not accepting a vacant land adjustment. And again, for the sake of
57
argument, under the assumption that we had as part of this analysis, the formula is a slightly different one. Typically it would be 25 percent of the realistic development potential or 25 percent of the prior round. In this instance its a prior round obligation, plus the rehabilitation share, minus any rehabilitation credits. So, we assume the 53 and we took the 15 So, we had a -- we
credits, rehabilitation credits.
allowed for 46 units, rather than the 37 that we had been talking about. The interesting thing about this
is that, just for the sake of argument, if the township wasnt eligible for a certain amount of rehabilitation credits against its actual obligation, then the actual amount of senior credits, the rental credits that they would -- the township would be able to take would actually be larger. So, its going to -- its an
interesting relationship that COAH has established with this. The same thing as if the rehabilitation share
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was determined to be 55 instead of 53, again, the
58
township would be eligible to take more senior credits for the prior round. 555 South Avenue, we -- which was
based on a settlement agreement, the proposed settlement agreement as part of this case, we identified as 24 nonage restricted family rental units. The Riverfront Redevelopment Project, as part of the redevelopment -- redeveloper agreement, with 16 affordable nonage restricted rental units. The rental
bonus credits that the township would be able -eligibly receive for those two family rental projects would be 37 renter bonus credits. And that is up to
the maximum, as I mentioned before, that you could only take up to 25 percent of your obligation as bonus credits under COAH regulations. And then the
additional affordable unit approved by the zoning board was one -- another additional credit. So, there had
been a total of 144 potential credits, assuming all the various components of the credits, the affordable housing activities undertaken by the township to date were assigned to the prior round obligation. So, there
would be a remaining prior round obligation of four units. Q. Now, with respect to -- and Im sorry, you
mentioned the settlement of Lehigh Acquisition, which
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. would create 24 units. that. I neglected to ask you about
59
What is your understanding of where those 24
units come from? A. Again, its based on the proposed settlement
agreement, which is based on the set aside that was agreed to, or is agreed, or proposed to be agreed to by the plaintiffs in that case. Q. All right. And your assumption for credits
assumes that that settlement goes through and is ultimately approved by the court. A. Yeah, with the understanding that the court has
the responsibility for the full compliance plan, based on its, you know, based on its responsibility in this case. Q. And assuming that all of that goes through,
would Cranford, under COAHs regulations, be entitled for credit for those 24 units? A. Oh, certainly they would be entitled to credit for
those units. Q. And would those 24 units be eligible for
prior round credit, credit in rounds one and two, in the absence of this litigation? A. In the absence of the litigation? Q. Yeah. If Cranford so desired. If you were under COAH jurisdiction and
Oh, yeah.
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you had a settlement agreement, or an agreement, COAH allows you to basically place these units within the prior round obligation or the growth share, depending upon the nature of the townships or municipalitys program.
60
COAH is very flexible in terms of how youre
able to -- within certain parameters, how youre able to frame out you fair share plan. So, yes, you would
be able -- be eligible to, if they were COAH eligible credits, youd be able to, for this type of project in particular, youd be able to place them in the prior round as well as the growth share, depending upon how you wanted to structure your plan. Q. Now, Im going to direct your attention to Are you
another matter, which relates to set aside.
aware of the following language from Mount Laurel II, quoting at page 279 to 280. What is a --
What is substantial in a particular case as to affordable housing will be for the --, which is my insertion, -- for the trial court to decide. The court
should consider such factors as the size of the plaintiffs proposed project, the percentage of the project to be devoted to lower income housing (20 percent appears to us to be a reasonable minimum), what portion of the defendants
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. municipalitys fair share allocation would be provided by the project, and the extent to which the remaining housing of the project can be categorized as least cost. Are you familiar with that quotation? A. Yes, I am. Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether or
61
not this project should have a 20 percent set aside or the 15 percent set aside as proposed by the Plaintiffs? A. I do have an opinion on that. Q. And what is your opinion?
And my opinion is that a 20 percent set aside
should be applied to this project, not the 15 percent that is being proposed by the Plaintiff in this case. Q. And why is that?
Well, Your Honor, its based on -- and it kind of
goes hand-in-hand in terms of the evaluation of the credits in terms of the order of magnitude of need. From my perspective, what we need, what -- and from a straight planning perspective, again, relating it back to this whole issue of whats sound planning in this area. One of the -- and actually, Mr. Woodward, maybe
if we -- could we see the chart thats the four elements of the -- of sound planning? Q. Sure.
62
From my perspective, whats critical here is that
I think if, under the assumption that the court makes a determination that this site is suitable in some part for affordable housing, whats critical is to strike the appropriate balance and to maximize the provision of affordable housing, to minimize the adverse impacts on the -- that this project would engender to the community, and overall, from the standpoint of a -from a planning perspective. So, that in that respect,
I think what we need to do is, to the extent practical, maximize the number of units, which I think is the number of affordable units, which would be a 20 percent set aside. And to the extent that the court made a
determination that this site was suitable, minimize the number of units that are provided at this site. I
think its important to, and I think this is a good important sort of point to make. And that is that if
this was not part of any Mount Laurel litigation, if we werent -- you know, if we were just doing this in the context of comprehensive planning for the community and for Cranford Township, understanding its role in the region and understanding its role as a transit village, there is no way, no absolute way that this site would ever be considered for multi-fam -- a high density multi-family residential development. Taking the Mount
63
Laurel issue and taking affordability, the questions of the affordable housing litigation off the table, we would not be planning this for multi-family residential development. Wed not be providing this area as a high
density residential project, because it basically turns everything that we know about sustainability in planning on its head. Were not -- were locating this
far away from the town center, far away from the train station. So, in that respect, Im viewing this from
the standpoint of what -- if, in fact, were going to be addressing affordable at this location, affordable housing at this location, what is the proper balance. And from my perspective that if youre going to be doing any consideration of affordable housing at this location, the intent here is to maximize as much as possible the provision of affordable housing and thats consistent with what the statement that you read, Mr. Woodward. That thats the reason why its my opinion
that 20 percent -- a 20 percent set aside is an appropriate set aside. Q. Now, does this project as proposed, at a 15
percent level set aside by the Plaintiffs, create an additional growth share obligation for the town? A. Yes, to the extent that -Q. How is that? Can you explain it?
64
Under the current growth share methodology that we
talked about previously, that you provide one unit for every five total number of units, or basically a 20 percent set aside, four market rate units, one affordable housing unit. So, if you use those ratios
in establishing the obligation, basically 20 percent of these units should be affordable, to basically counteract all the market rate units, or to address all the market rate units that are being provided as part of this project. At a 15 percent set aside, in Theres more
essence, what gets created is a gap.
market rate units than are created in relationship to the corresponding affordable housing units that are provided within this project. Therefore, that gap for
those additional market rate units engender their own growth share obligation and their own growth share potential that needs to be assigned to the township. Q. And do you know how many -- in this case,
what that gap is, how many units? A. Its about approximately 104 market rate units, if
you apply the corresponding ratio. Q. So, if this ratio is applied, the township,
at the end of the day on the construction of this project, does it have to provide for additional affordable housing?
Mr. Slachetka - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Yeah, approximately another 20 or so -- a little
65
more than 20 affordable housing units, based on the 20 percent, or the one to -- one out of five of those 104 units should be affordable units. Q. If the Plaintiffs proposal goes forward,
would those units be provided on this site? A. No, they would not. Q. Where would they be provided?
The township would have to make -- to apply, as
part of their compliance plan, they would have to somehow incorporate and address those units as part of their compliance -- total compliance plan. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor. I have
no further questions of the witness at this time. THE COURT: A good time for a break? All
right, well take about -(Off record. MR. WOODWARD: Back on record.) I had neglected to move three
documents into evidence and I just wanted to get them in before he starts his cross. And those documents are
D-13, which is the letter dated October 25, 2001, to Shirley Bishop; D-14, which is Marlena Schmidt, from the Council on Affordable Housing, dated January 9, 2002, and the executed redevelopment agreement between the Township of Cranford and Riverfront, which is D-74.
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Yes, it is. D-8? MR. WOODWARD: already, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did you move that in? I think that was in evidence MR. EISDORFER: those documents. THE COURT:
66
I have no objection to any of
Okay, no objection D-13, D-14 -D-74. And what about Plaintiffs
D-74.
MR. EISDORFER:
Your Honor, I believe it was
Okay. -- it had already been moved
MR. EISDORFER:
in for the purpose of showing what the experts opinion is. THE COURT: Okay, wait. Hang on one second.
So, we have D-8, yes, that was in evidence on Friday. MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Yes. And then so today its D-
Okay.
13, D-14 and 74, right? MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: Correct, Your Honor.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Eisdorfer.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. MR. EISDORFER: Thank you, Your Honor.
67
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Mr. Slachetka, you described Cranford has a
stable population, isnt that correct? A. Generally. Q. It has grown in jobs, hasnt it?
If you could show me some figures, I -Q. Well, let me show you D-66. You dont know
-- you dont have your own knowledge of this? A. Well, I know that theres some figures, but lets
see what they -Q. Well, why dont you give us the figures in
the report that you prepared? A. Sure. Q. D-66. What page is that?
This is table number seven, its page eleven. Q. Sure. THE COURT: All right, just let me find it. Im sorry, what page was it? D-66. Page eleven? Page eleven. Im looking at the narrative right there.
MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER:
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. So, now have you looked at D-66, --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. Sure. Q. Yes. Q. -- page eleven?
68
And would it be fair to say that between 2004
and 2006 the number of jobs in Cranford grew by 1400? A. May I see the -Q. Oh, youve forgotten it already?
No, I just want to look at the table. Q. Thats not in the table. Its in the
paragraph. A. More specifically it says that the Department of
-- lets see, with regard to the number of jobs that are located within the township, the New Jersey Department of Labor indicates that there was an average of 14,144 jobs located within the municipality in 2006, which is the latest available data. And it said that
this is up 1411 jobs, eleven percent, over the 2004 average of 12,003 -- 12,703 jobs. Q. So, its gone up. So, even in that two year
period it went up 1400 jobs, is that correct? A. Yes. But if you read a little bit further in that
paragraph, youd note that, based on our evaluation and analysis, that we were anticipating only about 400 and so jobs -- a subsequent increase of only about 400 and so jobs.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Im asking not about your projections, Im These are facts, right?
69
asking about facts. A.
Its information from the Department of Labor,
thats correct. Q. Okay. Now, has -- Cranford has zoned to
foster growth in jobs, hasnt it? A. Its zoned a variety -- its done a lot of
different types of zoning, some for nonresidential, some for residential zones. Q. Its created a large nonresidential zone.
And Im going to show you once again D-66 and ask you to look at Attachment DLAE, which is labeled Land Use Map. it? A. Yes, it is. Q. And the commercial and industrial are marked And this map is marked in various colors, isnt
in red and grey? A. Thats correct. Q. And it shows a big area of industrial and
commercial adjacent to the Garden State Parkway? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. And are you familiar with that? Are you
familiar with what that area is? A. Yes, its -MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, hes injecting --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? A. Oh, yes, it is. A. A. hes interrupting the witnesss answer.
70 Perhaps there
should be a little slow down in the question and the answer response. MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I dont think the
witness is feeling like Im intruding on him. THE COURT: But I didnt hear his answer -Okay.
MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: question and --
-- before I heard your next
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay. So, is -- theres an area of red and
grey thats shown on this map? A. Yes, there is. Q. And thats an area thats industrial and
commercial? A. Thats -- yes, it is. This is the existing --
youre referring to the generalized land use, or existing land use map. Q. Yes. Q. Yes. Q. Thats a big industrial office park, isnt And are you familiar what that area is? Thats right.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. Q. Created by Cranford zoning?
71
Yes, it -- yes, it was. Q. Now, lets go back and look at the housing
that -- the affordable housing thats actually been created in Cranford. A. Okay. Q. Lets go through your list. Now, tell me
which units are senior citizen units? A. The Lincoln Apartment units. Q. Now, how many of them are -- are there?
One hundred units. Q. Now, are there any others that have actually
been created in Cranford? A. The -- I mentioned the group homes previously, the
special needs housing that -Q. Okay. So, those are all for people who are
handicapped? A. Yes, theyre -- well, no, Im not sure if theyre Some theyre licensed for the Division of
handicapped.
Developmental Disabilities. Q. Yes. Q. Thats the handicapped. You know what developmental disabilities are?
I dont know if the term handicapped is being
used, but thats okay.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. Q. Okay. So, now, you also said that in 1979 What
72
the town had created some affordable housing. kind of housing was that? A. That was age restrict, or senior housing. Q. Yes. Q.
That was also senior citizen housing?
So, is any of this housing that has been
created since 1979 housing for families? A. The -- youre talking about the actual produc -Q. Actual production of houses.
The actual units themselves. Q. Actual units that have been produced.
Yeah, not that Im aware of, no. Q. Okay. So, we have a large produc -- creation
of jobs, but no housing thats actually available to families, is that correct? A. Well, except that to the extent that the
rehabilitation program actually rehabilitated units that were occupied by low and moderate income households and which COAH had made a determination that they actually were, so. Q. But those were households that were already
living there, right? A. need. That was addressing the townships indigenous
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think? MR. EISDORFER: That would be fine, but he Q. Thats right. So, those were hou -- thats
73
indigenous need, those were households that are already living there. So, when we talk about new stuff, were Now,
only talking about housing for senior citizens. you talk about the net density.
Is net density a term
thats defined in the Municipal Land Use Law? A. No, its not. Q. Is it defined in -- is it a defined term in
the regulations of the Council on Affordable Housing? A. No, but as I mentioned that the -Q. Is it a defined term in the regulations of
the Council on Affordable Housing? MR. WOODWARD: interrupting the witness. THE COURT: It would be helpful for me to get Objection, Your Honor,
the answer to your question, -MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Okay.
-- Mr. Eisdorfer, dont you
wants to answer a different question, not the one Ive asked. THE COURT: Well, but until we hear his
answer we dont know that. MR. EISDORFER: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 document. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. A. A. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Go ahead.
74
To the extent that its lis -- the term net
density is listed in the definition section, no, its not listed in the definition. It is a concept, as I
mentioned, as part of the vacant land adjustment process, Your Honor. Q. Now, when the Council on Affordable Housing
defines what are the criteria for how many housing units should go on an affordable housing site, in a section on inclusionary zoning, it defines it in terms of gross density, doesnt it? A. If youre going to show me the section, I -Q. Well, do you know?
Im not sure of the specific language youre
referring to, because theres a lot of regulations in the COAH regulations. Q. Okay. Well, lets mark this, since you dont
seem to know it. MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: I believe its P-66. Oh, P-66. Its a two page
So, let me ask you to look at the document we
marked as P-66 for identification and look specifically
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. exhibits. THE COURT: Sorry about that. Oh, I thought yours were white. book. A. at the middle of the page 5:97-4.4. A. Four? Q. 6.4, rather.
75
Yeah, 6.4. THE COURT: What page? Okay. So, this is not in the
MR. EISDORFER:
And Im going to give the Court -THE COURT: Oh, I thought it was 66. Thats Defendants exhibits.
MR. EISDORFER: Were back on Plain -THE COURT:
Oh, this is different? Were back on Plaintiffs
MR. EISDORFER:
Its your P-6 -P-66.
P-66 is not in your book -Thats correct.
-- binders at all? Thats correct. Thank you.
MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: THE WITNESS:
Okay.
5:97-6.4.
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay. Are you familiar with this?
Yes, generally familiar.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. A. Q. Okay. This is the regulation that governs
76
inclusionary zoning, isnt it? A. Yes, under COAHs third round regulations. That
is correct. Q. Uh-huh. So, let me look -- ask you to look
at the next page and ask you to look at paragraph three. Ill let you loo -- okay. No, actually, look Can you look at
down at the bottom of the first page. it? A. When you say first page, page 52? Q. Okay. Q. Sure. Q. Okay. Q. -- I. Q. Little i. Look at B-2 1. Page 52.
Why dont you read that, actually? When you say B-2 -B-2 --
Yeah, little i.
Inclusionary zoning and planning
area one shall permit residential development at a presumptive minimum gross density of eight units per acre and a presumptive maximum affordable housing set aside of 25 percent of the total number of units in the development.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Okay. So, now can you answer the question?
77
Does the Council on Affordable Housing define the number of units to go on inclusionary zoning sites in terms of gross density? A. Yes, in this context, certainly. Q. Now, the -- you defined net density and let
me make sure Im getting it right. A. Sure. Q. You define net density as you take the gross
density and you subtract out various kinds of environmentally constrained lands. A. That is correct. Q. Okay. So, and on this site you did, you gave
us various numbers, but basically you said Im going to divide the total number of housing units, of apartments, by the remainder of the non-environmentally sensitive land, as youve defined it. A. Is that correct?
That was one of the calculations I provided. Q. Isnt that the def -- the -- your definition
of what net density is? A. Yes. My initial calculation was that I took out
the various environmental constraints, the floodplains and the flood hazard areas, yes. Q. Okay. So, now --
And wetland areas.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. Okay. And so you get a figure for net
78
density thats very much higher than your figure for gross density doing it that way. A. Yes, it is. Q. And so, is this defined in the land use
ordinances of Cranford Township, that definition of net density? A. I dont believe so, but I would -- Id have to
double check to see. Q. Yeah. Q. So, now, lets make an assumption. Lets Okay. So, you dont think so?
make an assumption.
These developers happen to like to Thats actually something that
build midrise housing. theyre good at.
Lets assume that they make a
voluntary decision, a design decision, a marketing decision to build -- to design midrise housing just like this -A. Right. Q. -- on a site that is exactly the same size as
this, but has no environmental constraints. A. Sure, okay. Q. What would the net density be?
Well, if theres no environmental constraints, the
net density would be -- would correspond to the gross
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. density. Q. So, if there were no environmental
79
constraints, the net density and gross density would be exactly the same. A. Thats correct. Q. So, the net density doesnt depend upon the It depends upon the
characteristics of the units.
characteristics of the part of the site theyre not using, is that right? A. It de -- its dependent on the characteristics of
the site, yes. Q. Now, incidentally, from the point of view of
sound land use planning as you have defined it, doesnt -- dont high -- doesnt concentrated development, high net densities, have virtues? conserve open space? A. It certainly conserves open space, yes. Q. Okay. And it encourages energy efficiency? For example, doesnt it
Well, depending, but it -Q. Because it means you have fewer -MR. WOODWARD: Objection, Your Honor. The
witness is in the middle of his answer. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay, go ahead. I mean it depends on the nature of
It depends.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. the building design and whether or not youre, quote, conserving energy or not. Q. It has fewer outside walls for residents.
80
Well, it depends.
I mean in this instance if you
take a look at your building, there is -- there are -theres a number of different articulations in the building that adds up to a greater surface area than if it was just a square building. Q. Now, from your planning perspective, you end
up with various figures for net density, ranging from 50 something to 80 something, isnt that right? A. The first calculation, as I indicated, was just
looking at it straight, taking out the environmental constraints, which included the flood hazard areas in its entirety. The second assumed that the ap -- that
the Plaintiff could construct a portion of the site within the flood hazard area and, therefore, thats what -- thats why there was a different net density calculation. Q. You assumed various figures, ranging from the
50s to the 80s, is that right? A. There was actually not various. There was
actually two specific.
There was one that was 80 and
there was -- approximately 82, and then there was another one that was approximately 54.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, are -- do you have an opinion as to
81
whether those densities, housing built at those densities, are intrinsically unsound planning? A. No. The context of -- the reason why I suggested
it was unsound planning was for a variety of different factors. I mean one was the total number of auto-
dependent units that were being introduced in an area that was not appropriate for it and a design and an approach that was not consistent with the concepts of sustainability as defined in various state statutes and plans and regulations, and a development that was going to be developed far away from the rail transit center and the transit village of the community. So, it was
really a much more comprehensive and nuanced analysis. Q. Well, lets go back and lets answer the Is -- from your perspective,
question Ive asked you.
is -- are those net densities intrinsically unsound planning? A. No. Again, the context in which we presented the
issue of net density was the nature of how somebody living in the community would relate to the development itself. Q. Lets try once again. Are they intrinsically
unsound planning? A. Again, its contextual. It depends on the
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. circumstance and the situation. Q. Well, are they never sound planning?
82
Its a question of -- again, its a much broader-Q. Well, no, answer the question. Is it -- are
buildings of this density never sound planning? A. If this development was located in a mixed use
environment, in an area that -- where there was existing high density development, where there was a train station, where there was other transit, where there are basic services, clearly, this would not be -this would -- that would be significantly more of a sound plan than whats being presented here. Q. So, its not the building itself thats Its the location that you dont
unsound planning. like? A.
Its a variety of factors I think Ive outlined to
the Court. Q. Okay. Its not the building you dont like.
Its the location, right? A. Well, I did say that the building had a
significant mass and size that was pretty significant for the area. Q. Now, you talked about -- okay. So, you And you
talked about sustainability, sustainability. talked about it in your testimony today.
I ask you to
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. look at the last report that you prepared. A. Sure. Q. D-161. Show me where you talk about
83
sustainability in that report. A. Actually, this was not the report that addressed It was, I believe the issue was raised
sustainability.
in my first report with regar -- in October of 2009. Q. Do you use that vocabulary, sustainability?
Im not sure if I used the term sustainability,
but I think if you read through that, youll see that the concepts, in terms of the community connectivity and locational determinants, were about the same. Q. So, the first time youve actually used
sustainability as a criteria, actually is in your testimony here, isnt that right? A. Id have to look back at all my reports, but I
believe that the first time I used the term sustainability was in testimony. But the con -- the
basic concepts were presented right from the very beginning. Q. Okay. Now, youre familiar with the criteria
of the Council on Affordable Housing for approving affordable housing sites, arent you? A. Yes. Q. And --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. (Off record. Back on record.) THE COURT: Mr. Eisdorfer, I wonder if this
84
would be a good time to break for lunch. MR. EISDORFER: the court likes. THE COURT: Okay. So, well see you at 1:30. Whatever you like, whatever
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Mr. Slachetka, you are familiar with the
regulations for the Council on Affordable Housing concerning site suitability for inclusionary projects? A. Generally familiar with them, yes. Q. Let me show you the document that weve
marked as P-67 and ask you if those are the regulations. And Ill specifically point -- direct you
to 5:97-3.3 -- 3.13. A. Yes, these appear to be the regulations
referencing site suitability criteria and consistency with the state development redevelopment plan. Q. And are you aware that the Council on
Affordable Housing has a checklist that municipalities have to submit to document site suitability? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Well, let me show you this document that
weve marked as P-68.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. Sure. Q. And ask you if that is the checklist? I know
85
I believe this is the latest checklist.
theyve changed things from time-to-time, but I think this is the latest one. Q. Now, do you know when these regulations were
adopted, the regulations weve marked as P-67? A. The 5:97? Q. Yes.
The -- my understanding is that the regulations
through the latest iteration of amendments were adopted in September of 2008 and then published and registered in 2000 -- in October of 2008, I believe. Q. Okay. So, these are late fall 2008
regulations? A. That is correct. Q. And they are the current regulations.
That is true. Q. Now, those regulations extend over two pages
and Im going to ask you just to take a look at them, just to re-familiarize yourself with them. A. Sure, not a problem. Q. Okay. I read through them.
These regulations dont speak of
sustainability as a criteria, do they? A. No, theres no reference specifically to
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. sustainability. Q. Now, let me show you the list of criteria
86
that Dr. Kinsey testified to. 33 in evidence.
This is Exhibit F of P-
And I ask you if these -- if the COAH
standards correspond to these standards? A. When you say correspond, in what respect? Q. Are they substantively the same?
There are some components in Dr. Kinseys list
that correspond to the language in the COAH criteria, yes. Q. Are there any of the COAH criteria that are
not on this list? A. No, I believe they correspond, you know, pretty
closely to COAHs list. Q. Okay. So, these criteria correspond to the
2008 COAH standards, is that correct? A. Generally. Q. Now, the -- you spoke -- you -- let me show
you the document that Mr. Woodward put up. MR. EISDORFER: to want to mark this. it down -THE COURT: Just for the record, I guess this It was from Mr. Your Honor, I think Im going
I dont know if you want to pull
is Mr. Woodwards handwriting. Slachetkas testimony.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. MR. EISDORFER: Slachetkas testimony. THE COURT: Right. Okay, and its en-
87
Mr. Woodwards summary of Mr.
captioned Sound Planning. MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Right.
And there are four points. Four criteria. Now, let me
MR. EISDORFER:
-- Im going to ask him questions and then Im going to pull it down and mark it. THE COURT: youre referring to. MR. EISDORFER: Yes. I just wanted to identify what
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Now, is this a fair summary of your criteria?
In -- with reference to sound planning? Q. Yes.
As pursuant to the various court cases? Q. Well, as per your understanding.
Yes, it is. Q. So, --
I mean its a very brief paraphrasing of the -- of
my testimony, but if -- in terms of looking at it as headings, I guess the -- I guess you could categorize it as accurate headings of the various components of my testimony.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Now, you, in your testimony about
88
sustainability, you focused on automobile dependence, isnt that right? A. Thats one part of sustainability, but a critical
part of sustainability I focused in on. Q. Now, looking at D-67, is automobile
dependence one of the criteria in the COAH standards? A. No. In fact, actually what I was referring to is
sound planning in the construct of various court cases. Theres no discussion of sound planning in the site suitability criteria. However, there are references to So, I was
sound planning in the various court cases.
referring in my testimony in -- within that context. Q. Now, the standards that are set forth in P-67
and P-68, those are the standards that COAH auspices, arent they? A. Well, in terms of looking at specific site
suitability criteria and their focus in -- on site suitability focuses on a combination of factors that also reflected in Mr. Kinseys presentation of his 14 criteria; infrastructure issues, looking at specifics with regards to the availability of adequate infrastructure; making sure that the development does not impede on any environmental factors that have been identified in various state regulatory frameworks. So,
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. in that respect its looking on a very specific, very focused area with regards to site suitability. Q. Now, these -- but these are the standards
89
that COAH uses when they approve housing plans? A. Yes, when theyre looking at sites, various sites.
Its these and, in part, other factors, other criteria. Q. And COAH has granted substantive
certification based on these standards to what, 60 housing plans, under the 2008 regulations? A. Oh. In various contexts, yes, theyve used site
suitability standards for that. Q. Uh-huh. And theres another 300 odd
petitions pending before COAH? A. I dont know the exact number, but theres -Q. Theres that order of magnitude?
Theres a lot of petitions pending, yeah. Q. And they, too, will be evaluated based on the
standards that are in P-67 and P-68, is -A. Well, I dont know all 300 plans that are being
submitted to the -- to COAH, but I would imagine that in some parts that they may be using this standard. Q. Now, automobile dependence -- whats a good Lets look at -- well, lets start Lets refer to it, because its here.
one to look at? with this one.
Lets look at -- Im going to show you the exhibit that
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. So, heres the one that has the original -exhibit? MR. EISDORFER: Well, this is useful. That A. was marked as D-176. The picture just doesnt show
90
what I want it to show, what I wanted to look at.
So,
lets look at -- Im once again going to show you D-66, which is the -- your housing plan, D-66. A. Yes. Q. Which is the housing plan that you prepared?
Yeah, this doesnt have the exhibit marked on it.
It just has handwritten D-66. Q. size maps. Thats correct, because this one has the full And Im going to ask you to look at the
generalized -MR. WOODWARD: Do you want the original
doesnt have the full size maps and I -MR. WOODWARD: Well, but you may want to You can show him
refer to the original at some point. the -MR. EISDORFER: Sure.
I have no problem with
the stamp on it. A. Thank you. Q. And Im going to show you the map that Mr.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Woodward produced in my -- in response to my request for the full size maps. use map, in D-66. A. Yeah, the existing land use map. Q. Yeah. Existing land use map? Its entitled Generalized Land Use Map, Thats the generalized land
91
but basically thats -- it corresponds to existing land use. THE COURT: Can I just -Yeah. Is
-- see which one that is?
that the DLAE in this exhibit? MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Yes.
Land use map DLAE. Yes. Okay, thank you.
Gotcha.
MR. EISDORFER:
Im going to leave this up
here, because you may find it helpful to have the big one. THE COURT: Sure. Thank you. Thanks.
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Now, do you see on this map, holding it
lengthwise, with the block on the lower right-hand side as youre holding it. A. Okay.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. Q. In the upper right-hand corner there is Do you see that?
92
Birchwood Avenue. A. Yes, I do. Q.
All the way in the upper right-hand corner.
That is correct. MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Okay? Thank you.
Yeah, I see it.
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay. So, now, so the existing use on this
site is two office buildings, with a great big parking lot, isnt that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Is that an automobile dependent use?
Yes, to an extent it is. Q. People are going to have to drive to get to
that office building. A. Oh, certainly, yes. Q. And thats why it has a big parking lot.
I would assume that that parking is provided to
meet the needs of the office use, yeah. Q. planning? A. Well, I think the key here is that its an And from your point of view, is that sound
existing land use. Q. Suppose it was an existing -- suppose it
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wasnt an existing land use. site it there. A.
93
Suppose you were going to
Well, I think thats -- its a very good question, I think that we would have to evaluate
Mr. Eisdorfer.
it in terms of its -- if we were looking at this from a straight zoning perspective and the area was not commercially zoned and there were no commercial uses, I think we would need to evaluate whether or not we would -- that would be a proper location for office uses. notice that theres a lot of the areas that are open space elements or public uses. If you look at the I
development form that surrounds the area, its a very low density residential development form, most of it existing for a number of decades. And its fairly far If we were
away from the core of the community.
looking at it as a straight zoning perspective, I would -- may have some questions as to the intensity of development that we would want to have located there. Q. What about the issue of auto dependence? Is
it auto dependent? A. Well, thats part of the problem. I mean I think
that, you know, the idea of, at least the way they were planning into -- in the first part of the 21st century, is looking at communities and seeing how we can maximize the sustainability of the land use patterns
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. within communities. Q. I mean, but --
94
So, if were dealing with a blank canvas, we would
probably be dealing with a different land use distribution that we would see as -- see typically. But -- however, if you take a look at Cranfords land use pattern that developed over -- historically over time, the focus, as you can see, is primarily most of the intensity of development are -- is around the downtown and the railroad station. So, to a certain
extent, Cranford has developed a framework that at least provides the opportunity to plan soundly. If we
were looking at the environs or the periphery of the township, we might have made -- we might be making different decisions than we have made in the past, ten years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, when some of these land uses took place. I think the whole You
construct of planning has changed significantly. know, as I mentioned, recognizing the state plan, recognized in a variety of different statutory enactments, and we could do something very, very different here than exists now. Q.
But we are faced in this case between the
choice of the existing office building and residential uses, is that right?
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. A.
95
Well, its right only to the extent that were -And so --
we have -- were in the Mount Laurel case. Q. Yeah. Go ahead, please.
And to that extent, were looking at this
and as I mentioned to the Your Honor before, that basically, you know, if we were looking at this as a straight land use planning exercise, theres no way, as a professional planner, that I would be recommending a high density multi-family residential development at this location. If we were looking at this as
completely vacant undeveloped land, I would say -- I would discuss to the community the level of intensity and development that we would want to locate here and whether we want to push towards an auto dependency. Q. Well, is this a matter of a community -- of
community choice? A. No, no, its not actually a matter of community In fact, plan --
choice, Mr. Eisdorfer. Q.
Well, are there --
Well, Mr. -Q. Are there state standards --
Mr. -Q. -- for what is auto dependent?
Yes, actually there are. MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, I object. The
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 finish. BY THE WITNESS: A. Yeah. And in fact, there are various standards witness was in the middle of his answer. THE COURT: Yeah, let him answer. Let him
96
and a lot of the -- a lot of very factual information about the relationship of land uses, auto dependency, vehicle miles traveled. Both the DEP and DOT, state
agencies, have issued a significant amount of data and reports making that connection over the course of the last decade or so. So, yes, there is -- theres a
great body of work and its recognized very thoroughly within the planning community as being a critical tenant of sound planning moving forward in the remainder of the 21st century. Q. Well, let me go back. Mr. Woodward
distracted.
I asked you two different questions. You said it would
Lets separate out the questions.
depend upon the communitys desire -A. No, I didnt actually say -- thats
mischaracterizing what I said. Q. Well, you said it would depend upon to what
extent the community desires that it be a -A. No. Actually, you misinterpreted what I was I said if, in --
saying.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yes. Well, explain it to us.
97
In fact, if a community -- if we were doing
this as a straight land use planning exercise, out of the context of a Mount Laurel case, and we were dealing with vacant developable land that there was no existing land use pattern, part of my responsibilities as a professional planner would be to make recommendations to the community as to what would be the appropriate -the land uses. I mean, certainly, you can locate a
land use that can -- that you can provide infrastructure to and can avoid all the environmental constraints. You can -- and you can buffer it so you You basically can create these
dont even see it.
pods, if you want to, all the way out in various parts of the community. But that, in my mind, is not sound
planning and its not consistent with the concept of sustainable planning and sustainable development. So,
as a planner, my recommendation to the community would be, if we were dealing with a blank canvas here, is to evaluate what the appropriate land uses would be, given the fact that the township is a transit village and we have a role and responsibility, we being the Cranford Township, a role and responsibility both from the standpoint of encouraging sustainable development and also a role and responsibility in encouraging transit
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. oriented development, because we have in Cranford
98
Township one of the few regional train stations located in the region. So, it goes back to the heart and if
you go back to the exhibit, if you can -- if you see those four items I think you referred to, Mr. Eisdorfer, if the Judge can see that again. Q. Im sorry. What do you want me to do?
The four items of sustainability. Q. Sure.
Where were balancing goals and objectives -- I
mean, first of which, you know, sustainability is an important and critical tenant of sound planning, as we recognize it, we being the planning community, recognize it in the year 2010. We also recognize the
need to balance goals and objectives, and thats the whole point here. The idea here is that, you know,
Cranford has, as I mentioned, very compelling and competing role -- responsibilities and goals and objectives. Providing affordable housing, but also
serving the community -- the regional community in a broader perspective by providing a sustainable development form and encouraging a development form that, in turn, encourages transit oriented development and that type of development. The reason why were
doing that is because the state, both the DOT and the
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. site.
99
DEP, recognize that as a critical and important tenant of planning. As I said before, this high density
multi-family development turns that on its head and its completely violative of all those concepts. Q. Okay. So, lets consider whats next to this
So, next to this site we have a healthcare
facility, is that correct? A. Theres an assisted living facility. Q. it, too. A. Yes, it does. Q. Is that automobile dependent development? Okay. And that has a big parking lot next to
To a certain extent, yes. Q. All the employees drive there.
I dont -- I cant say that specifically, but I
would imagine that a good portion of the employees drive there. Q. nearby. A. Thats correct. I dont know if anybody carpools Youve told us that theres no public transit
or not, but -Q. Okay. There, across the street, theres the And that has a big parking lot,
Verizon building. doesnt it? A.
Thats -- that is correct.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. D-66. A. Q. Is that automobile dependent development?
100
Yes, it is. Q. Now, let me ask you to look, once again, at Now,
And again, look at the northeast corner.
my understanding of this is that the yellow is residential developments? A. The light yellow is, yes, single family
residential. Q. Okay. And you see Wadsworth Avenue?
Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And its single family homes along
Wadsworth Avenue? A. Yes. Q. Yes, they are. Is that automobile dependent development? And as I said, that those
Well, yes.
developments, those residential developments that exist in those areas, are developments that occurred, its probably, you know, several decades. If you take a
look at the residential development form along Wadsworth Avenue, most of it is split and Cape Cod types of development. Yeah, its low density
residential development, but auto dependent. Q. Now, looking on this map to the east, to the
right of Birchwood Avenue, we have a block of yellow, which has Cherry Wood Avenue and Roselle Avenue. Do
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. you see those? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And are those single family
101
residential developments? A. Yes, it is. Q. Again, --
And is that automobile dependent development?
Well, again, you know, as youre saying, yes, of And in fact, thats one of the inherent
course it was.
problems of a more suburbanized residential development pattern. I mean youre talking about a single family
detached -- again, albeit its a low density residential development. I dont know, Your Honor, how But it --
many residential units are located in there.
for the most part, those -- the people who live in those houses are going to, for the most part, be using the automobile for their daily needs. Q. What Id like you to do is take my pen here
-- let me see if Ive got something prettier than a pen. A. Prettier than a pen? Q. Yes, I do. I have a green magic marker. So,
I want you to take this green magic marker and -- first of all, point out to us on the map where the town center is. A. Just point it out with your finger.
I cant use the pen?
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. different. A. Okay. Generally, the town cen -- if were No.
102
I want you to use the pen for something
defining it as a town center, it would be primarily around the downtown and the train station. This is
also the business improvement district area as well. Q. So, I want you to draw a half mile radius
around that town center. A. Yeah. Q. Well, I would need a scale for -Can I provide you one? Oh, youve got one
there, okay. A. Yeah, I have a scale. Unfortunately, I brought my So, its -- I
architect scale, not my engineer scale.
only can use the -- I guess Ill have to use it as a reference point. MS. MC KENZIE: THE WITNESS: appreciate that. THE COURT: Thank you. And, Your Honor, I dont know I have one. Thank you, Ms. McKenzie. I
THE WITNESS: if it helps.
It may be clearer, because I have a
radius and actual specific reference on the exhibit that we had marked in during my direct testimony. Im -- Im trying to match the scales here and -because Im not sure. What
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. because -A. No, I -Q. Okay. -- I want a picture of the whole town. Thats fair enough. Lets see here. Well, I want you to do it on this map,
103
Let
me find a good reference that corresponds to this. Lets see, its about -- if I recollect its 14.9. Actually, do you have a calculator? Q. Okay. Im sorry, I dont. Im trying to get one/fourth of 5200, just I just want to --
so I -- it can correspond exactly. Q. One/fourth of what? Its a --
Approximately 5200 linear feet. Q. 1300 -MR. WOODWARD: THE WITNESS: 1320. About 13 -No, 1300.
MR. EISDORFER: cards to a -THE WITNESS: MR. WOODWARD: its more than -MR. EISDORFER: THE WITNESS:
Its 52 cards, 13
Yeah, maybe the one inch -A mile is 5,280 feet. So,
Yeah, but he asked -Do you want -- yeah. Its kind
of an odd scale on this, because of the way that -- the
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. A. -A. Sure. Q. -- around the town center. size of the map. around? CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q.
104
What do you -- what am I drawing it
I want you to draw a half mile radius around
And actually Ill use, if its okay, Mr.
Eisdorfer, Ill use the train station, generally, is a -Q. Okay. Q. What Im trying to understand is where the Whatever seems appropriate to you.
limits of auto dependence lie. A. Uh-huh. Lets see, my kingdom for a protractor.
If I dont do this correctly, Im going to try to do this and my apologies here if its not. -- no, Im sorry, a quarter. Okay, thats
Im sorry, Mr. Eisdorfer,
you wanted a half mile or a quarter mile? Q. Half mile. My apologies. I drew the quarter
Oh, half mile.
mile, so. Q. Well, draw a bigger one. And you had to make me do it, right? I think I got it. It
I will.
Okay, my apologies to the court.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didnt turn out as bad as I thought it might. Q. Okay. Now, lets mark this so we can talk Lets mark this as P-69.
105
about it extensively.
Now, I
want to show you the document weve marked as P-69 and explain to us what youve done. A. As you requested, I drew the half mile radius and,
unfortunately, I also drew the quarter mile radius. So, we have a quarter mile radius around the approximate location of the train station in Cranford and then a half mile radius around the train station in Cranford. Q. Now, you previously testified that a half
mile is as far as one can reasonably expect people to walk? A. Yeah, and thats -- that half mile walking
distance is recognized in a variety of different, you know, planning references. references that I used. I mentioned the LEED
Its also the limit thats
established pursuant to the State NJ Transit Village Program as well. Typically the transit village is
about a half a mile, or defined as half a mile around the train station. Q. So, everything outside this half mile radius
is automobile dependent? A. Not necessarily. There could be some locations
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that are proximate to bus stations. However, the
106
standard that I was using in evaluating this is -- was the LEED standard, which is both the LEED in the -LEED the general standards, as well as in the LEED in neighborhood development standards, which talks about a half mile from the -- from a residential development or any kind of development, mixed use, residential or otherwise, and how many basic services and how many bus stations and train stations are located within a half mile. So, in terms of walk-ability, in terms of
sustainability, it has to do -- theres a -- there are a variety of different factors that are associated with that. So, its not just saying its a half mile radius
and its walk-able, therefore, its sustainable. Q. Well, so, lets look up here. Is this stuff
all -- okay, Im looking at all the residential development between your circle and Wadsworth Avenue. Is all that automobile dependent development? A. In -- actually, in generality, most of that
development form will be primarily automobile development. I mean it -- most of our -- and actually
its -- and Mr. Kinseys own report recognizes the suburban development pattern has been primarily an auto dependent pattern for the most part. Cranfords a
little different because it does have a town center and
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. a train station. Q.
107
So, were working our way around the circle.
Is the yellow development to the northeast, is that automobile dependent development? A. Well, again, you know, these are all development
forms that were put in place, you know, decades ago and with the focus primarily in the more suburban auto dependent pattern. The point being that that Its not intro -- were not
development form exists.
introducing or have not introduced new single family residential development forms in those areas or higher density residential development. So, its recognizing
an existing development pattern, -Q. Well, lets --
-- not introducing something new. Q. Okay. So, lets answer the question. Is
this automobile dependent development? A. I thought I said that it was generally automobile
dependent, yes. Q. And how about down to the southwest, is that
automobile dependent development? A. Well, again, it depends on the factors that I
mentioned before, in terms of what is it -- are there bus lines proximate to it; are there basic services that are proximate to the -- to that development. You
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could have smaller neighborhood centers that have a
108
variety of different basic uses and maybe a bus station or two. Actually, the standard under the LEED standard
is having two bus stops within a half mile distance. So, there could very well be areas outside of those two concentric circles that you talked about in Cranford Township that might have a neighborhood area. For
example, if were looking at, I think it was at Centennial Avenue. Centennial Avenue has a small Its located a little bit half --
neighborhood center.
a little bit outside of the half mile, that area over there. Theres some shops and services there and I
dont know if a bus line runs down Centennial or not, but potentially, you know, you could have little areas, little cores located within Cranford Township that might have -- or any municipality, that might be less auto dependent than others, or that might, in fact, meet the LEED standard of having the ten basic services, the two bus lines and the one train station within a half a mile. Q. Now, does -- youre the consulting planner
for Cranford Township? A. Yes, I am. Q. Does Cranford Township have an ordinance that
prohibits automobile resident -- automobile dependent
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 residential developments? A. Oh, no. Q. No. Youve just done a master plan, isnt
109
that correct? A. Yes, I have. Q. Does your master plan recommend that the
municipality adopt an ordinance that prohibits automobile res -- dependent residential developments? A. Actually, the master plan focuses a significant
amount on the need for sustainability in development. In fact, actually, the township received a grant from the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions to prepare a conservation plan element which is part of the adopted master plan. And that element talks a good
deal about sustainability as a concept and a design focus within the -- within Cranford. Obviously,
Cranford is a generally built community, as we talked about, almost fully developed. And therefore, the
existing land use pattern, for the most part, is fixed. So, we try to work in sustainability within the confines of a comprehensive approach which focuses on land use decisions such as redevelopment, trying to locate new residential development proximate to the downtown, closer to the train station. So, in a sense
that youre recommending we say something about auto
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
110
dependent or not auto dependent, the whole framework of the master plan is a comprehensive plan that addresses land use in a comprehensive way, recognizing that Cranford is almost a fully developed community. And in
those areas where we can make a difference, in terms of the decisions that we make, whether its not to encourage redevelopment of the downtown or prevent development in those limited areas that are developable within the community, thats where Cranford can make the difference. Thats the issue here. Its looking
at those areas where Cranford can make the difference and to the extent that we make any land use decision that affects any area that has any kind of level of develop -- development -- develop-ability, I should say, thats critical and thats crucial. Its working
-- it may be working around the margins, but its, at the same time, an important way in which Cranford can address this concept and further the concept of sustainability. And thats what the master plan does.
It may not say were going to prevent auto dependent usage, but it does look at the community in a comprehensive way, does -- it addresses it in a sound planning perspective. You know, we -- how were
balancing the goals and objectives here to -- and what is -- what goals and objectives are we advancing,
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. plan? A. In the way -Q. No, no, answer the question.
111
including the goals and objectives of sustainability. Q. Lets go back to my question. In your master
plan did you recommend that the town adopt an ordinance that prohibits automobile dependent residential development? A. And I thought I answered the question. But no, it
does not specifically say that in the zoning ordinance. Q. Well, do you recommend it in your master
Does the master
plan recommend that the township adopt an ordinance that precludes -- that prohibits automobile dependent residential development? A. What the master plan does, and as you know, the
master plan provides -Q. answer. A. This is a question that takes a yes or no Does it or doesnt it?
If youre asking for a specific ordinance, does it
recommend an ordinance? Q. Yes, does it recommend an ordinance?
No, it does not recommend a specific ordinance. Q. Do you recommend that existing automobile
dependent residential development be deemed a nonconforming use, so we ultimately do away with it?
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. No, but thats not what a master plan does. Q. Thats not what your master plan does?
112
Thats not what a master plan does. Q. Now, you have -- you told us that the
standard you used for how far people can tra -- people can walk is a half a mile. Are you aware of any legal
standards that specify how far people who dont have cars can walk? A. I dont think I understand the question. Q. Well, are you aware of any legal standard
that specifies, tells us how far we can expect people who dont have cars to walk? A. Again, Im not sure I understand the question. Q. Well, lets try something else. What Id
like you to do is take the document that you have in front of you, which is -- whats the number of -A. This one? Q. number? MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: the various circles. MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: The (indiscernible) one? Yes. P-69. Which map? The map on which hes drawn Yeah, of the map with the little radius. The
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 him. MR. WOODWARD: that in just a second. Oh, all right. D-175. Hold it. MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: P-69. No, no. Wait, wait, wait.
113
Are you referring to the one that I showed
him, or the one you showed him? MR. EISDORFER: No, the one that you showed
Well get you
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay. What Id like you to do is you drew
concentric circles -A. Do you want me to refer to the marking? Q. No, Im -- well, you can look at the marking,
but Im going to want you to mark this one up. A. Okay, sure. Q. So, you drew concentric circles around 215-
235 Birchwood Avenue? A. That is correct. Q. What Id like you to do is take your little
rule and my green pen and draw a two mile radius. A. Two mile radius? Q. Yes, a two mile radius. THE COURT: binders, right? MR. WOODWARD: No, its one we added. We D-175 thats not in any of the
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. To confirm Ill show you a document weve Is that the map youve just marked? A. gave to you Friday, I believe, Your Honor. one thats in evidence. BY THE WITNESS: A. A two mile radius would take a good portion of
114 Thats the
that circle off the map. Q. Well, draw whatever you can on the map. Id need, actually -- again, I might I need four times 2.6. Four times what? Four times 2.6. 104. 104. 2.6? Four times 2.6 is 104?
All right.
need the calculator.
MR. WOODWARD: THE WITNESS:
MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: THE WITNESS:
MR. WOODWARD: 2.6 is 10.4. THE WITNESS: six, sorry. here. Oh, 10.4. The 2.4 -- I mean
The two mile radius is this green area
For the most part that two mile radius is off
that -- off the graphic. MR. EISDORFER: Okay, lets mark this as P-
marked as P-70. A. Yes, it is. Q.
With a line showing a two mile radius around
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you -THE COURT: Is that P-70? -A. Thats correct. Q.
115
Now, in a world without cars peoples ideas
of how far they could walk would be different than in a world with cars. A. Am I right?
I would imagine so, yes. Q. Now, we have a population in New Jersey of
people who dont have cars, dont we? A. Yes, I would imagine theres some people who dont
have cars. Q. How about children? Children dont have
cars, do they? A. No, they dont. Q. Okay. Let me ask you to read NJSA 18A:39-1,
which governs provision of transportation -THE COURT: statute again? MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Yes. NJSA 30 -- 18A:39-1. What -- can you just give me the
18A:30 -39-1. And Ill represent to
MR. EISDORFER:
MR. EISDORFER: but I will. THE COURT:
This I havent marked it yet,
Oh, didnt you just mark
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. copies? MR. EISDORFER: I do. A. something as P-70? MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: I marked his map as P-70.
116
Oh, okay.
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Okay. Why dont we ask you to read the first
paragraph of that statute? A. Under -- the first paragraph directly under NJSA
18A:39-1? Q. Okay. MR. WOODWARD: Excuse me. Do you have extra Thats right.
CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. Now, would you read that out loud, please? Its whenever in any district
Oh, yeah, sure.
there are elementary school pupils who live more than two miles from their public school of attendance, or secondary school pupils who live more than two and a half miles from their public school of attendance, the district shall provide transportation to and from school for these pupils. Q. So, this map shows how far we can expect high
school students who dont have cars to walk, isnt that correct?
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is? MR. EISDORFER: And so my question is does MR. WOODWARD: Objection, Your Honor.
117 That
is not the conclusion to draw from this. THE COURT: Well, let me --
Go ahead.
Withdraw the objection.
I mean you can -I dont think its relevant.
Im going to allow you to Because when you refer to
rephrase your question.
this, I dont even know what youre referring to anyway. Youre talking about the statute, or are you
talking about the map that he drew the radius on, or -MR. EISDORFER: Well, what the statute says
is school districts arent required to provide transportation -THE COURT: I got that. -- for students --
Right. -- for secondary school
MR. EISDORFER:
students who live within -- whose walk is no more than two miles. THE COURT: I understand. So, your question
this map show how far secondary school students -THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER: Q. -- could be required to walk from 235-215
118
Birchwood Avenue? A. I am -- if I understand the statute to --
correctly, this is the statute that regulates the -where mandatory bussing is required. Q. Uh-huh.
I wouldnt draw that conclusion from that I dont believe we can draw that conclusion
reference. at all. Q.
Okay.
Now, your first criterion of sound
planning is no adverse impact, is that correct? A. Yeah, generally as a reference. Again, these are
titles, or these can be considered subtitles to the -and a general paraphrasing of what I said. Q. Well, when one builds a single family house
one adds impervious cover, one puts a certain amount of heat in the atmosphere. A. Arent those adverse impacts?
Well, any development has impacts, I mean I mean you build a You
regardless of what they might be.
single family home, right, you put coverage.
probably, if its a virgin area in terms of development form, you may be knocking down some trees. development has impacts. Any
That doesnt necessarily mean
those impacts are adverse.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q.
119
Well, is adding impervious cover and putting
heat in the air not an adverse -- not adverse impacts? A. Well, again, its -- you know, any development
form is going to have some impact on the environment depending upon how you define the environment in place. Its a question of looking at it from a little bit more of a kind of a comprehensive set of criteria and focus -- focusing in on the nature of the development, the actual impacts that are taking place, and the cum -cumu -- cumulative -- excuse me, Your Honor -cumulative impacts of those -- the cumulative effect of those impacts, I should say. Q. So, your second criterion is public good. Is
there a verb that goes with this? A. Well, more specifically, it relates to the -- what
aspects of the public good are being advanced by the development. Q. Under the --
So, it advances the public good?
Well, yeah, to the extent that, like say for
example, under the construct of Municipal Land Use Law and we talk -- in zoning cases. We talk about the some
way, shape or form advancing the intents and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. I did also reference
that there are other state enactments and other goals and objectives that are being advanced. So, yes, it
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.
120
sort of stands in association with the adverse impact issue. Its what benefits are we advancing by the
nature of the development and the plan. Q. Does building a single family house advance
the public good? A. Well, you know, again, you know, youre talking
about it in a -- you take one single, single family home. Lets just say one -- you may have one single
family home thats developed, you know, as an in fill residential within an existing neighborhood and clearly, you know, developing a single family home consistent with the character of the community and the character of the neighborhood would certainly be an advancement -- can be argued being an advancement of the public good. You know, when youre dealing with
other issues and dealing with hundreds of homes, or hundreds of residences, there are different standards to eval -- we use to evaluate that. Q. Give me --
So, its context driven. Q. Yeah. Give me some examples of what advances
-- what public goods might be advanced by residential development. A. Well, appropriate population densities. In fact,
theres a specific intents and purposes in the
121
Municipal Land Use law that talks about that in terms of uses with regards to the respective environmental requirements. So, again, using that example that
youve just cited, you know, single family home in a residential neighborhood. Say, for example, we have
the existing residential neighborhoods around Birchwood. As we talked about, you know, they tend to However, you know, if
be generally auto dependent.
were talking about putting -- adding in a single residence or two thats consistent with the neighborhood character, the overall impacts -- while it has an impact, the overall impacts are relatively minimal overall. But the advancement -- the good
thats being advanced is the development of a residential use thats consistent with the character of the neighborhood, consistent with the population densities in that area. So, youve got minimal
impacts, advancing the public good, you go back into the third element of that, which is the balancing of these goals and objectives, and you say yes, thats appropriate, thats sound planning. And any other
residential form, or any other development form, may have different standards in terms of how we would evaluate them in terms of their impacts, both in terms of the scale of the development thats being introduced
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the nature of the development thats being introduced. Q.
122
Let me make -- see if Im understanding what So, youre saying in a development in
youre saying.
an area that is most predominantly single family residential, adding more single family attached houses advances the public good? A. Well, as I said, its within the context. Its
within -- were looking at an in fill residential neighborhood. However, it may turn out that if youve
got -- if you want to introduce a new residential subdivision of several hundred new residential homes in an area that might extend out an existing residential neighborhood, then we have to think and evaluate it a little bit more differently in terms -- or you have to evaluate it differently than you would in looking at that single one family home in the existing residential neighborhood. Because, obviously, the magnitude and
order of impacts are going to be -- is going to be significantly larger. Two, the nature of the -- as we
talked about auto dependency of the use, it may be that extending the infrastructure out into that area might not be appropriate to support that generally nonsustainable type of residential development form that theyre looking to introduce that development into.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. So, let me understand.
123
So, if I were to --
so -- but the key here for -- in your context thing is its consistent with the existing character, is that right? A. Well, part of it in that, again, in that context. Q. In that context.
Were using -Q. Thats the context in which Im --
Were using that example for a single fam -- as a
single family home being introduced into an existing single family neighborhood, yes. Q. But a housing type thats very different from
that would not advance the public good, is that right? A. No, I didnt say that. What I said is that you
would need to have appropriate care and consideration of the actual nature of the impacts of that proposed development. Q. Im a little confused. You talk about
advancing the public good. A. Yes. Q. You said the public good in this context is
development consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. A. No, no. You were using it in the context of the
example that I used the single family residence being
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. one? A. Well, again, I think what you -- we can look at A.
124
introduced into an existing single family neighborhood. Q. Well, what other kinds of public goods are we
talking about? A. Well, again, as I mentioned, the public goods can
be established pursuant to the intents and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. Q. You know, maybe --
Give me some examples.
Well, I can list the intents and purposes of the And as I said, that there are
Municipal Land Use Law.
other statutes and other public goals and objectives that are well established. And I think I also cited So,
state and regional planning documents as well. theres a whole variety of different goals and objectives that you would want to consider. Q. examples. A. Well, again, -Q. Give me some examples. Give me some
How would I recognize a public good if I saw
the intents and purposes section of the Municipal Land Use Law as being a -- as a good starting point from that. Q. So, what does it say? If you wanted --
Well, I cant --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good? A. Yes. Yeah, actually, if I had the Section 2 -A. Q. Well, what does it say?
125
I dont remember -Q. Can you cite me any examples of local public
and I actually have a copy of the Municipal Land Use Law if youd like me to refer to them specifically. Q. Well, just do a -- without searching through
the statute. A. Ill -- in this -- I dont think I can memor -- I
havent memorized everything. Q. Okay. So, you -- so, without the statute
then you cant name any particular public goods? A. Well, again, I mentioned population densities, But I think for this
appropriate population densities.
-- the nature of the discussion here, I think its probably more appropriate and probably would be a little bit more clear if we had the specific references that were talking about and Id be glad to go through them with you. Q. Well, lets -- so, this is a community that Is
has, at the moment, no family low income housing. producing family low income housing a public good? A. Oh, yes, it is. Q. Oh, good.
Is removing a building from the
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A. floodway a public good? A. It could very well be a public good, yes. Q. Yes. Q. Is this? It could be?
126
Which building are we talking about? Q. Were talking about the office building on
the site that is in the floodway, this building right here, and its parking lot. floodway a public good? A. Oh, yes, it could very well be a public good, yes. Q. It could be. Is it? Would it be? Is moving that from the
Well, it depends on the other issues and concerns But yes, obviously, if removing it
of the community.
from -- strictly from an environmental perspective, strictly removing it from the floodway would be a public good. Q. Were those pub -- in your reports, in the
report -- written reports youve done, did you identify those as public goods? A. At the time that we were addressing it we were
looking at the site in its entirety and the development that was being proposed. Not necessarily anything that We were looking
was going to be removed from the site. at the residential --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Well, in your reports did you identify the
127
production of affordable family housing, in a municipality that had none, as being a public good? A. Yes, and I -- and again, we talked about it in the As I said, its --
context of the need for balancing.
you know, if were looking at the issue of doing -- of introducing a fairly substantial auto dependent use in this area, a very high density multi-family residential development, the benefits that you have is, obviously, youre providing a certain amount of affordable housing. that. The real critical issue here is balancing
What kind of order and magnitude scale that we We know
should have for the -- for such a development.
that the development is auto dependent and we know that the development is going to have a specific impact on vehicle miles traveled and a specific impact in terms of the greenhouse gases that are generated. We know
that thats a concern and we know that thats a problem. benefit. We also know that we have -- there is a We have a benefit in terms of the affordable The real critical Where do we draw
housing that is being provided.
question is striking that balance.
the line and how can we sustain both development -both objectives in a well balanced, sustainable manner that advances the public good and doesnt have any
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adverse impacts?
128
And thats, I think, the real -- and
thats the real critical issue that we have in evaluating this. Q. So, again, context is critical.
Now, once again, I hear you say doesnt have Is that your standard? And again, it goes
any adverse impacts. A.
No, no, I didnt say that.
back to the issue of balancing that we talked about. Q. Now, under your plans, under the housing
plans that youve drawn up, if the 63 low and moderate units is not provided on this site, will it be provided somewhere else in the municipality? A. And it could potentially be provi -Q. In your plans have you provided for --
provided somewhere else in the municipality? A. If you review the plans that we had prepared, we We also
do address the growth share obligation.
provide an overlay within the downtown area for -- or propose an overlay within the downtown area to address on that need. Q. Would -- where would those 63 units go? Do
you have a site? A. Well, again, you know, our plan focuses on the
fact that the township is a -- has limited vacant developable land and the real opportunities, in a more sustainable manner, would be to provide for that
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.
129
residential development in those areas that -- where -which are proximate to the train station, through the residential overlay, through the redevelopment activities that are proposed in the plan and the municipally sponsored projects. So, that I felt was a
much more balanced and appropriate approach. Q. Actually, your plan doesnt make any specific
provision for that number of housing units at all. A. Yeah. Q. You said we are -- were adjusting our
housing obligation down so we dont need this. A. Yeah. And again, this was based on the vacant
land adjustment that we had prepared in 2008. Q. So, these units that -- they arent provided
here in your plan at all? A. Those 60 -- specific 63 units? Q. Yes.
No, theyre not -- those specific 63 units are not
included in the plan. Q. Now, if you adjust your projection, does that
reduce the state need? A. The state need for what? Q. housing. A. Im not sure I understand your question. The state need for low and moderate income
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q.
130
Well, the Council on Affordable Housing has
determined that there is a statewide need for affordable housing. A. Thats correct. Q. And it has allocated that need among various
municipalities using the index of projected growth, isnt that right? A. Thats correct. There was growth projections that
they had provided in their latest version. Q. Okay. So, -Your Honor, hes interrupting
MR. WOODWARD: the witness again. THE COURT:
Okay, let him finish his -Id like to hear the answer.
MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
Let him finish his answer.
The projections that were provided that we
referenced before were by the consultants that worked for COAH. Q. And if you reduce your projections, your
housing obligation, does that reduce the state need? A. Well, actually, I think theres two very important The first of which is that COAH itself So, it allows for
points to that.
provides for the adjustment process. the adjustment process.
And in part, the adjustment
131
process that COAH has provided in the growth share was in response to the volume of the comments that it had received previously from a variety of different sources with regards to concerns about the methodology and the source data used -- the reliability of the source data used. If we assume that the source data that COAH used
is correct, then you have a much more substantial need in the township and throughout the State of New Jersey. However, if you find that the source data and you see that, based on the information thats generated in both in terms of the Burchell report in analysis, that the actual information that the consultants that created that data relied on, in terms of erroneous methodology and approach that it took to generate those numbers, I mean youre not reducing down the housing need, because the housing needs that were -- were clearly over projected based on unreliable source data. Q. It was the vacant land, they asserted
nonexistent vacant land in Cranford that caused poor people not to have housing? A. Thats not -- thats a permutation of -- or a
distortion of what I just said. Q. Well, has Dr. Burchell, in his report,
recomputed the statewide housing need? A. No. As we said -- indicated, his purpose was to
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address the growth projections pursuant to the state plan.
132
I just used it as a frame of reference and sort
of a point that indicated that, in fact, the projections for growth that were presented in COAHs regulations, which COAH itself allows an adjustment to for those communities to demonstrate a lack of vacant developable land. And COAH itself recognizes that
ability for the township to make the adjustment and recognizes the fact that ultimately the actual obligation, from the townships perspective, is going to be the actual growth that occurred in that 2014 and 2018 period. But to the extent that your question was
whether or not youre -- by doing that adjustment you are, in fact, lowering the statewide obligation, thats not my understanding of the process, the process that COAH allows in its regulations. Q. So, the statewide need remains to be
unchanged -- remains unchanged, isnt that correct? A. First of which, you have to have the appropriate And the
defining point for what that state need is.
second is that COAH recognizes that each municipality is going to be different. Even if you do an overall
projection based on statewide data, theres going to be unique circumstances and situations related to any one specific municipality. COAH allows for that with --
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. A.
133
both in its prior round of vacant land adjustment and also in the second round, in terms of the growth share adjustment. Q. Well, is the need that Cranford adjusts out
of its existence, is that reassigned to some other municipality? A. In what -- again, Im not sure I understand your
question. Q. Well, if you say our real housing obligation Twelve units?
is only -- how many units did you say? A.
The realistic development potential? Q. Yeah.
On that need I think we had indicated 99 units. Q. So, is that reassigned to somebody else?
No, thats not -- as we talked about, the unmet
need is a need that the township has to address in certain ways that are somewhat different and specialized in addressing the realistic development potential. The growth share is a different story. The
growth share is based on an ultimate actual obligation will be based upon the actual growth that occurs within communities. Q. So, does that get assigned to somebody else? Thats why --
Well, theres not an assignment. Q.
Well, but the statewide need still exists.
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The statewide need doesnt go away. A.
134
Again, to the extent that youre talking about it
in terms of an assignment, thats the reason why I dont understand the question, because its not really a question of assigning it somewhere else. Its a
questioning -- its a question of the need being generated by the growth that occurs and that growth may be greater in some communities, it may be lesser in others. Overall the final end gain, in terms of the --
from COAHs perspective, is providing the affordable housing comparable to the growth that occurs. Q. Let me show you the document weve marked D-
107, which is Dr. Burchells report, and ask you to point out to me where he re-determines the amount of vacant developable land in Cranford. A. Again, I mean were talking about the projections
on census demographic -Q. Well, does he re-determine the amount of
vacant developable land in Cranford? A. I dont believe so. Not in his methodology or
approach. Q. Okay, thank you. Now, you indicated that you
submitted P-40 to the Council on Affordable Housing and that they didnt write you a letter back, is that correct?
Mr. Slachetka - Cross 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, I had said I didnt recall what was the
135
response, or whether the township received a response or not. Q. Now, did -- are you aware that state agencies
prepare comment response documents which are published in the state register? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did you review the comment response document
published in September 2008? A. Not in relationship to this case, no. Q. And did you -- so, you didnt determine
whether the P-40 was acknowledged by COAH or responded to? A. As I indicated, its my understanding that in part
the amendments that were proposed was, in essence, a response. Because the original COAH proposed The
regulations did not have an adjustment procedure.
amended regulations that were proposed at the time that they adopted the first set of regulations, in 2008, included that methodology and approach. Q. Now, let me show you -MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: you think you need? MR. EISDORFER: I have another half hour to Lets mark this as P-71.
Mr. Eisdorfer, how much time do
Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Date: By: Regina Caldwell Regina Caldwell September 13, 2010 _357_____________ A.O.C. Number please. (End of recorded proceedings in this matter) * * * * * * * * * * * * CERTIFICATION 45 minutes. THE COURT: Yeah. Just go off the record,
136
I, Regina R. Caldwell, the assigned transcriber, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings in the matter of CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES V. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, heard in the Union County Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part, on August 16, 2010, Tape #200/10, Index #1422 to the end, Tape #201/10, Index #0001 to the end, and Tape #202/10, Index #0001 to #0908, is prepared in full compliance with the current Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate non-compressed transcript of the proceedings as recorded. AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

Transcript 8.16.10 Slachetka TWP Planner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript 8.16.10 Slachetka TWP Planner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES Plaintiff vs.

TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD Defendant

UTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

Cranford Township matter. MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:

Today is August 16th, our eighth Are we ready to proceed?

So, welcome back. MR. WOODWARD:

I think its our ninth trial

The 2nd -- you are right.

MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT:

Yes. -- you had pending before you

How much do you think you have on that,

what we were going to do.

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hes our only planner.

Hes our only expert witness in

what the July 16th letter says.

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Burchell projections. Finally, the Burchell They are

projections themselves are not admissible.

Hes just a university professor, one

And its limited to statistics as to

I can say Mr. I didnt use

Slachetka will testify to the following.

his name here, but I told you what he was going to

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testify to and so did counsel. Counsel has known for

This court has already ruled

Now, with respect to hearsay, this is a These documents --

record that was contracted for.

And if, for example, I may take a look at -- you But

dont -- do you have D -- you have D-107, I think.

tabs on it, Your Honor. THE COURT:

Thank you. -- follow along. If you would

take a look on page 16, Your Honor.

Page 16 shows the

column; it says 22,570 people -- 78 people.

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 says 2000 to 2004 change.

Theres additional data that

of another 413 people. 21,895 people. is 683.

The net loss for the 2000/2008 period

The net change calculated, according to the

for the position that were taking here.

I think if you go and you look at the

We have no objection to the Thats gathered by the Bureau

admissibility of that. of the Census.

THE COURT: population?

MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT:

That you have no -Thats census data. The next

two columns are not census data.

They are -- in the

The history is these are

complex and full of assumptions and judgments.

question, Mr. Woodward?

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -THE COURT: time that I ruled.

If, indeed, it hasnt been adopted

What is the relevance? Heres -- Your Honor, heres

What is the relevance of it then? Heres the problem. Mr.

The fact remains,

miscalculation, I have no idea what is. land.

Well, but the court doesnt need

MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:

I dont need this to make that --

dealing with in this particular situation.

Colloquy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of that property should be. A decision ordinarily

determination that you have to make. is appropriately admissible.