Mobile homes: ending happy? Part 2, the reprieve
[Continued from yesterday’s Part 1.]
[Previous blog posts on Paradise Park may be found in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]
When we left
HIGHLANDS – The Republican majority here appears to have finally secured the necessary votes to push through the rezoning of
The ordinance passed on introduction by a 3-1 vote.
Hey, thinks the alert reader, what happened to the fifth member?
What happened to the fifth element?
For months the two Democrats on council have essentially blocked any movement on the measure. Since the council unanimously adopted a new borough wide Master Plan the zoning ordinance package has periodically appeared for a vote. Because of petitions signed by neighbors opposing the creation of a mixed use district (MXD) at the current location of
The governing body appeared deadlocked along party lines in a 3-2 split.
Hey, I know how to break the dreadlock!
Old political maneuver: when facing a deadlock, knock out a voter.
However, acting on the advice of the borough attorney, Councilman John Urbanski decided to recuse himself from the matter prior to the ordinance’s reintroduction last week. Urbanski owns land that could be impacted by portions of the new zoning package, though not the MXD.
The recusal is ironic. ‘Conflict of interest’ is normally taken to mean that someone might vote against the public interest in pursuit of a personal private interest. Councilor Urbanski, however, has been stout in defending the status quo, which is probably the lowest-economic-value use the site could have.
“Mr. Urbanski received an extraordinary amount of votes in the last election, if I’m not mistaken in part because of his position on this issue and I believe that the people in this room are counting on him to be part of this process,” said Steve Cassidy, of K Street.
Councilor Urbanski’s prior actions demonstrate that if he had a conflict of interest —
“He has a conflict,” the mayor said.
I think you have a conflict of interest, sir.
— he has already adjudicated it against himself!
You mean I voted wrong?
This decision did not come as a total surprise considering Urbanski reluctantly recused himself from a vote on the zoning ordinance revisions as a member of the planning board last year.
At that meeting it was explained that O’Neil, after conferring with the board’s attorney, had asked Urbanski to recuse himself.
So with Mr. Urbanski out of the picture, proponents of a rezoning had a super-majority, yet opponents had one last trick to try:
Attempts during last Wednesday’s council meeting to separate the lighting rod provision within the ordinance - creating the MXD which would rezone Paradise Park and Sandy Hook Bay Marina for townhouses, single family units, multi-family dwellings, marinas, restaurants, offices and ferry services amongst other items – failed.
The two properties affected by the rezoning are, in fact, owned by the same individual, Mr. Bollerman, who bought the marina first and the mobile home park second.
Shortly thereafter Councilwoman Nancy Thomas added, “The fact is this is really a basic thing to implement the Master Plan. We’ve already spent $25,000 on this and if we separate the ordinance we could spend another $25,000.”
In view of the residents’ expressed willingness to depart, provided they secured the relocation benefits provided under
“What we have here is not a land use argument,” Smith suggested. “What we have here is a dispute about money.”
“What we have heah — is a failyah — to communicate.”
Yet that point seemed lost in the furious local debate, and my interview with Mr. Lynch concluded glumly, as it appeared that the city council was set to press ahead without a full exploration of the issues, so it was with a completely surreal sense of satisfaction and surprised pleasure that I was alerted by reader Stacy Vickery —
I thought you might want to see this since I know you wrote about it last year. I live in this town but not at the trailer park and I was surprised to find out the other day it’s taken over top billing from the drawbridge controversy.
— to this article from the Asbury Park Press:
Revisions? What revisions?
Just what I recommended in my Two Rivers
Although the second reading and vote on adopting the revised ordinance were postponed, the council held a public hearing for the residents who live at the
Gregory Vella of Collins, Vella and Casello LLC, Farmingdale, was hired to revise the ordinance to insure the residents were not left without protection from redevelopment.
Very encouraging — not only is the city council acting as if aware of the wrinkle in its resident protection scheme, it has now given explicit guidance to create unambiguous language so that changing the zoning will not reduce resident protections.
The ordinance would change the waterfront property’s zoning to mixed use, allowing property owner James Bollerman to redevelop the area. The homeowners could be left without some rights if provisions for such rights are not made in the ordinance.
As the owner, Bollerman has the right to retire the trailer park, Vella said. According to law, the owner would have to give tenants 18 months’ notice, he said.
Among the benefits of homeownership is security of tenure, and as
But without proper wording in the ordinance, residents could be asked to vacate the property without compensation. However, borough officials are including:
[x] tenant compensation in the revised ordinance as well as
[y] a clause in case Bollerman were to sell the property to another buyer.
With the second clause, the council is aiming to link the protections with the land rather than with a specific owner.
If the new owner did not want to pay compensation, the land would revert back to its original use — not allowing redevelopment.
The next hearing on the land use ordinance will be at 8 p.m. March 21 at borough hall,
If Mr. Vella completes his task as outlined above, perhaps the story will end — happily? — on the vernal equinox.
