Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Letter to Speaker of the Assembly on Affordable Housing Requirements

I have sent a letter to the Speaker of the NJ Assembly urging him to bring forth discussion before the Assembly of proposed bills regarding affordable housing requirements greatly affecting the overdevelopment of our town.   I will keep you updated if I receive a response and encourage you to write as well:

Speaker of the Assembly, Vincent Pietro
1 Harmon Plaza, Suite 205
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Email -
Twitter @VincentPrieto


Assemblyman Vincent Pietro
One Harmon Plaza, Suite 205
Secaucus, NJ 07094
October 2, 2017

Dear Assembly Speaker Pietro,

We are at a critical juncture in this state with how we decide to appropriately handle the need for individuals to have affordable housing options and the reality of what townships & municipalities can sustain with new development.  This affects our school systems, public resources, environment and more.  This also greatly influences the quality of life of our residents, both those in need of affordable housing options and those who can afford more.

In Denville, we have always worked hard to incorporate affordable housing options within our main township structure so all residents have equal access to the great resources, accommodations and benefits of our town.

Due to the legislatures inaction, the issue now resides very much in the court system.  This is a failure of the legislature and as Speaker of the House I urge you to bring forth a variety of bills that can be discussed by the Assembly.  All options should be discussed, debated and a potentially resolved.  To not entertain theses bills is a failure of government.  Please allow for the bills listed below to come before the Assembly for discussion & vote.  Anything less is clouding government’s transparency. Leaving the matter within the court system prevents Townships from openly discussing many legal matters to to litigation risk.  Listed:

A4667 Establishes "Affordable Housing Obligation Study Commission; 

S3081 Establishes "Affordable Housing Obligation Study Commission; 
A5025 Requires COAH to administer affordable housing obligations of municipalities based on statewide obligation; 

A5027 Requires COAH to calculate affordable housing obligations on Statewide basis;

A5028 Establishes additional factors for municipal adjustment used in calculating fair share affordable housing obligations; provides population based cap for these obligations; 

A5029 Prohibits affordable housing obligation exemptions for urban aid municipalities; 

ACR249 Proposes amendment to New Jersey Constitution to prohibit exclusionary zoning and clarify municipal obligations regarding affordable housing construction;

ACR250 Proposes constitutional amendment to require State-wide calculation of affordable housing obligation. 


Gene Fitzpatrick

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Strongly Supporting Jack Ciattarelli for Governor

Candidate for NJ Governor, Jack Ciattarelli

I couldn't imagine who would ever want to be New Jersey's next governor.  Our state is in such a terrible mess -enormous property taxes,  insane state school funding formulas, a State pension fund so deep in the hole that 3 former governors at a League of Municipalities Conference recently agreed they wouldn't even know where to being in order to fix it.   However,  I'm very impressed with a candidate who has a plan and gives real answers to question vs. the same older political rhetoric.  That candidate is Jack Ciattarelli, he's a businessman and resident first, before politics.

I've never been one to shy away from disagreeing with my own political party but I believe Jack Ciattarelli is the best person to lead the state.  The Primary selection for Governor should not be a coronation of an establishment's candidate that automatically assumes the nomination.  It should be a contest and debate. In those debates Jack has demonstrated himself to be the better candidate.   Here are the reasons why I'm supporting Jack Ciattarelli in the June 6th primary.

SCHOOL FUNDING -  Finally someone is admitting why our property taxes are so out of control and has a plan to fix it.  The way the State funds our schools is all out of wack.  Jack is pointing this out and vowing to change that formula.  He acknowledges it will take bipartisan work in the legislature but already knows which Democratic Assemblypersons and Senators are open to support it.  There is no reason why residents of Denville should be paying leagues more money for their schools than affluent property owners in Hoboken or Jersey City.  We need a new fair funding formula.

TERM LIMTED - I enthusiastically applaud how Jack has term-limited himself in every political position he's had.  He believes politicians must NOT be a permanent part of a political machine.   Jack is a business owner and resident first. He is not tied to a political establishment.

BENEFITS REFORM - I point blank asked Jack how'd he accomplish this with a Legislature that is in the pockets of big unions.  He has a plan.  Jack knows he can lead support for school funding reform with key bipartisan support in suburban counties. Once that success is achieved he can leverage that equity for State benefits reform.  All the stakeholders have to come together instead of the mudslinging and name-calling that has been happening for the last 8 years.  It's time for a new and fair approach on both sides of the issue.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING -   It's a simple plan, get it out of the courts and back to the legislature. As Governor, Jack will appoint a fair council that will be committed to getting something done instead of being deadlocked in political stalemate.  I'm proud of my political party but we need to put the state first over political parties and work across the aisle.

THE DMV - Finally a NJ political figure is pointing out how inefficient the DMV is and wants to fix it.

HE CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER- NJ voters lean heavy Democrat and the actions of this last administration and the National Republican Party over the last few years have nearly destroyed the party in NJ.   Jack is putting NJ first and is the only one who has smart sound ideas that both Republicans and Democrats can agree with.  We need to fix the the states finances ASAP and there is a way to do it without massive tax increases.  Let's fix the wasteful inefficient state government.

Ciattarreli's opponent Kim Gaudagno is a nice individual. I am grateful for the support she has shown Denville, but it's time for change.  The accusations against Jack from her campaign are wrong.  He is not looking to raise taxes, instead he is actually giving voters an honest and complete plan about how he will fix this economically dying state.  I much rather a candidate that gives details instead of quick marketing tricks and sound bytes.  Vote Jack Ciattarelli June 6th.  He's a really impressive guy and the only hope we have to save NJ.

Jack recently outlining some of his plan for

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Thoughts About 7-11 In Denville

7-11 is intersted in purchasing the old auto-garage across from Norman Dean Funeral Home in Denville.  I'm not a huge fan of 7-11s and not too interested in one being so close to our downtown.  It has the potential to disrupt the small-town feel Denville has.

However, the area has been zoned for commercial/retail use for decades.  And the owner of the property has a right to sell/open whatever type of establishment he/she wants as long as fits with the type of usage area has been zoned for.   And despite my pre-conceived notions of what 7-11s look like, there are some newer 7-11s that are very presentable and work well within downtown districts.  Morristown & Panther Valley are two examples.

There certainly are others like myself, cautious about a 7-11 in our downtown.  However, there is a misconception that the Planning Board meeting tomorrow night (Weds, May 24th) has the option to reject a -7-11 from coming to that location.  Unfortunately, that is most likely not going to happen.  The Planning Board is not deciding whether to allow 7-11 to open.  They are deciding as to whether they grant 7-11 variances for sign usage and front yard setback. Local governments can not be specific about types of establishments property owners can open.  I' ve heard people say "it'd be ok if it were a WAWA".  Well that's illegal and unconstitutional.  None of us should support governments restricting establishments based on our whether they like that establishment.  This is America.  Citizens can open businesses on private property they choose as long as they are legal businesses abiding by the laws of that location.  Other than those use variances the owners of the property do not need "township" approval to open a 7-11.  (Minutes from 1st Planning Board Meeting)

I might also note that outside of being illegal, restricting an establishment from opening due to unsubstantiated stigmas of that establishment would easily result in costing Denville taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.   Naturally any property owner would sue the Township if we restricted them, which is unbelievable costly to taxpayers.


The Planning Board can request the applicant (7-11) make remedies to accommodate parking, traffic, etc.. but can't say "no we don't want a 7-11".  It can also be an opportunity to ask the 7-11 owners to do other things to help the neighborhood.  (They wouldn't be contingent on approval but it doesn't hurt to ask)  So I encourage everyone who is concerned about those implications to attend the meeting and ask questions during the public portion.  The Planning Board is made up of fellow Denville residents just like ourselves.  None of them have any vested interest or benefit in whether a 7-11 is there or not.  I have confidence they'll make the right decisions for our town and I encourage residents to discuss these matters with the Planning Board.


If you absolutely don't want a 7-11?  Let's utilize the best form of protest we have, our wallets and pocketbooks.  Show up to the meeting and remind 7-11 that we'll support SmartWorld or Mara's for our coffee.  We'll go to DenvilleMart for quick convenience items.  When we need a newspaper, we'll go to the Smoke Shop.   Contact 7-11 Corporate. and let them know as well.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Summarizing Denville's Affordable Housing Crisis !

  • The State has a Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). They were supposed to give direction to municipalities on what the requirements are for accommodating (zoning, master plans, etc..) developers to potentially build affordable housing options
  • COAH did a poor job determining those requirements and is being challenged in Supreme Court of NJ
  • The Court is now attempting to be the ones to determine what those requirements are 
  • The FAIR SHARE HOUSING Center claims Denville should build 1313 Affordable Units by 2025 (which means over 6000 total affordable and higher end units because developers build 5 non-affordable for every 1 affordable unit.  By that way that is nearly double the amount of households Denville currently has)
  • DENVILLE believes we have met our share of requirements.
  • However, the Court (while it determines what the actual required number of units for Denville are) requires Denville to continue “moving forward” with a plan to accommodate affordable housing (even though we don’t know what that requirement is).  If we don’t “move forward” we are not immune from Developers suing the Township to force us to develop.  This is how the development at Peer Place came about.  If we were sued we could be forced into allowing a developer to essentially build a high density “project” wherever they want.  
  • Denville is “moving forward” with a moderate plan to accommodate around 70-100 affordable units so we can keep immunity from being sued by developers.  That plan would assume about 500 total residential areas by 2025. One of which is a possible Redevelopment along Route 53 which would be about 8 affordable units and the rest mid-high end units.  Keep in mind this would satisfy about 16-18 units of obligation due to various incentives, etc..  I have a lot of concerns about this re-development but we have to look at it.
  • Denville has very little space (if any) for developing anything.  Therefore, we can only look to redevelop areas.  These would be areas that potentially could be developed anyway, most of the time by commercial development like businesses, etc..  We have often looked at submitting these areas as “rehabilitation” zones which allows Denville to more strictly define the aethetics and requirements of the development and allows us to rezone those areas for residentially instead of commercial.  (i.e. we often also ask for other community improvements such as the sewer lines and access road brought in to Estling Lake Villages area)  We do recognize that accommodating for residential re-development impacts traffic, township resources, school resources.  However, this is the predictament we are in due to the above factors.
  • Please stay informed and help the township make the right decisions.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation on the topic and naturally some people are playing politics with the topic.  As a councilperson I would love to say “hey let’s not build a thing in Denville ever again” but I realize that’s not going to be possible and would result in massive lawsuits in addition to massive housing development dictated to us.  Some tough decisions have to be made and we have to really stand up to our state legislatures, Governor and others to demand a reasonable solution to accommodate affordable housing fairly.

What's Being Built on Route 53? - My Perpsective

New Development on Route 53?  - Here's My Perspective

Not necessarily and not for a while and NOT 100.  That has never been discussed.  Early ideas were around 57-60 units and even that is not approved yet.   From this Councilperson's perspective, I (and the rest of the Council) have only approved the area, where the abandoned printing facility on Route 53 is, be submitted as a "Rehabilitation Area".    There will be many public meetings, proposals, reviews and more over the next few years to determine.  ALSO THE REASON WHY THIS IS EVEN A CONSIDERATION IS THE NJ COURTS ARE FORCING TOWNS TO DEVELOP TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS which is incredibly frustrating and we have a right to be angry.  Denville believes we have met our "Fair Share" housing obligation but the FAIR SHARE HOUSING COUCIL is claiming we need another 1313 affordable units (which mean over 6000 total units. It's INSANE)  We are waiting for the courts to decide but in order to keep from being sued by developers (who can sue to develop anywhere they want to any density), we have to keep "moving forward" to a plan.  The court's have not determined what "moving forward" means.

The state allows us certain advantages for redevelopment.  I approve of allowing that area to have "redevelopment".  Currently, another factory could open up there tomorrow without requiring any approval.  They could come in and have 150 employees going in and out each day.  So at some point there will be something built there again.  I believe it's best for us to insure it can be the right fit for our town and options where we can have certain requirements.

A MAJOR concern for me.  Traffic on 53 is horrible.  I need to see more traffic studies on how a development there will work.  But again, a factory could open up there tomorrow without any approval and supply 150 people commuting in and out of town everyday.  Traffic is going to get worse everywhere in our state.  And Route 53 will be a challenge especially when something is developed in Morris Plains where the old Warner Lambert facility was. We have more people in this area overall.  The challenge is finding the balance of good traffic flow.  I'm committed to finding that.  Can NJ expand Route 53?  Can we re-route traffic a certain way?  That's what I am hoping to find out and may be contingent on whether I would support this project going forward.

NJ Transit has mentioned it but nothing is official and a new residential area at the station could affect the decision.

This is an important question that needs to be answered. Another one, how much will any development affect other Township resources?  Although traditionally, transit villages have had less of an effect to those resources.  I still need to see more info. And again, the total number of units seen so far was around 57-60.

Essentially this is the only reason the rehabilitation area and a POSSIBLE transit village complex is even being remotely considered.  DENVILLE IS BEING FORCED BY NJ COURTS TO BUILD A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.  Blame the NJ legislatures, blame the Governor-The NJ Council on Affordable Housing has done nothing to provide guidance to municpalitieis trying to accommodate fair housing. Now the NJ Courts are telling towns how many affordable housing units they need to build but unclear direction on how that formula is being calculated.  A "possible" complex would satisfy some of those obligations due to various factors even though many of the units will be higher priced models.  DENVILLE RESIDENTS SHOULD BE FURIOUS ABOUT THIS AS AM I.   I will be speaking more on this and looking for residents to help us find solutions to combat this.  We have provided the courts our estimate of what we think is a fair obligation and we are awaiting their response.

No.  Only 8-9 of potentially 57-60 are affordable.  However, those will count double to our affordable housing requirements.  No developer wants to just build affordable units because they want to make money.  Plus, it is wrong and unfair to stick all affordable units and their residents into one complex.  That would essentially be "project" housing which in my opinion is almost unconstitutional. They should be able to have the same quality access to a community.   However, in order to accommodate for potential what the NJ Courts will mandate our affordable unit requirements to be, developers will want to build many non-affordable units.  For every affordable unit the state requires us to build, expect a developer to build 5 higher end units.

We can't dictate to a developer where he wants to build a property but we do have a Master Plan and we do zone areas of our town.  There is not much space left in Denville to build something new.  However, there are places where commercial establishments once were they are zoned for development.  Route 53 is one of those areas.  Keep in mind that an industrial/commercial property could open up in this same location tomorrow and add 150 cars to rush hour traffic along Route 53 and they would not need any approval.  That's why a residential property and rehabilitation zone should be considered.  With that, our Township can specify certain improvements to the area.  We can request certain requirements for parking, sidewalk, traffic flow and more.

First, remember Denville's review of this possible scenario is still just a review. This will take years. Every mention of the proposed area has been done in public meetings.  The Council is made up of volunteers.  I personally have absolutely nothing to gain by a development being built in that area.  As a matter of fact, as a resident who commutes that route every day, I am EXTREMELY concerned about the potential traffic.  Although I do recognize that traffic is not going to get better on Route 53 and if the Township does nothing ever again on 53, more stores, shops and more commuters will still show up on this route.  Anybody who is charging that somehow "Denville officials" are getting some benefit from this is greatly misinformed and frankly a bit ignorant to how government functions.  I encourage all residents to come out to Town Council & Planning Board meetings and get involved.  We've actually had a few residents that have come with many good questions and suggestions.  Please don't just sit back and criticize decisions.  Instead, be part of the conversation and help the town make the right decisions.   Ultimately, no decision on this matter will be perfect but we have to plan something.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Denville Has One of the Lowest Debts in the County


At a recent Republican County Committee Candidates Night in Denville I was surprised by exaggerated remarks by my fellow Councilman, Kevin Scollans.   He claimed Denville has a major debt problem and there was a lack of transparency about it.  That is shocking to because Denville has one of the lowest debts in all of Morris County and Denville has an outstanding credit rating as well as lower municipal taxes.  New Jersey is one of the most densely populated states and Morris County has some of the highest property taxes.  This is a huge problem that all of us our frustrated with.  Denville’s local government has been working extra hard these past few years to dampen tax burdens.  We’ve done it with extensive grant applications, government efficiencies, township improvements that attract businesses and pressuring state reform.

As far as transparency, the municipal budget is discussed publicly for months at the beginning of each year.  The budget is available online and at Town Hall for anyone to review. 

If Councilman Scollans wants transparency, he should make sure he is transparent as well.  His claim left out how Denville bonds at an unbelievably low interest rate, unlike debt that you or I have from credit cards or mortgages,  This year we bonded for less that 1%.  That’s an exceptionally low interest rate!  At rates that favorable, we need to take advantage of responsible lending. Very similar to why it often makes good sense to mortgage a home within your means.  Low interest loans can  make good financial sense.  As well, some of our debt is the result of the damage caused by Hurricane Irene which destroyed the Valleyview Firehouse and other town infrastructure.  Once FEMA reimbursement is finalized, our debt will go down significantly.  That should have been mentioned.

Why does the town have debt?  More expensive items such as fire trucks, ambulances or long term capital projects can be very pricey. It would be irresponsible to hit taxpayers with that cost in one year.   Large Township improvements or a new vehicles benefit residents for many years, sometimes up to 20 years.  It wouldn’t be fair to force current Denville residents to pay a huge amount of money for something that will be used by our Township for many years ahead.    Could you imagine how high taxes would be on years where we need a new firetruck if we paid it in cash?  A current resident footing the bill for an item that many generations will benefit from in the future is grossly unfair.  Some loans are worth it because we have such low interest we can spread that cost responsibly over time without having a bank-breaking tax impact.  Each year during our budget workshops many Council members, including myself, carefully watch our debt schedule. We are fortunate to have a sensible Township finance officer, Mike Guarino, and an independent auditor who help keep Denville’s financial stability one of the best in the county.

Councilman Scollans is good volunteer in our town.  I’ve worked with him on many projects but I was completely surprised at his deceptive comments. As a Councilman he’s voted for every municipal budget, except one, since he’s served on the Council. If he was so concerned with the debt why did he approve all those budgets?

While I agree massively high-interest debts outside our means are reckless, however reasonable loans at historically low-interest rates, from a town with a stable financial structure, are wise.  Let’s not create issues for election-year politics and let’s not mislead residents about Denville’s debt, which is one of the lowest in the County.  

Thursday, March 12, 2015

2015 Municipal Budget

I was traveling on business last week when the Town Council introduced Denville's Municipal Budget so I wanted to post my views on the budget.


- About 2/3rds of your property taxes go to our schools (Regional H.S. and Denville)
- The Municipal Budget portion is under 20% of your overall taxes
- The Township is still responsible to collect all the taxes and pay the Schools & County after the collection.  This can obviously be a challenge because whether the taxes are collected or not, the Township still has to pay the School & County portion.  Often it has to front the money.
- There are many predetermined items in the budget due to State and Federal regulations, existing Union Contracts, etc..


First I support the municipal budget that was introduced.  I continually push for lower taxes and more efficient government.  We are improving greatly.   However, we will be faced with a small tax increase again this year.  It is just under a 2% increase, which is about 30 something dollars to the average Denville household.  However, I believe this is a responsible budget especially looking ahead at future years.  As well, the main reason for the slight increase is something beyond a Councilperson's control.  We had a huge tax appeal by one of our biggest ratables over the last two years.  It is fundamental that we pass a budget or else we can not do anything in town.  The governing body has to pass a budget.  I am very against when a Council member votes against a budget, unless they have shown very clearly how they would change the budget.


Franciscan Oaks, files an enormous tax appeal of several million dollars that was settled a short time ago with Denville's tax assessor.  Most townships could be put out of business from this tax appeal or would be forced to have an enormous tax increase.  However, credit to the Townships Administrator, Director of Finance and our Township Auditors,   we were able to quell that huge storm from conservative fiscal management over the last few years.  That appeal will be paid off this year.  If the appeal didn't happen, Denville residents would have seen a significant tax decrase of nearly $20 on the average household.


When looking back over the years I have been on the Council, We have had the slightest tax increases in Denville's history, short of some years that there has been no tax increase.  However, nearly every time there was no increase in the municipal budget, the township was hit with a very large tax increase the following year. Generally I am weary of budgets that have no increase whatsoever during a time where so many other costs are going up.  This historically has appeared to be politically motivated in years past from my perspective.  There would be a no tax increase during an election year but then the following year the budget would be in horrible shape and require a huge tax increase.


Many of the other costs of the municipal budget are difficult costs to control such as negotiated union employee contracts, benefits and health care (which is greatly rising everywhere).  Additionally , we have managed to maintain Denville services very efficiently over the last few years without interrupting quality.


A budget also must be looked at over several years.  While we had a small increase this year, there are signs that next year can be a very positive year in terms of Denville's budget.  I really am hopeful for potentially a budget next year that barely has an increase.  The reason why I think this is possible is because it is likely that Saint Clare's hospital will go private and pay taxes and we will most likely have a large new ratable with the residential area in development by the train station.

The Budget is now introduced and will be open for public comment at the April 7th, 2015 meeting 7:30pm at Town Hall. The budget is available here.