transcript 8.16.10 slachetka twp planner

7/31/2019 Transcript 8.16.10 Slachetka Twp Planner

1/136

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISIONCIVIL PARTUNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEYDOCKET NO.: UNN-L-140-08

A.D. NO.: _____________CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT )ASSOCIATES )

)Plaintiff ) TRANSCRIPT

)vs. ) OF

)TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD ) TRIAL

)Defendant )

Place: Union County CourthouseTwo Broad StreetElizabeth, New Jersey 07207

Date: August 16, 2010BEFORE:

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


2/136

2

I N D E X

August 16, 2010

DEFENSE WITNESS:

DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

Mr. Slachetka 15 67

EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE

P-66 Regulation 5:97-6.4 74P-67 Regulation 5:97-3.13 84P-68 Site Suitability Checklist 84P-69 Map of Cranford Township with

marking around town center 105P-70 Map of proposed site with

marking around site 114

D-13 Waiver Request - 10/25/01 42 66

D-14 Approval of Waiver Request -12/4/01 42 66

D-74 Redevelopment Agreement - 1/8/09 55 66D-107 Center for Urban Policy Research

Impact Assessment - 12/11/09 16 18


3/136

Colloquy 3

THE COURT: Cranford Development versus1

Cranford Township matter. Welcome back, everyone.2

MR. WOODWARD: Thank you.3

THE COURT: Today is August 16th, our eighth4

trial day. So, welcome back. Are we ready to proceed?5

MR. WOODWARD: I think its our ninth trial6

day, Your Honor.7

THE COURT: Is it? I have -- oh, youre8

right. The 2nd -- you are right. 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th,9

10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th, you are correct. Thank10

you. Are we ready to proceed?11

MR. WOODWARD: Yes, Your Honor. I -- Mr.12

Slachetka is on the stand and Id like to call him.13

THE COURT: He can resume, yes.14

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, as we broke, --15

THE COURT: Yes.16

MR. EISDORFER: -- you had pending before you17

an objection to a line of questions concerning the18

projections prepared by Robert Burchell and that was19

the -- when we broke, you were --20

THE COURT: Yes.21

MR. EISDORFER: -- you were going to take22

that objection under advisement.23

THE COURT: Yes, correct. Thank you for24

reminding me. How much do you think you have on that,25


4/136

Colloquy 4

Mr. Woodward?1

MR. WOODWARD: Frankly, not all that much. I2

mean we have -- and I just might say that we outlined3

what we proposed to present in our letter to the court4

of June 16, 2010, in which we talked about COAHs third5

round methodology and we talked about the Bloustein6

report, as we call it. And basically, my focus on this7

was to see whether or not Mr. Slachetka -- certainly8

were offering this report, because there is specific9

data in that report related to Cranford. Every single10

municipality in the state has a line item, a series of11

line items for different categories. And, you know, we12

had presented this report back to the court in June, I13

believe it was, or even earlier, and we showed -- you14

know, and in our trial brief, in fact, we actually do15

the arithmetic, because thats really all it is -- to16

show that this report shows a very different set of17

facts related to the growth projections that Cranford18

is likely to undergo for the next 20 or so years. And19

at that time, when the issue was raised by counsel, you20

ruled that this was appropriate to be considered by the21

court. We basically stated, in our June 16 letter,22

what we were going to do. I didnt identify -- my23

fault and I apologize for that -- that it would be Mr.24

Slachetka that we would be putting this in through, but25


5/136

Colloquy 5

hes our only planner. Hes our only expert witness in1

this area and so, theres no real surprise for counsel.2

I dont have that much to do with it. I want to finish3

my direct examination of the witness in another area,4

but I do want to question -- ask him some questions5

about specifically what the Bloustein report means in6

regard to the work that hes done.7

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, let me read you8

what the July 16th letter says. It says the township9

will further argue that COAHs third round growth10

projections are so fundamentally flawed as to render11

them arbitrary and capricious and same should not be12

utilized by court in assessing Cranfords fair share13

obligation and in fashioning any prospective builders14

remedy potentially due to COAH. And so, in effect,15

they are being simply offered to challenge the validity16

of COAHs methodology. And it seems to me that thats17

a plan that this court cant entertain and its18

irrelevant to these proceedings. I have two further19

concerns, which is,(A), although we have counsels20

representations set forth here as to what the partys21

intentions are. We have no report from Mr. Slachetka.22

I point out that Mr. Slachetka filed -- submitted23

reports on July 1st and July 26th sandwiching this24

document, but none of his reports comment on the25


6/136

Colloquy 6

Burchell projections. Finally, the Burchell1

projections themselves are not admissible. They are2

hearsay and they are not subject to any hearsay3

objection. In particular, they are not subject to the4

hearsay objection for statistical data under Rule5

603(c)8 -- (c)6, which is limited to statistics6

gathered by a public official whose responsibility is7

to gather those statistics. Mr. Burchell is not a8

public official. Hes just a university professor, one9

of thousands. And its limited to statistics as to10

existing facts, not opinions, projections, possible11

future stock. It is collection -- the classic example12

is census data, where its a compilation of existing13

facts. So, on each of those grounds we believe that14

this is objectionable.15

THE COURT: As to those two, Mr. Woodward?16

MR. WOODWARD: Well, first of all, Your17

Honor, in responding to a request for information, or18

providing discovery regarding an individuals report,19

you dont have to have a report from Mr. Slachetka20

written and signed by Mr. Slachetka. All I have to do21

is tell you what hes going to say. And that is under22

the discovery rules in our court. I can say Mr.23

Slachetka will testify to the following. I didnt use24

his name here, but I told you what he was going to25


7/136

Colloquy 7

testify to and so did counsel. Counsel has known for1

months exactly what goes into this report and exactly2

what it is and how we intend to use it. The issue was3

raised before the court. This court has already ruled4

on that issue. Now, with respect to hearsay, this is a5

record that was contracted for. These documents --6

this document was contracted for and prepared by7

Rutgers University, by the Center of Urban Policy8

Research, at Rutgers University, and it is trends and9

projections, planned projections and impact assessment10

of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment11

Plan by municipality and county. This relies on census12

data. And if, for example, I may take a look at -- you13

dont -- do you have D -- you have D-107, I think. But14

I can provide this one to you, just so you can follow15

the argument. This is the original D-107. I have some16

tabs on it, Your Honor. You can just --17

THE COURT: Thank you.18

MR. WOODWARD: -- follow along. If you would19

take a look on page 16, Your Honor. Page 16 shows the20

census data for 2000 in the left-hand column opposite21

Cranford Township. If you see theres a column, or22

category, Union County and the third town down is23

Cranford Township. And it says 2000 population in that24

column; it says 22,570 people -- 78 people. Then it25


8/136

Colloquy 8

says 2000 to 2004 change. Theres additional data that1

has been developed that shows that theres a loss of2

270 people. And between 2004 and 2008 theres a loss3

of another 413 people. So, that the 2008 population is4

21,895 people. The net loss for the 2000/2008 period5

is 683. The net change calculated, according to the6

type of analysis -- and I believe they use calculus to7

do this, Your Honor -- is a net gain by the year 20038

(sic) of 13, 25 more between 2013/2018, for a total9

2018 population of 21,938. And then if you follow out,10

it takes the projection beyond 2018, which really11

doesnt concern this case, but goes out to a total of12

22,004 people. Thats the kind of data this report13

contains and what it shows is, unlike the rather large14

population growth calculated by COAH, they have a15

different methodology and a different calculation which16

shows a net stable population thats basically17

unchanged. Now, with respect to Mr. Eisdorfers18

objection regarding being hearsay and not a government19

writing, I would cite to you Rule 803(c)8, which says,20

among other things, entities employed by governmental21

entities and agencies for work to be performed in the22

public interest are considered, quote, public23

officials for purpose of admissibility under 803(c)8,24

State versus Malsbury, M-A-L-S-B-U-R-Y, 186 New Jersey25


9/136

Colloquy 9

Super. 91, Law Division 1982. So, theres authority1

for the position that were taking here. These people2

are public officials because theyre performing under3

contract with the government, doing work in the public4

interest because this is an evaluation of the New5

Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, which6

is an official action of the State of New Jersey.7

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, let me just8

respond to this. I think if you go and you look at the9

table Mr. Woodward has showed you, okay, the first10

column is census data. Every --11

THE COURT: The very table that he pointed12

to, page 16?13

MR. EISDORFER: Yes, the left-hand column of14

the census data. We have no objection to the15

admissibility of that. Thats gathered by the Bureau16

of the Census. The next columns are not census data.17

THE COURT: So, youre talking about the 200018

population?19

MR. EISDORFER: Thats right.20

THE COURT: That you have no --21

MR. EISDORFER: Thats census data. The next22

two columns are not census data. They are -- in the23

beginning of this report there is a ten page24

explanation of where tho -- how those are calculated.25


10/136

Colloquy 10

All the columns beyond that are projections and there1

is an extremely complicated -- its not simply2

calculus. Theres a very complicated iterative3

process. Its controversial. The history is these are4

the folks who did the COAH counsels affordable5

housings data prior to 2004. In 2004 the Appellate6

Division had rather nasty comments to -- about them in7

its opinion striking down the 2004 regulations. COAH8

did not rehire them for the 2008 regulations. They are9

now offering a competing set of projections to those in10

the COAH regulations. But the methodology is extremely11

complex and full of assumptions and judgments. The --12

it has not been -- there -- the state mission does,13

indeed, have the authority to adopt projections. It14

has not adopted these projections. It is merely15

contracted for them and it has said, in its draft plan,16

this is merely one of five different sets of17

projections that were -- that we will consider in18

formulating our state plan. So, this is -- and its19

all unofficial at this point.20

THE COURT: So, can I just ask you this21

question, Mr. Woodward? I mean while my inclination22

is, and I already ruled at one point that I would allow23

it and that the court could assess its credibility and24

make the appropriate finding as to its relevance at the25


11/136

Colloquy 11

time that I ruled. If, indeed, it hasnt been adopted1

by COAH and its a competing set of statistics, so to2

speak, as Mr. Eisdorfer argues, then why should we3

waste our time with it? Or should -- you know, is4

there any reason?5

MR. WOODWARD: Well, --6

THE COURT: What is the relevance?7

MR. WOODWARD: Heres -- Your Honor, heres8

the --9

THE COURT: What is the relevance of it then?10

MR. WOODWARD: Heres the problem. Mr.11

Eisdorfer says that well, this is a competing set to12

what COAHs determined. Well, what COAH determined,13

through the reporting agency that they hired to do the14

round that they now are relying on, --15

MR. EISDORFER: Also Rutgers professors.16

MR. WOODWARD: I disagree. It also includes17

people from the University of Pennsylvania. But we can18

argue about that at another time. The fact remains,19

Your Honor, that the COAH projections cull out as20

vacant developable land in Cranford the Garden State21

Parkway, the front lawn of the municipal building, the22

high school property. If thats not a gross23

miscalculation, I have no idea what is. Its fantasy24

land.25


12/136


13/136

Colloquy 13

of that property should be. A decision ordinarily1

reserved for the legislative body is now being made by2

the court, and thats the law under Mount Laurel. On3

the other hand, it would seem to me that the court4

would want to hear a variety of points of view. You5

know, the law says that the Mount Laurel -- excuse me,6

the COAH regulations apply to the extent possible.7

Well, if it doesnt make sense, or if theres something8

else, as part of the courts evaluation of this, that9

would weigh in the courts decision to making a10

determination as to what the zoning on this property11

was going to be, then it would seem to me the court12

would want to hear it.13

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, --14

MR. WOODWARD: But that, of course, is the15

determination that you have to make. I am saying this16

is appropriately admissible. It is significant17

documentation that, frankly, tries to take into account18

information that the COAH regulations completely19

ignore.20

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, the counsel makes21

a systemic argument about how this methodology is22

flawed. He says they look at the wrong pieces of land.23

They use the wrong methodology for projecting growth.24

Thats an argument to be made to the Appellate25


14/136

Colloquy 14

Division. Thats not an argument to be made to this1

court. And it, in particular, puts the court, were the2

court to follow along that line, it would put the court3

in violation of one of the fundamental principles of4

Mount Laurel II and of the Fair Housing Act, which is5

that there should be a single uniform methodology6

applicable to everybody. Counsel is saying to the7

court that it should have an idiosyncratic methodology,8

different from what the Counsel on Affordable Housing9

has granted 60 substantive certifications under its10

regulations. Therell be those 60 certifications and11

then whatever this court does, which will be based on12

different standards.13

THE COURT: So, but maybe he should put it in14

the record for the purposes of the Appellate Division.15

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, the Appellate16

Division is hearing this case. You know, this -- the17

court has already ruled this is not the case in which18

to make a challenge to the COAH regulations. There is19

a case in which Cranford is a participant.20

THE COURT: A party, right.21

MR. EISDORFER: So, Your Honor, for all those22

reasons, we believe that this is -- this line of23

questioning should not be permitted to be pursued and24

this document should not be admitted into evidence.25


15/136

Mr. Slachetka - Direct 15

THE COURT: All right. Im going to allow it1

very briefly and Im going to entertain your argument2

at the end and -- in your trial brief at the end and in3

your summation about whether the court should disregard4

it. Okay, Im going to allow it briefly.5

MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor.6

THE COURT: You know, and as I said before, I7

mean this is a court sitting without a jury and I can,8

after I hear it, assess your legal arguments as to why9

the court should be -- should disregard it. And if I10

find that legally appropriate, will do so.11

MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor. If I12

might have my original back.13

THE COURT: Sure. And you say I have it as14

D-107 in my material?15

MR. WOODWARD: Yes. Yes, maam. May I16

proceed?17

THE COURT: Yes.18


STAN SLACHETKA, DEFENSE WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN20

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD:21

Q. Mr. Slachetka, Im showing you whats been22

marked as D-107 for identification. Are you familiar23

with this document?24

A. Yes, I am.25


16/136


17/136


the Bloustein, or the D-107?1

A. After I received the D-107 I reviewed D-107, yes.2

Q. And did you look at D-107 in terms of the3

data that was presented therein and the methodology4

used and apply that, or -- let me rephrase -- let me5

withdraw the question. Did you review it in connection6

with the conclusions that you had reached with regard7

to the vacant land adjustment methodology that you had8

proposed in the housing element and fair share plan?9

A. Yes.10

Q. And what conclusions did you reach?11

A. Well, that it basically confirmed my understanding12

in terms of the limited developable -- limited13

development potential of the township, in terms of14

vacant developable lane, both in terms of the15

townships prior round obligation in establishing the16

realistic development potential, as well as in terms of17

the evaluation of the townships ability to obtain an18

adjustment in its growth share projections. In both19

instances, the data presented here basically confirms20

the limited capacity of development within the21

township.22

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id like to offer23

D-107 at this time into evidence.24

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I renew my25


18/136


objections.1

THE COURT: All right. Subject to your2

objections, Im going to allow it.3


CONTINUED BY MR. WOODWARD:5

Q. Now, Im going to show you whats been marked6

as D-40 in evidence, which is dated March 19, 2008, a7

letter to Lucy Voorhoeve, Executive Director of the8

Council on Affordable Housing, signed by Mayor Puhak,9

and attached to that is a response to COAH vacant land10

analysis, prepared by T&M Associates, dated March 20,11

2008. Have you ever seen those --12

THE COURT: Thats D-40 did you say?13

MR. WOODWARD: D-40 in evidence, Your Honor,14

yes.15


Q. Have you -- is this a report that you17

prepared?18

A. Yes, it is.19

Q. Under the cover letter of course.20

A. Yeah, under the cover. I was going to say that21

under the cover letter, the response to COAH vacant22

land analysis is the report that I prepared.23

Q. Now, what was the purpose of preparing this24

document?25


19/136


20/136


And we also did an OPRA request for the datasets and1

specifically the vacant land layer in the GIS, or2

geographic information system, that NCNBR relied upon3

to do their analysis. And then we compared and4

contrasted that to our actual understanding of the5

vacant developable land within the township,6

specifically in relationship to the work that we had7

prepared previously with regards to the vacant land8

adjustment for the town.9

Q. Now, did you make a determination as to how10

much vacant developable land there actually was in the11

township at the time of that report?12

A. Yeah. Actually, on page three of the report,13

theres some references to the numbers that we had come14

up with. And specifically, that we determined that15

there were 14 acres of vacant developable land within16

the township, after accounting for environmental17

constraints, deed restrictions, approvals and other18

encumbrances. And then -- and after accounting for19

undersized noncontiguous lots in each of the various20

zone districts, we calculated that there was about 10.821

net developable acres within the township. And thats22

specified, or presented, in the table on that page.23

Q. And what was the total amount of vacant24

developable land that the NCNBR analysis provided?25


21/136


A. Id have to go find it in the report, if you give1

me a second or two.2

Q. If you take a look at --3

A. Yeah, if you have a specific reference.4

Q. -- just below that table on page three, or5

the third page. I dont think the page is actually6

numbered.7

A. Mine is. Yes, the difference between the NCNBR8

analysis and the T&M analysis is approximately 208.29

acres. They, in essence, they identified about 2010

times more vacant developable land than we had11

identified in our analysis.12

Q. Now, did you try to figure out what it was13

that NCNBR considered to be vacant developable land?14

A. Yes. And I think we identified a series of things15

that they identified, including, I think you mentioned16

in your arguments with regards to the motion, things17

like the fact that the Parkway right-of-way was18

identified, or portions of the New Jersey -- or the19

Garden State Parkway right-of-way was identified, the20

front lawn of the municipal building. Lawned areas of21

developed property were identified as vacant and22

developable land within the township. Theres a23

variety of other sort of odd usage of the term vacant24

developable land by the BNC -- NCNBR.25


22/136


Q. Do you have an understanding of how NCNBR1

prepared this analysis of vacant developable land?2

A. Yes. They basically have, as I said, --3

Q. Well, first of all, how do you know that?4

A. Oh. Well, first of which, we know it in part by5

reviewing and evaluating their report on behalf of6

COAH, which is one of the appendices of the COAH7

report, in terms of the methodology. But we also know8

it based upon, as I mentioned, that we did an OPRA9

request and saw their -- or at least got that10

information, the datasets available for the land11

coverages that they used.12

Q. Now, is that -- are the results of that OPRA13

request attached to your report? Look at Appendix A.14

A. Yeah, I believe it -- yes. That is correct.15

Q. Could you take us through that?16

A. Well, --17

Q. What was COAHs response to you?18

A. They -- this was the va -- they provided us with a19

coverage and also they identified the coverages. When20

I say coverages, part of the GIS layers are called --21

sometimes called coverages. The coverages that were22

used to calculate or identify vacant developable land23

within the township.24

Q. And did you prepare any charts that dealt25


23/136


with or show the areas that COAH had determined, or1

NCNBR had determined were vacant developable land2

within Cranford Township?3

A. Yes. Actually, the two maps that are attached in4

Appendix B map out the lands that were identified.5

Q. Well, could you show -- could you talk to us6

about the first map?7

A. Yeah. The first map -- actually, theyre8

basically the -- they map out the same layer, or same9

coverage. The first one is done with regards to tax10

maps. So, it may be a little clearer to see that.11

Its based on parcel data from the GIS system. And the12

second map is based on an aerial photograph of the13

township.14

Q. Well, lets look at the first map. Could you15

locate the Garden State Parkway as it goes through16

Cranford on this map?17

A. Yes. Its the area -- its sort of a sinuous18

line. Its sort of irregularly shaped. Its -- and19

basically outlines the right-of-way of the Garden State20

Parkway would be with the -- it looks like its the21

cart way of the Garden State Parkway is taken out of22

the layer. But, basically, its a sort of red sinuous23

line that kind of extends from top -- or from bottom to24

top in the eastern end of the township, or, in other25


24/136


25/136


I would say the upper right-hand corner of the1

northeasterly quadrant, if you will, theres a fair2

amount of red shaded area. Can you identify those3

properties?4

A. Yes. Actually, its in the proximate area of the5

township that were talking about with regards to where6

the CDA site is located. In fact, you can identify a7

portion of that -- well, just to orient everybody, the8

single family residential developments surrounding the9

area have been taken out and you see them. Basically,10

theyre shown in white. Some of the other areas that11

are shown in red are either wooded areas, areas of the12

stream corridor or other vacant land thats associated13

with existing developments, such as lawned areas of the14

rising development and other areas. Interestingly15

enough, the portion that was clipped out that is shown16

in white, with regards to the CDA site, is the17

approximate limit of development or disturbance18

currently within the CDA site on either -- for either19

-- for both of the office buildings. Everything else,20

including the areas of floodplains and flood hazard21

areas that weve been talking about, are actually shown22

in red and considered vacant developable land by the --23

by this analysis.24

Q. But is, for example, right on the upper25


26/136


right-hand corner, theres a fairly large area of red.1

Do you know whether thats municipally owned property?2

A. Yes, thats the recycling center, or a portion of3

that is the recycling -- shown is the recycling center.4

Q. Now, in the center of this picture is a line5

that runs and sort of snakes all the way to the bottom6

from the top. Could you tell us what that is?7

A. Which line are you referring to?8

Q. In the center, theres blue and red mixed9

together. Do you see that?10

A. Yes. I mean those are areas -- the blue areas are11

areas that are within, I believe, if I can read the12

legend right, flood hazard and floodplain areas,13

primarily associated with the Rahway River. And then14

the red parcels are also other parcels that were15

identified -- within that blue area are various red16

parcels that were identified as developable parcels, a17

combination of public and private parcels that were18

shown as vacant developable land in red from CDA. Or,19

Im sorry, from the NBNBR (sic).20

Q. Now, when you submitted this report to COAH21

did you get a response?22

A. I dont know if I received a response or the23

township received a response directly.24

Q. Have you ever seen a response?25


27/136


A. I dont recall whether or not we received a direct1

response, but if you have something that you want to2

show me.3

Q. With respect to the data that was used by4

NCNBR to prepare the analysis for the Council on5

Affordable Housing, do you have comments on the quality6

of that data?7

A. Oh, yes. I mean and theyre --8

Q. Could you tell us what they are?9

A. Well, I mean, first of which, I mean I think this10

is a gross misinterpretation in terms of the true11

extent and nature of the vacant and developable land12

within the township, with the understanding that the13

NCNBR consultants basically were charged with providing14

a statewide analysis of vacant developable land. So,15

to do a job of that extent, they obviously had to rely16

on some gross data and information thats available at17

the statewide level. However, when you analyze it and18

evaluate that data on a specific municipal-by-municipal19

basis, which I would anticipate would have been a very20

significant job for NCNBR to do. When you get to that21

level and you actually know, based on practical22

experience and understanding, what the true nature of23

vacant developable land is in a community, both the24

land thats constrained by development, lands that not25


28/136


-- are really not practically developable, such as lawn1

areas, the Garden State Parkway right-of-way, you can2

see how unreliable that that data and information is to3

rely on making a -- making any reasonable projections4

of potential development within a community. So, we5

feel -- you know, we felt that it was a lack of6

reliable data, a misinterpretation of the data that was7

used and available, and it really resulted in an8

overestimate in terms of the amount of developable land9

and then, in turn, the potential development capacity10

for the community.11

Q. And did you make any particular12

recommendations at your end of the report to the13

Council on Affordable Housing as to how they should14

deal with these inaccuracies?15

A. Yes. Basically, we felt that the -- first of16

which, the recommendation was that this data and17

information should be -- should not be relied on and18

that, basically, the townships and any municipalitys19

evaluation and analysis to develop a plan would be a20

much more accurate methodology and approach to make21

these projections. And in terms of the townships22

overall recommendation, that, basically, COAH not rely23

on that data and information.24

Q. By the way, to go back to D-107 for a moment,25


29/136


the Bloustein Report. Have you found in your1

experience, since its been issued, that any in the2

planning community rely upon that?3

A. In what respect, Mr. Woodward?4

Q. For use in terms of making projections and5

determining what a municipalitys affordable housing6

obligation should be?7

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, object on the8

grounds of hearsay.9

MR. WOODWARD: Hes experienced in the field,10

Your Honor. Questions like that have been asked of Mr.11

Kinsey just as well.12

THE COURT: Well, --13

MR. WOODWARD: Whats your professional14

opinion, in terms --15

THE COURT: Why dont we ask him first16

whether he has any knowledge or experience?17

MR. WOODWARD: Fair enough.18


Q. Do you have any knowledge or experience with20

respect to the use of the Bloustein report since its21

come out?22

A. Yes.23

Q. And what is your experience?24

A. Well, its -- it, again, the Bloustein report is25


30/136


31/136


Woodward?1


THE COURT: In evidence, thank you.3

MR. WOODWARD: Yeah, yeah.4


Q. Next, I want to show you whats been marked6

as D-158 in evidence, the planners report.7

A. Actually, Carl, could -- thats my bottle of water8

on the floor right behind the --9

Q. Ill get it for you.10

A. Thank you. Be careful. Thank you very much.11

Q. Now, did you prepare this report, D-158?12

A. Yes, I did.13

Q. And could you tell us what it is and what was14

the purpose of preparing it?15

A. Yes. Its entitled Planners Report, as well as16

subtitled Crediting Update and Prior Round17

Obligation, with reference to the current case. And18

it was prepared on behalf of Cranford Township by19

myself and its dated July 1st -- excuse me -- 2010.20

Q. And what was the purpose of preparing this21

report?22

A. The purpose was to -- well, several purposes.23

First of which, it was to look at the -- and evaluate24

the potential for crediting that would be available to25


32/136


the township under the assumption that the township was1

not seeking a vacant land adjustment, if, in fact, it2

was the case that the township was not seeking a vacant3

land adjustment and needed to address fully its prior4

round obligation. And in evaluating the various5

compliance mechanisms, that, either through credits or6

other compliance mechanisms, what would be the order of7

magnitude that the township would be in, or what status8

would the township be in, in terms of addressing its9

prior round obligation in the -- under COAH10

regulations.11

Q. Now, lets go back just for a second. You12

previously worked for COAH, correct?13

A. Yes.14

Q. And you were a principal planner at that --15

A. Yes. Yeah, chief of planning services and then16

principal planner.17

Q. And while you were there did you review18

housing elements and fair share plans that were19

submitted to COAH?20

A. Yes, I did.21

Q. And did you also review crediting analyses22

that were submit -- or, rather, vacant land adjustments23

that -- let me re -- withdraw the question. You24

submitted -- you reviewed vacant land adjustment25


33/136


requests submitted by municipalities under the COAH1

regs?2

A. Yes, I did.3

Q. And did you also review requests for credits4

that would be sought by municipalities for affordable5

housing, that it either was constructed or about to be6

constructed?7

A. Yes.8

Q. Now, could you tell us -- could you take us9

through generally the report, what it does and what it10

shows?11

A. Sure.12

Q. What conclusions you drew?13

A. And again, the report evaluated the townships14

potential available credits that it had, as well as15

evaluated some of the compliance mechanisms that had16

been discussed as part of the court case and as part of17

the townships attempt to address its affordable18

housing obligation. And again, as I said, it was19

really the evaluation was presented under the20

assumption or in the context of trying to, I guess the21

best -- probably the best way to categorize it would be22

filling the bucket, the prior round bucket initially23

before going into any other component. And with the24

intent of establishing and evaluating the order of25


34/136


magnitude that, one, the township was -- would be in1

compliance; two, evaluating the compliance planner,2

because ultimately the court is going to be responsible3

for undertaking and completing the compliance plan.4

And then, ultimately, looking at that and really using5

this as a foundation to evaluate what would be needed,6

if anything, within either the CDA site or other parts7

of the townships compliance plan to fully address its8

-- the townships obligation. So, we looked at several9

things. We looked at the townships rehabilitation10

obligation. Wed look at opportunities for crediting11

that the township had, including looking at supportive12

and special needs housing on behalf of the township.13

We evaluated the prior round obligation and some14

credits that were available to the township via the15

prior round obligation. Theres various appendices16

that are attached that provide supporting information17

and data with regards to that analysis.18

Q. And tell us about what you did with respect19

to the rehabilitation obligation and how that was20

determined and what the results of your study were.21

A. Sure. Just to kind of set the context, the -- as22

we talked about previously, the rehabilitation23

obligation is sometimes commonly called the24

rehabilitation share by COAH and COAH assigns or has25


35/136


assigned a rehabilitation share to municipalities based1

on various census data surrogates that it uses to2

estimate the amount of units, the number of units that3

are in need of rehabilitation within a community. And4

for Cranford Township COAHs estimate of the5

rehabilitation share was 55 units. And the surrogates,6

you know, include overcrowded units built prior to7

1950. They look at units that lack complete plumbing8

facilities and units lacking complete kitchen9

facilities. And again, those are three pieces of10

census information COAH uses as surrogates to make a11

determination on that rehabilitation share. Then --12

THE COURT: Are you referring to -- youre13

referring to page two of your report?14

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, Your Honor. Yeah,15

page two. The second paragraph summarizes that16

information.17

BY THE WITNESS:18

A. Basically, COAH is not going out and doing an19

assessment of each individual municipalitys actual20

rehabil -- number of rehabilitation units, or units in21

need of rehabilitation, because, again, they are doing22

this on a statewide basis. They have to rely on some23

reasonable surrogates and theyve continually relied on24

these and similar surrogates, depending upon the census25


36/136


information. In 1990 they used a series of surrogate1

-- census surrogates and established a rehabilitation2

obligation for communities in 1990. When they adopted3

their regulations in 2004, they updated that and4

created a new set of rehabilitation share numbers5

corresponding to the 2000 census.6

Q. And what was it that you did to either7

confirm or distinguish the actual rehabilitation share8

that Cranford had versus the number that COAH had?9

A. Under COAH regulations the -- they permit a10

municipality to actually go out and do an exterior11

survey of units within the community to make a12

determination, in fact, whether or not there are units13

in need of rehabilitation. And we went out with14

Richard Ballucsio, I believe his name is pronounced,15

the construction --16

Q. Belluscio.17

A. Belluscio, sorry. With a name like ??, I, you18

know, I should be more attentive to how peoples last19

names are pronounced. The -- we did go out and we did20

an actual exterior survey. We being COAH -- excuse me,21

T&M staff went out and did a survey of the units within22

Cranford Township.23

Q. And what were the results of that survey?24

A. The results indicated that -- ultimately, the25


37/136


results indicated that the township was eligible for an1

adjustment downward from 55 to actually a 53 unit2

rehabilitation component or rehabilitation share.3

Q. And how was that determined?4

A. Based on the exterior survey, we made a5

determination that there was about 74 units within the6

township that had some level of -- based on an exterior7

examination, some level of need for rehabilitation.8

And COAH has a survey form that we followed and9

evaluated the -- we evaluated the units, along with Mr.10

Belluscio, with regards to whether or not those11

conditions, those exterior conditions would suggest12

that the unit would be in need of rehabilitation. We13

dont do -- you dont do an interior survey and its14

separate and different than the surrogates that COAH15

uses, which is the plumbing and kitchen and16

overcrowding surrogates.17

Q. So, what was the total number of units that18

you determined needed rehabilitation?19

A. It was 74 units. And then what we did was, based20

on the COAH methodology, applied what -- whats called21

a PUMS multiplier and actually its developed by Mr.22

Burchells office, we were just talking about, the --23

Mr. Burchell from the Center of Urban Policy Research.24

That multiplier is established and theres different25


38/136


PUMS multipliers throughout the state. But its done1

on a regional basis and Cranfords within a region that2

the multiplier is identified as 0.714, which means3

about, you would anticipate that within Cranford4

Township, 70 percent, approximately, or 71 percent,5

approximately, of the units that were in need of6

rehabilitation have a low and moderate income7

household. Again, its an assumption based on the data8

and based on the PUMS data or the, its called, I9

think, Public User Micro-data Sample.10

Q. And using the PUMS multiplier what did you11

come out with in terms of the rehabilitation share for12

Cranford?13

A. Well, 52.8, or approximately 53, units in need of14

rehabilitation that potentially would be occupied by15

low and moderate income households.16

Q. Now, did you make a determination as to17

whether there were any rehabilitation credits that18

Cranford was entitled to against that rehabilitation19

share of 53?20

A. Yes. We had contacted the Union County and the21

County Home Improvement Program and asked for a listing22

of units that had been rehabilitated by the county23

within Cranford Township since 2000. And that program24

is administered by a private consulting group,25


39/136


Development Directions, LLC, who works for the county.1

And they provided us with a list of 15. So, we2

identified 15 potential credits that the township would3

be eligible to receive but for rehabilitation activity4

within the township.5

Q. And was all the documentation under COAH6

requirements complete as of the time you prepared your7

report?8

A. No. I mean we got the listing of -- from the9

county, which is included in one of the appendices of10

the report. And we understand that there needs to be11

some additional information and data, particularly the12

time of the -- when the units were rehabilitated and13

some other information that needs to be compiled, to14

fully determine whether or not the units are -- would15

be credit worthy for the township.16

Q. Now, Mr. Kinsey, in his testimony, claimed17

that the program that Union County runs for18

rehabilitated -- rehabilitating premises, properties,19

which Cranford uses, is not compliant with COAH20

regulations. Do you know particularly about that?21

A. Yes. COAH has not certified the Union County22

program as being eligible as a program that a23

municipality would be able to use moving forward to24

undertake a rehabilitation -- to address its25


40/136


rehabilitation share, or be the administrative entity1

that would be responsible to address a municipalitys2

rehabilitation share, for two reasons. First of which,3

the county program does not offer its services or does4

not offer rehabilitation opportunities for landlords5

for rental property. And then there was a -- theres6

also the length of controls have to be consistent with7

the COAH standard.8

Q. Now, do you know, however, whether COAH,9

nonetheless, has given credits for the Union County10

program or programs like the Union County program, even11

though they dont technically comply with the12

regulations?13

A. And I -- this is an important distinction between14

-- we can talk about program eligibility, because,15

basically, from the COAH perspective, when theyre16

addressing and evaluating the rehabilitation share,17

whats important, from COAHs perspective, is that the18

-- a municipality, or township, or borough, or19

whatever, have in place or at least engage in whats20

called an administrative entity thats responsible for21

undertaking the program. They have to be qualified and22

theres certain requirements that they have to have in23

place, including meeting all of COAH standards, as I24

said, for length of controls, addressing both rental25


41/136


and non-rental properties, as well as having the -- all1

the various administrative support, such as an2

operative and approved rehabilitation manual. So, from3

COAHs perspective in the rehabilitation share, its4

important to have a program in place moving forward.5

And COAH has never really said, at any one point in6

time, that you have to fully address your7

rehabilitation share within the confines of a -- of the8

period of substantive certification, but you have to9

have at least have an opportunity in place for a10

property owners tenants who are interested in11

participating in the program in rehabilitating units to12

get -- have those rehabilitated. But thats a separate13

and distinct requirement or issue from COAHs14

perspective than whether or not a unit is creditworthy.15

Even if the Union County program or other programs that16

may not necessarily be eligible to be that17

administrative entity, how -- if they, in fact, have18

rehabilitated a unit and it meets COAHs criteria for19

being a rehabilitation credit, that that unit that has20

been rehabilitated is creditworthy. So, theres a real21

important distinction that COAH places between the22

programmatic requirements as to whether or not a unit23

is creditworthy or not for rehabilitation purposes.24

Q. Now, do you know whether Cranford has25


42/136


previously sought and obtained waivers, or a waiver,1

from COAH regarding operation of a previous2

noncompliant with the regulations rehabilitation3

program?4

A. Yes.5

Q. Im going to show you what has been marked as6

D-13 and D-14 for identification and Im going to ask7

you if you can identify these documents.8

A. Yes.9

Q. What is D-13?10

A. D-13 is a letter to Shirley Bishop, who was the11

Executive Director of the Council on Affordable Housing12

at that time, which is October -- the letter is dated13

October 25th, 2001, requesting a waiver in relationship14

to the townships rehabilitation program.15

Q. And what was the substance of that letter?16

A. Basically, the letter requested a specific waiver.17

At the time Cranford Township was under COAHs18

jurisdiction. It had petitioned COAH for substantive19

certification of its fair share plan in June of 2000.20

And thats the cycle one and cycle two plan, the prior21

-- theyre commenting on the prior round plan. And it22

had, at the time, an actual rehabil -- local23

rehabilitation program that the township was running.24

However -- in fact, it had rehabilitated 170 units25


43/136


within the township. And as part of that cycle one,1

cycle two plan the townships rehabilitation share, at2

the time they called it the rehabilitation component,3

was 104 units. So, what the township was seeking was4

credits for units that had been actually rehabilitated5

within the township, but because the townships6

program, again, did not meet all of COAHs criteria, in7

terms of being an eligible program, the township had to8

prove certain that -- certain facts, such as the actual9

length of time that a tenant or a property owner lived10

-- an actual low and moderate income household lived in11

that unit. And the request of the waiver was, based on12

the documentation that the township had, the township13

was requesting a waiver of those actual limits, because14

in actuality, the low and moderate income household15

had, in fact, resided for an appropriate term.16

Q. And do you know whether COAH granted the17

request for the waiver?18

A. Yes.19

Q. Take a look at D-14.20

A. Yes.21

Q. Do you recognize that document?22

A. Yes, I do.23

Q. What is it?24

A. Its the actual decision by -- and a variety of25


44/136


other supporting documents that are attached, including1

the original request and some correspondences between2

COAH and the township. But its the approval of the3

townships waiver request. Its dated December 4th,4

2001, prepared by Sean Thompson, who was the principal5

planner at the time. And theres a report, a COAH6

report, which specifies the framework in which COAH7

approved that waiver request, and the resolution of8

COAH -- the actual COAH resolution is dated December9

12, 2001, which approved the waiver request.10

Q. Now, do you have an opinion, based upon your11

experience and knowledge of the Council on Affordable12

Housing, and your experience in this field as a13

professional planner, as to whether or not the units,14

the rehabilitation units that have been involved with15

Union County, the 15 that are sought, should be16

credited?17

A. Yeah. Assuming that we have the full information18

that we need from the county with regards to those 1519

units, that its my opinion that the township could20

seek a similar waiver, if we were under COAHs21

jurisdiction, a similar waiver from COAH or a similar22

approval from the court for those units that in23

actuality met all the credit requirements for a unit in24

need of rehabilitation.25


45/136


46/136


municipality. Do you understand that?1

A. I understand the concept.2

Q. Do you agree with it?3

A. Well, in actuality, I think the -- from my4

perspective, you know, can you do that? Yes, you can.5

But in -- from a prac -- very practical perspective,6

really its not fully addressing the rehabilitation7

obligation or really addressing the needs of those low8

and moderate income households that occupy a unit in9

need of rehabilitation. In essence, if youre just10

creating a new affordable housing unit someplace else,11

its not addressing the actual low and moderate income12

household that resides in the existing unit in need of13

rehabilitation. So, basically what you have is, youve14

got the creation of a new affordable housing unit and15

then youve got the units that are still in need of16

rehabilitation. And when it comes around for the next17

round, or next cycle, or evaluation of the18

rehabilitation obligation, which will probably be19

coming -- were now into 2010, were in the 201020

census, those units that re -- those units in need of21

rehabilitation, based on the census surrogates that22

COAHs used and COAH may be using in the future, are23

going to be there. So, youve got the creation of a24

new unit, but youre really not fundamentally25


47/136


48/136


the special needs housing, we contacted at the state1

level the various state agency regulating entities for2

the group homes. We also received information from the3

tax assessor, the townships tax assessor, with regards4

to the status of the group homes. In fact, in two5

cases, I believe, that they -- the tax assessors6

office found -- provided us with the licensing7

information that was on file. And then we contacted8

the group home providers to obtain additional9

information.10

Q. And is -- how many group homes did you find?11

A. There are four separate group homes and within12

each -- within those group homes theres a total of 2013

bedrooms and as noted previously to the court, that the14

unit of credit is the bedroom for a group home.15

Q. Now, do you have an opinion as to whether16

these units would -- these special needs housing units17

would satisfy or would receive credit from the Council18

on Affordable Housing?19

A. Yes. Yes, I do have an opinion as to --20

Q. And can you tell us what it is?21

A. Yeah, sure. The -- its my opinion that22

ultimately all four of the group homes will be23

creditworthy from the townships perspective. There24

are some additional information that needs to be25


49/136


provided by the providers and to have a complete, a1

full assessment of that, but from the information at2

least that weve seen to date, in my mind it suggests3

that all -- and based on my experience, suggests that4

all four of those group homes will be found to be5

creditworthy.6

Q. Now, do you know when these units went into7

operation?8

A. Yeah. Theres, at least in some of the cases,9

theres -- there are --10

Q. And I direct your attention to Appendix C.11

A. Right. And theres -- excuse me, this is just all12

folded up in here. So, Ill try to --13

Q. Take your time.14

A. Ill try.15

THE COURT: Youll just have to tell me which16

one is Appendix C, because I cant --17

THE WITNESS: Appendix C --18

MR. WOODWARD: Page eight, Your Honor.19

THE WITNESS: Its on page -- yes, identified20

as page eight. Its after the rehabilitation -- the21

list of rehabilitation units from the county and after22

the --23

MR. WOODWARD: This is what it looks like,24

Your Honor. Your Honor, here, I have an extra copy.25


50/136


THE COURT: Maybe -- is this it?1

MR. WOODWARD: Yes, thats --2

THE COURT: Thats -- okay.3


Q. All right. So, can you tell us what dates5

these units went into -- or are considered to have been6

in operation?7

A. Sure. I also want to look at the table, too.8

Okay, for the -- just kind of working down through the9

crediting information thats provided. For the first10

of the group homes, which is the Surf Center of New11

Jersey, which is the 6 Hollywood Avenue group home,12

which has -- excuse me, its located at Block 514, Lot13

number 3. Excuse me, sorry. The CO date, or the date14

of occupancy, is not available on that group home as of15

yet. Going to the --16

THE COURT: I still dont think I have the17

right thing. Yeah, I dont have that one.18

MR. WOODWARD: You dont?19

THE COURT: I mean Im not on the right page.20

MR. WOODWARD: All right. I have another21

copy if youd like to use it.22

THE COURT: Okay. Surf Center of New Jersey,23

is that what you --24

MR. WOODWARD: Yes. It says Hollywood25


51/136


Avenue.1

THE COURT: Okay, Number 6 Hollywood Avenue.2

THE WITNESS: Yeah.3

THE COURT: Sorry, I have it.4

THE WITNESS: Oh, thats okay. And these are5

the forms that are -- theyre typical, the COAH survey6

information forms with regards to the information for7

each of these facilities.8

THE COURT: Okay, I have it.9

BY THE WITNESS:10

A. And for this one -- and Surf Center of New Jersey11

runs two facilities in the township. The first one is12

being at 6 Hollywood Avenue, and as I indicated, that13

we dont have the actual CO date from that -- for that14

information. We do have -- have been in contact with15

Pauline Simms of Surf Center, with regards to16

information that we have requested and have provided17

them that, this form as well. The second is the second18

Surf Center of New Jersey Group Home, which is the one19

at 125 Dietz Street, which is Block 569, Lot number 8,20

and that CO date is identified as June 10th, 2010, and21

had been a previously purchased back in 2005, but it22

had been on -- undertaking -- or they had been under --23

Surf Center of New Jersey had been undertaking24

renovations between 2007 and 2010. And theres a tax25


52/136


assess -- a tax record associated with that property1

and its identified. Theres also a property2

description thats attached showing the tax assessment3

information from 6 Hollywood Avenue, in Cranford,4

identifying it as a nonprofit and charitable property.5

And --6

Q. By the way, going back to the first one, Mr.7

Slachetka.8

A. Yes.9

Q. You mentioned -- thats the one on Hollywood10

Avenue.11

A. Yes.12

Q. You mentioned an attachment from the13

assessors office.14

A. Right. And thats what I was just getting into.15

Q. Would you take a look, theres an assessment16

data column that talks about exemption granted. Do you17

see that?18

A. Yes.19

Q. What was the date of that?20

A. Exemption granted was --21

Q. Well, let me put it this way.22

A. Yeah. Well, yeah, --23

Q. How long has Surf Center owned it?24

A. Yeah, thats from 1990 -- August 24th, 1998. And25


53/136


theres also a license attached as well. I think the1

problem is, Your Honor, that the attachments may be a2

lit -- may be out of order on this.3

Q. Well, in any event, in terms of determining4

when the certificate of occupancy was issued, --5

A. Yeah.6

Q. -- that can be obtained from the7

municipality, correct?8

A. Thats -- yes, that can be obtained from the9

municipality. But its my opinion that, in fact, this10

facility would ultimately meet the full COAH criterion.11

Q. Now, moving on to this one at 48 Johnson12

Avenue.13

A. Yes.14

Q. The third one.15

A. Ill pull that out. And theres, by the way,16

theres also a tax assess -- the tax assessment data17

for the Dietz property as well thats attached to that18

as well. The 48 Johnson Avenue property, which is run19

by Community Access Unlimited, thats -- that CO was20

filed -- the CO date is February 11th, 1999.21

Q. So, this has been operating as a facility, a22

special needs facility for that length of time, is that23

correct?24

A. Yes. And theres a license and -- a license25


54/136


attached, a copy of a license attached, and also the1

tax information, tax data, tax assessment data thats2

attached to that as well.3

Q. Now, the last one of these is located at 544

Johnson Avenue, correct?5

A. Thats -- that is correct. Thats owned and6

operated by the -- again, the sponsor is identified as7

Creative Property Management and it is 54 Johnson8

Avenue, and its CO date is August 25th, 1999.9

Q. So, --10

A. And again, theres a license attached as well and11

also the similar tax assessment data thats attached as12

part of that facility.13

Q. Now, turning to next to your Appendix D, was14

there an affordable housing unit created by the15

variance issued by the board of adjustment?16

A. Yes, that is correct.17

Q. Could you tell us about that?18

A. This was an applicant for a mixed use development19

proposed and ultimately it was accepted and approved,20

in February of 2009, a, again, a mixed use development21

with one affordable housing unit in -- as part of the22

-- that approval.23

Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether this24

qualifies under COAH regulations as a creditable unit?25


55/136


A. Yes, this would definitely qualify as a1

creditworthy unit.2

Q. And I want to show you -- oh, youve attached3

that to your report. Okay. Im going to show you4

whats next been marked as D-74 for identification.5

Its a letter dated January 8, 2009, with, below it, a6

redevelopment agreement between Cranford Redevelopment.7

Have you ever seen this document before?8

A. Yes, I have.9

Q. What is it?10

A. This is the redeveloper agreement between the11

Township of Cranford and whats identified as12

Riverfront Developers, LLC, with regards to the13

redevelopment of the, whats commonly known as the14

Riverfront Redevelopment Plan Area within Cranford15

Township.16

Q. And what are the details of that particular17

development, particularly in respect of the provision18

of affordable housing?19

A. Again, this is a mixed use redevelopment, which is20

located across the street from the train station, in21

Cranford Township. And its one of the projects we22

were involved in reviewing the various proposals for23

this project. And it basically provides for, as part24

of the redeveloper agreement, it provides for the25


56/136


57/136


me -- included the special needs housing that we1

discussed, the 20 units of credit that would be2

available to the township for those four group homes.3

We have the Lincoln Apartment senior rental units.4

Now, in this instance its a slightly different5

calculation, if we assume that we are not accepting a6

vacant land adjustment. And again, for the sake of7

argument, under the assumption that we had as part of8

this analysis, the formula is a slightly different one.9

Typically it would be 25 percent of the realistic10

development potential or 25 percent of the prior round.11

In this instance its a prior round obligation, plus12

the rehabilitation share, minus any rehabilitation13

credits. So, we assume the 53 and we took the 1514

credits, rehabilitation credits. So, we had a -- we15

allowed for 46 units, rather than the 37 that we had16

been talking about. The interesting thing about this17

is that, just for the sake of argument, if the township18

wasnt eligible for a certain amount of rehabilitation19

credits against its actual obligation, then the actual20

amount of senior credits, the rental credits that they21

would -- the township would be able to take would22

actually be larger. So, its going to -- its an23

interesting relationship that COAH has established with24

this. The same thing as if the rehabilitation share25


58/136


was determined to be 55 instead of 53, again, the1

township would be eligible to take more senior credits2

for the prior round. 555 South Avenue, we -- which was3

based on a settlement agreement, the proposed4

settlement agreement as part of this case, we5

identified as 24 nonage restricted family rental units.6

The Riverfront Redevelopment Project, as part of the7

redevelopment -- redeveloper agreement, with 168

affordable nonage restricted rental units. The rental9

bonus credits that the township would be able --10

eligibly receive for those two family rental projects11

would be 37 renter bonus credits. And that is up to12

the maximum, as I mentioned before, that you could only13

take up to 25 percent of your obligation as bonus14

credits under COAH regulations. And then the15

additional affordable unit approved by the zoning board16

was one -- another additional credit. So, there had17

been a total of 144 potential credits, assuming all the18

various components of the credits, the affordable19

housing activities undertaken by the township to date20

were assigned to the prior round obligation. So, there21

would be a remaining prior round obligation of four22

units.23

Q. Now, with respect to -- and Im sorry, you24

mentioned the settlement of Lehigh Acquisition, which25


59/136


60/136


you had a settlement agreement, or an agreement, COAH1

allows you to basically place these units within the2

prior round obligation or the growth share, depending3

upon the nature of the townships or municipalitys4

program. COAH is very flexible in terms of how youre5

able to -- within certain parameters, how youre able6

to frame out you fair share plan. So, yes, you would7

be able -- be eligible to, if they were COAH eligible8

credits, youd be able to, for this type of project in9

particular, youd be able to place them in the prior10

round as well as the growth share, depending upon how11

you wanted to structure your plan.12

Q. Now, Im going to direct your attention to13

another matter, which relates to set aside. Are you14

aware of the following language from Mount Laurel II,15

quoting at page 279 to 280. What is a --16

What is substantial in a particular case as17

to affordable housing will be for the --,18

which is my insertion,19

-- for the trial court to decide. The court20

should consider such factors as the size of the21

plaintiffs proposed project, the percentage of22

the project to be devoted to lower income housing23

(20 percent appears to us to be a reasonable24

minimum), what portion of the defendants25


61/136


municipalitys fair share allocation would be1

provided by the project, and the extent to which2

the remaining housing of the project can be3

categorized as least cost.4

Are you familiar with that quotation?5

A. Yes, I am.6

Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether or7

not this project should have a 20 percent set aside or8

the 15 percent set aside as proposed by the Plaintiffs?9

A. I do have an opinion on that.10

Q. And what is your opinion?11

A. And my opinion is that a 20 percent set aside12

should be applied to this project, not the 15 percent13

that is being proposed by the Plaintiff in this case.14

Q. And why is that?15

A. Well, Your Honor, its based on -- and it kind of16

goes hand-in-hand in terms of the evaluation of the17

credits in terms of the order of magnitude of need.18

From my perspective, what we need, what -- and from a19

straight planning perspective, again, relating it back20

to this whole issue of whats sound planning in this21

area. One of the -- and actually, Mr. Woodward, maybe22

if we -- could we see the chart thats the four23

elements of the -- of sound planning?24

Q. Sure.25


62/136


63/136


Laurel issue and taking affordability, the questions of1

the affordable housing litigation off the table, we2

would not be planning this for multi-family residential3

development. Wed not be providing this area as a high4

density residential project, because it basically turns5

everything that we know about sustainability in6

planning on its head. Were not -- were locating this7

far away from the town center, far away from the train8

station. So, in that respect, Im viewing this from9

the standpoint of what -- if, in fact, were going to10

be addressing affordable at this location, affordable11

housing at this location, what is the proper balance.12

And from my perspective that if youre going to be13

doing any consideration of affordable housing at this14

location, the intent here is to maximize as much as15

possible the provision of affordable housing and thats16

consistent with what the statement that you read, Mr.17

Woodward. That thats the reason why its my opinion18

that 20 percent -- a 20 percent set aside is an19

appropriate set aside.20

Q. Now, does this project as proposed, at a 1521

percent level set aside by the Plaintiffs, create an22

additional growth share obligation for the town?23

A. Yes, to the extent that --24

Q. How is that? Can you explain it?25


64/136


A. Under the current growth share methodology that we1

talked about previously, that you provide one unit for2

every five total number of units, or basically a 203

percent set aside, four market rate units, one4

affordable housing unit. So, if you use those ratios5

in establishing the obligation, basically 20 percent of6

these units should be affordable, to basically7

counteract all the market rate units, or to address all8

the market rate units that are being provided as part9

of this project. At a 15 percent set aside, in10

essence, what gets created is a gap. Theres more11

market rate units than are created in relationship to12

the corresponding affordable housing units that are13

provided within this project. Therefore, that gap for14

those additional market rate units engender their own15

growth share obligation and their own growth share16

potential that needs to be assigned to the township.17

Q. And do you know how many -- in this case,18

what that gap is, how many units?19

A. Its about approximately 104 market rate units, if20

you apply the corresponding ratio.21

Q. So, if this ratio is applied, the township,22

at the end of the day on the construction of this23

project, does it have to provide for additional24

affordable housing?25


65/136


A. Yeah, approximately another 20 or so -- a little1

more than 20 affordable housing units, based on the 202

percent, or the one to -- one out of five of those 1043

units should be affordable units.4

Q. If the Plaintiffs proposal goes forward,5

would those units be provided on this site?6

A. No, they would not.7

Q. Where would they be provided?8

A. The township would have to make -- to apply, as9

part of their compliance plan, they would have to10

somehow incorporate and address those units as part of11

their compliance -- total compliance plan.12

MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor. I have13

no further questions of the witness at this time.14

THE COURT: A good time for a break? All15

right, well take about --16

(Off record. Back on record.)17

MR. WOODWARD: I had neglected to move three18

documents into evidence and I just wanted to get them19

in before he starts his cross. And those documents are20

D-13, which is the letter dated October 25, 2001, to21

Shirley Bishop; D-14, which is Marlena Schmidt, from22

the Council on Affordable Housing, dated January 9,23

2002, and the executed redevelopment agreement between24

the Township of Cranford and Riverfront, which is D-74.25


66/136

Colloquy 66

MR. EISDORFER: I have no objection to any of1

those documents.2

THE COURT: Okay, no objection D-13, D-14 --3

MR. WOODWARD: D-74.4

THE COURT: D-74. And what about Plaintiffs5

D-8?6

MR. WOODWARD: I think that was in evidence7

already, Your Honor.8

THE COURT: Did you move that in?9

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I believe it was10

--11

MR. WOODWARD: Yes, it is.12

THE COURT: Okay.13

MR. EISDORFER: -- it had already been moved14

in for the purpose of showing what the experts opinion15

is.16

THE COURT: Okay, wait. Hang on one second.17

So, we have D-8, yes, that was in evidence on Friday.18

MR. WOODWARD: Yes.19

THE COURT: Okay. And then so today its D-20

13, D-14 and 74, right?21

MR. WOODWARD: Correct, Your Honor.22

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.23


THE COURT: Mr. Eisdorfer.25


67/136


68/136


69/136

Mr. Slachetka - Cross 69

Q. Im asking not about your projections, Im1

asking about facts. These are facts, right?2

A. Its information from the Department of Labor,3

thats correct.4

Q. Okay. Now, has -- Cranford has zoned to5

foster growth in jobs, hasnt it?6

A. Its zoned a variety -- its done a lot of7

different types of zoning, some for nonresidential,8

some for residential zones.9

Q. Its created a large nonresidential zone.10

And Im going to show you once again D-66 and ask you11

to look at Attachment DLAE, which is labeled Land Use12

Map. And this map is marked in various colors, isnt13

it?14

A. Yes, it is.15

Q. And the commercial and industrial are marked16

in red and grey?17

A. Thats correct.18

Q. And it shows a big area of industrial and19

commercial adjacent to the Garden State Parkway?20

A. Yes, that is correct.21

Q. And are you familiar with that? Are you22

familiar with what that area is?23

A. Yes, its --24

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, hes injecting --25


70/136


hes interrupting the witnesss answer. Perhaps there1

should be a little slow down in the question and the2

answer response.3

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I dont think the4

witness is feeling like Im intruding on him.5

THE COURT: But I didnt hear his answer --6

MR. EISDORFER: Okay.7

THE COURT: -- before I heard your next8

question and --9

CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER:10

Q. Okay. So, is -- theres an area of red and11

grey thats shown on this map?12

A. Yes, there is.13

Q. And thats an area thats industrial and14

commercial?15

A. Thats -- yes, it is. This is the existing --16

youre referring to the generalized land use, or17

existing land use map.18

Q. Thats right.19

A. Yes.20

Q. And are you familiar what that area is?21

A. Yes.22

Q. Thats a big industrial office park, isnt23

it?24

A. Oh, yes, it is.25


71/136


Q. Created by Cranford zoning?1

A. Yes, it -- yes, it was.2

Q. Now, lets go back and look at the housing3

that -- the affordable housing thats actually been4

created in Cranford.5

A. Okay.6

Q. Lets go through your list. Now, tell me7

which units are senior citizen units?8

A. The Lincoln Apartment units.9

Q. Now, how many of them are -- are there?10

A. One hundred units.11

Q. Now, are there any others that have actually12

been created in Cranford?13

A. The -- I mentioned the group homes previously, the14

special needs housing that --15

Q. Okay. So, those are all for people who are16

handicapped?17

A. Yes, theyre -- well, no, Im not sure if theyre18

handicapped. Some theyre licensed for the Division of19

Developmental Disabilities.20

Q. You know what developmental disabilities are?21

A. Yes.22

Q. Thats the handicapped.23

A. I dont know if the term handicapped is being24

used, but thats okay.25


72/136


Q. Okay. So, now, you also said that in 19791

the town had created some affordable housing. What2

kind of housing was that?3

A. That was age restrict, or senior housing.4

Q. That was also senior citizen housing?5

A. Yes.6

Q. So, is any of this housing that has been7

created since 1979 housing for families?8

A. The -- youre talking about the actual produc --9

Q. Actual production of houses.10

A. The actual units themselves.11

Q. Actual units that have been produced.12

A. Yeah, not that Im aware of, no.13

Q. Okay. So, we have a large produc -- creation14

of jobs, but no housing thats actually available to15

families, is that correct?16

A. Well, except that to the extent that the17

rehabilitation program actually rehabilitated units18

that were occupied by low and moderate income19

households and which COAH had made a determination that20

they actually were, so.21

Q. But those were households that were already22

living there, right?23

A. That was addressing the townships indigenous24

need.25


73/136


Q. Thats right. So, those were hou -- thats1

indigenous need, those were households that are already2

living there. So, when we talk about new stuff, were3

only talking about housing for senior citizens. Now,4

you talk about the net density. Is net density a term5

thats defined in the Municipal Land Use Law?6

A. No, its not.7

Q. Is it defined in -- is it a defined term in8

the regulations of the Council on Affordable Housing?9

A. No, but as I mentioned that the --10

Q. Is it a defined term in the regulations of11

the Council on Affordable Housing?12

MR. WOODWARD: Objection, Your Honor,13

interrupting the witness.14

THE COURT: It would be helpful for me to get15

the answer to your question, --16

MR. EISDORFER: Okay.17

THE COURT: -- Mr. Eisdorfer, dont you18

think?19

MR. EISDORFER: That would be fine, but he20

wants to answer a different question, not the one Ive21

asked.22

THE COURT: Well, but until we hear his23

answer we dont know that.24

MR. EISDORFER: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.25


74/136


75/136


at the middle of the page 5:97-4.4.1

A. Four?2

Q. 6.4, rather.3

A. Yeah, 6.4.4

THE COURT: What page?5

MR. EISDORFER: Okay. So, this is not in the6

book. And Im going to give the Court --7

THE COURT: Oh, I thought it was 66.8

MR. EISDORFER: Thats Defendants exhibits.9

Were back on Plain --10

THE COURT: Oh, this is different?11

MR. EISDORFER: Were back on Plaintiffs12

exhibits.13

THE COURT: Oh, I thought yours were white.14

Sorry about that. Its your P-6 --15

MR. EISDORFER: P-66.16

THE COURT: P-66 is not in your book --17

MR. EISDORFER: Thats correct.18

THE COURT: -- binders at all?19

MR. EISDORFER: Thats correct.20

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.21

THE WITNESS: 5:97-6.4.22

CONTINUED BY MR. EISDORFER:23

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with this?24

A. Yes, generally familiar.25


76/136


77/136


Q. Okay. So, now can you answer the question?1

Does the Council on Affordable Housing define the2

number of units to go on inclusionary zoning sites in3

terms of gross density?4

A. Yes, in this context, certainly.5

Q. Now, the -- you defined net density and let6

me make sure Im getting it right.7

A. Sure.8

Q. You define net density as you take the gross9

density and you subtract out various kinds of10

environmentally constrained lands.11

A. That is correct.12

Q. Okay. So, and on this site you did, you gave13

us various numbers, but basically you said Im going to14

divide the total number of housing units, of15

apartments, by the remainder of the non-environmentally16

sensitive land, as youve defined it. Is that correct?17

A. That was one of the calculations I provided.18

Q. Isnt that the def -- the -- your definition19

of what net density is?20

A. Yes. My initial calculation was that I took out21

the various environmental constraints, the floodplains22

and the flood hazard areas, yes.23

Q. Okay. So, now --24

A. And wetland areas.25


78/136


79/136


density.1

Q. So, if there were no environmental2

constraints, the net density and gross density would be3

exactly the same.4

A. Thats correct.5

Q. So, the net density doesnt depend upon the6

characteristics of the units. It depends upon the7

characteristics of the part of the site theyre not8

using, is that right?9

A. It de -- its dependent on the characteristics of10

the site, yes.11

Q. Now, incidentally, from the point of view of12

sound land use planning as you have defined it, doesnt13

-- dont high -- doesnt concentrated development, high14

net densities, have virtues? For example, doesnt it15

conserve open space?16

A. It certainly conserves open space, yes.17

Q. Okay. And it encourages energy efficiency?18

A. Well, depending, but it --19

Q. Because it means you have fewer --20

MR. WOODWARD: Objection, Your Honor. The21

witness is in the middle of his answer

transcript 8.16.10 slachetka twp planner

Documents