BY KATHY BARATTA
Staff Writer
MANALAPAN – When is one man’s road another man’s parking lot?
It seems that in Manalapan the answer to that question depends on which side you talk to about the legal wrangling the township has been involved in with the Covered Bridge II Condominium Association since about 1996.
It was at that time, according to association representative Al Feder, that municipal officials changed which roads in Covered Bridge II qualified for inclusion in the reimbursement formula that determines how much Manalapan must reimburse condominium communities for road maintenance and other services.
According to Feder, until the winter of 1996 all of the roads in the Covered Bridge II adult community off Route 9 were included in any reimbursements the condo association received from the township.
Feder said there are 274 units in Covered Bridge II, which is a 26-year-old adult community.
Feder said he has been told officials are waiting until October to effect a new municipal services agreement (MSA) with Covered Bridge I (a separate adult community off Union Hill Road) and Covered Bridge II.
According to Feder, the winter of 1996 changed everything as it related to the snow plowing reimbursement his association received.
Feder said he recalled there were 17 major snow storms that winter and that due to the increased costs the township incurred that year because of the snow plowing, officials arbitrarily decided to drop certain streets from the reimbursement formula, saying the streets in question were not in fact streets, but actually paved parking areas.
“What happened was, the township got their dander up and said now they’re parking lots, even though they weren’t parking lots before 1996,” he said.
Although no MSA has been negotiated with Covered Bridge II since the one the community had expired in April, according to Mayor Drew Shapiro, a decision has been made regarding the township’s responsibility to Covered Bridge II and the reimbursement the association receives from the municipality.
Manalapan has been involved in legal wrangling with Covered Bridge II and Shapiro said officials decided to “take a closer look” and realized the township had been clearing areas that did not qualify as actual roads.
The Covered Bridge II Condominium Association took the township to court and Manalapan prevailed.
The association has filed an appeal to that court decision, challenging Manalapan’s right to drop the streets based on a court ruling in New York known as the Stone Hill decision.
Shapiro said that according to
Township Attorney James Kinneally, the Stone Hill decision does not come into play in Manalapan.
Feder said that having to wait until October to secure a new MSA is the equivalent of a “union working without a contract.”
Saying that “we understand (the township’s) costs have gone up, we’re very open to negotiations,” Feder was nonetheless adamant that all the roads in Covered Bridge II that received reimbursement prior to 1996 should be included in any new MSA.
The News Transcript was provided a copy of a June 9 letter Feder sent to the township on behalf of the condominium association at Covered Bridge II. Feder outlines several grievances he wants the township to address on behalf of his condo community.
These include obtaining the new MSA along with the need for additional garbage bins.
Feder’s letter also addresses road paving that is scheduled for the “dedicated roadways” in Covered Bridge I.
Feder wrote, “However, Medford Court and Covered Bridge II were totally ignored in the planned paving renovations. Once again we cannot help feeling ignored as these roadways are as much in need of work as the above mentioned areas.”
Shapiro said the township does not play favorites and that every condominium association in the municipality is held to the same reimbursement formula.
Feder said that to date, he has not heard back from the township regarding any item addressed in his letter.