Question ownership and historical value.
By: Leon Tovey
MONROE Opponents of the Thompson Park land exchange say they have two more reasons why a court should overturn the Statehouse Commission’s Jan. 5 decision to allow the Board of Education to build a new high school on a piece of the park.
Environmental groups opposed to the plan to swap 152 acres owned by the township for a 35-acre parcel of the county-owned park which is protected under the state Green Acres program say questions need to be answered about the location of a historic Leni Lenape settlement, and the ownership of the properties being offered by the township.
But the township’s attorney says questions about the Lenape settlement have already been answered, while the uncertainties about the title to the exchange land are already being addressed.
The Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, on behalf the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group and local group Park Savers, on Feb. 10 filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division of state Superior Court. The groups argue that the state Department of Environmental Protection ignored deficiencies in the application when it granted conditional approval of the application on Dec. 29, paving the way for the Statehouse Commission’s approval.
On Tuesday, the group Preservation New Jersey announced that it has added the Leni Lenape’s Bethel Mission settlement site to its 10 Most Endangered Historic Sites list, arguing that the plan to build a new high school on the Thompson Park parcel threatened the site, which was located in the park.
The settlement was an 18th-century community of Leni Lenape who had been converted to Christianity by Presbyterian minister David Brainerd.
"While (the swap) would be a net gain of open space in the township, itself a laudable goal, there has not been a cultural resource survey undertaken on the park site," Preservation New Jersey said in a statement. "PNJ feels that there is no reason why a determination of the significance of the archaeological resources should not be made before a decision that could lead to their permanent destruction."
During public hearings on the swap held in December, Township Historian John Katerba argued that the Bethel settlement was actually located more than a mile from the proposed high school site, which is located at the intersection of Perrineville and Schoolhouse roads. Mr. Katerba, who is who is employed by the Monroe Township Municipal Utilities Authority, said Bethel was located near what is now the intersection of Perrineville Road and Forsgate Drive in Jamesburg.
But Ron Emrich, executive director of PNJ, said Wednesday that a more detailed survey is needed.
"Written records particularly those from the 18th century are valuable, but not terribly accurate," he said. "A closer archaeological investigation is really the only way we’re going to be able to know."
Peg Schaffer, an attorney with Shain, Schaffer & Rafanello, the law firm of Township Attorney Joel Shain, said Wednesday that township and county officials believed the question of whether Bethel would be disturbed by the plan was settled, but that a more detailed survey would be conducted as the plan moved ahead.
The addition of the site to the list was made at the behest of Park Savers and Jane Tousman, an executive committee member of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. The group has long opposed the swap, but did not join the appeal in February because it had not received permission from the Sierra Club’s national leadership in San Francisco by the time the notice was filed, Ms. Tousman said.
Ms. Tousman said the national organization has since granted its permission, but in order for the New Jersey chapter to join the appeal, it needs permission from all parties. While the state Department of Environmental Protection has granted its permission, the county and the township have refused to allow the Sierra Club to join the appeal.
Ms. Schaffer said township and county officials believe the issue of Bethel’s location is settled; the high school would not affect the site, she said. However, an archaeological survey will be conducted as part of the process, she said.
Another question raised by opponents this week is whether the township actually owns land it is offering in exchange. Richard Webster, the Rutgers attorney handling the appeal, said Tuesday that the township does not have clear title to the properties comprising the 152 acres it is offering in the exchange.
The land is divided into three parcels totaling 77 acres on Route 522 and a 75-acre parcel on Hoffman Station Road. The township acquired the land through its cluster-zoning ordinance, which allows developers to transfer building rights from one piece of land to another that they own and requires them to donate the remaining land to the township.
Opponents of the exchange have repeatedly questioned the quality and value of the 152 acres, as well as whether state land use law allows the land to be offered in an exchange, since the township obtained it through density-transfers.
But Mr. Webster said problems with the deeds to the properties cast doubts on whether the township had legal authority to offer the properties at all.
Mr. Webster said in "several cases," developers had mortgages outstanding on the parcels. In the case of the 75-acre parcel on Hoffman Station Road, the title held by developer Cass Properties contains a provision that would allow Nick Pengue, the principal owner of Cass Properties, to buy back the property.
Ms. Schaffer said the township is working to settle title to all the parcels. She said the issues raised by Mr. Webster are technicalities that the township would have settled by the time any oral arguments begin.
The appellants have until the end of this month to file the official appeal with the Appellate Division, Mr. Webster said. The township and county have 30 days to file a brief responding to the appeal and the appellants have 30 days to respond to that, he said.
Both he and Ms. Schaffer predicted a hearing on the appeal would not take place until late summer at the earliest.
In the meantime, the Board of Education, which plans to build an $82.9 million, 365,000-sqare-foot high school approved by township voters in 2003 on the parcel, is moving ahead with the design of the school.
Board member Joseph Homoki, who heads the board’s Finance/Buildings & Grounds/Transportation Committee, said Monday that a schematic of the building was complete and that surveys and site plans are under way.
District officials hope to have the new school open by September 2011 and want to begin construction as soon as possible in order to avoid more increases in construction costs. Officials have not ruled out the possibility that the district will have to hold a referendum to ask for more money for the project.