Bancroft_Basics Facts_2021Apr19_Rev01

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accommodate the builder’s requirementsand requests?”DID SOMEONE SAY“ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS”?The plaintiffs claim that:• The amended ordinance is inconsistentwith the Bancroft redevelopment plan andthe Borough’s master plan.• The redevelopment plan and themaster plan envision housing at Bancroftfor downsizing senior citizens.• The amended ordinance, whichpermits more units (from 70 to 80), wasdesigned to increase the builder’s profit.• The amended ordinance, whichpermits larger units (from 2,000 squarefeet of living space to 2,250), makes the
units no longer modest in size, which wasthe objective, so there will be an increasein price as a result.• The installation of elevators increasesthe cost of the units and deviates from theconcept of living space on one level.HERD argues that the Commissionersmade these concessions to the developerwithout any quid pro quo – Haddonfieldgot nothing of value in return – and thatthe increase in the number of marketrateunits (from 70 to 80) deprived thedevelopment and its residents of outdoorcommunal space.A BAD MOVE IN 2018HERD says that the Commissioners’action in early 2018 to amend the original
Page 1 and 2: “I think the mayor should probabl
Page 3 and 4: Judge Famular ordered theCommission
Page 5 and 6: Morris, Nils Herdelin, and DanielTo
Page 7 and 8: WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?At the end of
Page 9 and 10: WHAT’S THE “WELL ... MAYBE”?E
Page 11 and 12: NJDEP also reminded the developerth
Page 13: “I think the mayor should probabl
Page 17 and 18: HERD NEEDS YOUR HELP!To date, Judge
Page 19 and 20: When representatives of HERD metwit
Page 21 and 22: 2018 - did nothing to delay progres

Bancroft_Basics Facts_2021Apr19_Rev01

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?