| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Sorry to disagree, but the direct responsibility was on the planning board members and engineer to"encourage/insist" the developer provide a road to their specs which would allow public access. The law that was referenced was to treat apartment complexes and condo associations fairly with regard to the use of their tax dollars. All of those uses are not [private access only] but are Public access. Can you imagine the Swim Club asking to have their parking area plowed or their light bill be paid by the township? The home owners on Lenape Court may have a right to get the services of the township under the guise of a homeowners association[highly questionable] but they do not have a right to restrict pubilc access while accepting public services. The private restricted access sign should come down or the services should be terminated. Can you imagine Four Seasons restricting public access? |
Sorry, but you are wrong on the facts and also suggesting something illegal. Look up the press on the law and the details. It was specifically created to cover "private roads" in housing developments, not parking in condos or apartments. The theory was that the homeowners already pay the same proportionate taxes as everyone else which is inclusive of the costs of providing street lighting and plowing. So to require them to also have to pay for those services through a home owners association due would be “double dipping.” So the law gives townships the choice to compensate the homeowners in private development for their costs for those services or to provide those services.
I agree it is a dumb law, one of many in the most developer-friendly state in the union, that in truth allows developers to “build” private roads to a lesser standard and cost than public roads. But it is wrong to compare it to parking lots. The law is specific to “qualified” private roads and is not intended for parking lots of condos, apartments or assisted living facilities.
You are wrong about their rights as well. I don’t agree with the law, but it most certainly does give them the right to insist on these services while still maintaining a private access road. That is precisely what the law does. And to suggest that the township can either take down the sign or terminate the services would be illegal. |
I agree with most of what you wrote. It would be illegal for the township to cease providing these services unless they made the road public or to require the road to be public. And the law does cover private home developments. But it is incorrect to say it doesn't cover condo complexes. It does and much of the case law involves them. Your confusion may have been that it was intneded for private roads in condo complexes not specifically parking lots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| As a side note, does anyone know how a former school superintendent can afford to live on Lenape? I thought all those homes were multi-million dollars and masisve. The top school job in Cranbury pays one-hunred-and-something now and I doubt it was more before. Unless he had family money, his wife made most of the money or he did extremely well in the market, how does the math work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | As a side note, does anyone know how a former school superintendent can afford to live on Lenape? I thought all those homes were multi-million dollars and masisve. The top school job in Cranbury pays one-hunred-and-something now and I doubt it was more before. Unless he had family money, his wife made most of the money or he did extremely well in the market, how does the math work? |
If you are so curious about a persons finances, I suggest you ask him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
