Borough commissioners discuss a number of reports in the press, that have generated numerous questions.
The following information was submitted to The Sun from the Borough
As you are likely aware, in January 2016 the Borough of Haddonfield entered into an agreement with the developer who had a contract to purchase the Bancroft property. This developer had proposed to build a drug and alcohol treatment facility. Under this agreement the Borough purchased the Bancroft property, while the developer retained rights to develop the residential portion of the property.
At the time of the purchase the Commissioner’s committed to the taxpayers of Haddonfield that we would set aside a portion of the property for age-targeted residential development. The taxes from this development would generate enough new revenue to offset the borrowing costs for the rest of the property, making the entire purchase tax neutral. The Commissioner’s remain committed to that goal.
In April 2016, at the recommendation of the Planning Board, the Commissioner’s adopted a Redevelopment Plan that was developed with extensive input from the Borough’s Planner, the Planning Board, and the Public. This Plan allows for three possible types of age-targeted development on the site: 70 townhomes, 87 mixed townhomes and flats, or 105 flats, along with the required number of affordable housing units (about 12.5%.)
Recently the Commissioners, working with the developer, suggested some minor changes for the Plan to the Planning Board for their review. These changes would allow the construction of 80 townhomes, versus the 70 currently allowed, along with some additional changes to facilitate this. The Planning Board expressed concerns about some aspects of these changes.
The Commissioners appreciate the hard work the Planning Board put into the review process, and the developer clearly heard their concerns. In the near future, the Commissioners will hold a public meeting to present a new conceptual site plan, along with sample building elevations. The Commissioner’s will carefully consider the public input generated at this meeting when deciding on a final site plan.
There have been a number of reports in the press, that have generated numerous questions. We would like to quickly address some of these:
- Why are we changing the Plan at all? The Commissioners feel that the changes proposed are minor, are in keeping with the spirit of the existing Redevelopment Plan, and conform with the Master Plan. These changes will allow the developer to quickly move forward with a plan that benefits the Borough.
- Why can’t we use another developer; we don’t like this guy? Part of the agreement of sale of the property gives the developer rights. If they decide to walk away from the project, they can, and then we could select someone else. If they want to be the developer, and they do, we would have to take them to court to terminate their rights. While we can’t know how this would work out (we could lose) we do know this would take up to 5 years to play out in court. During that time the Borough would need to start paying off the bonds for the purchase, and the taxpayers would get hit with a sizable tax increase.
- Why are you ripping out the berm along Kings Highway? The sample site plan presented to the Planning Board did have townhouses on Kings Highway, but was a sample, not a final plan. However, given the strong negative reaction to the removal of the berm the Commissioners have decided not to pursue the changes that would allow this. The berm will stay.
- Are you tearing down the historic structures at Bancroft, like the stone house? No. The site plan shown to the Planning Board was a conceptual plan, and it was clearly stated that historic structures, as well as important trees would be included later. We will either develop around important structures, or they will be relocated.
- What’s the plan for Lullworth Hall? The plan for Lullworth Hall is unchanged from the original Redevelopment Plan. The house will be protected by a historic preservation easement, subdivided into its own parcel, and sold. Acceptable uses for it will be professional offices (doctor, lawyer, accountant, therapist…) or possibly a bed and breakfast. It will not be demolished.
- Won’t there be a big impact on the schools? From the beginning we planned an age-targeted development to try to reduce the likelihood of a large influx of new students. Either flats or townhouses generate fewer students than typical single-family homes. Further, the Commissioners plan to share the pilot revenue with the Board of Education to help offset any impact from new students.
- Why can’t we make the housing age-restricted so there are no new students? When the Borough was negotiating with the developer to buy the property, they were not interested in age-restricted housing, only age-targeted. If we insisted on age-restricted, we would not own the property, and they would still be working on their drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility.
- Don’t flats generate fewer students than townhomes? When we compare the rate of students generated from existing apartments with existing age-targets townhomes, the rates are similar. If we compare the students generated by 80 townhouses, like the ones at the Mews, and 105 flats, like the ones at Haddon Common, the students generated are equal, plus the flats would bring along more kids from the additional affordable units required.
- Why don’t we build flats that more Seniors can afford rather than townhomes? The Plan allows for 105 flats. At a reasonable sale price, say up to $250,000, the taxes generated barely covers the debt on the Bancroft property, with little left over for the Borough to provide services to the new residents, nor pay for the new students generated. This would result in a tax increase, and the Commissioners don’t want that. The final plan may well include some flats mixed with townhomes, which is anticipated to generate sufficient tax revenue for the purchase of the whole parcel to remain tax neutral.
- What about the report there would be 250 or 300 apartments? A resident did suggest this at a Commissioner meeting. Both the Commissioners and the Planning Board rejected the idea. This is not allowed under the Redevelopment Plan, and will not be allowed even with the proposed changes to the Plan.
To for more information, contact [email protected].
