Patsy’s Way May Not Be For Special Needs

COURT HOUSE – The Economic Development Council was present to discuss a proposed Tax Rebate Plan with Middle Township Committee Nov 18, but most of the general audience were there to hear further discussions on Patsy’s Way. The original presentation took place at a similar work session Oct. 21.
Ron Rukenstein, the developer, was present again as was Martin Bershtein, the lawyer from the United Cerebral Palsey organization. This time Rukenstein brought his attorney, Keith Davis. This time there were no floor plans or blown up photos of previous projects. This time the atmosphere was not quite so welcoming.
Rukenstein asked the committee to pass a resolution of need. With a resolution of need the developer would be able to apply for additional funds from the state as well as make additions to proposed homes that would facilitate daily living for persons with disabilities and allow for the addition of a garage. Rukenstein said that he saw this as a unique opportunity to build something that had never been done before in New Jersey: single-family homes on one-acre plots for people with special needs. These would be rental properties. The developer does not own the parcel yet but Rukenstein does have an Agreement of Sale.
Mayor Daniel Lockwood gave a quick review of the history of the matter. He said that the developer had presented them (committee), with a resolution of need “which set the parameters for the project.” Lockwood also assured the crowd that committee would not be voting on any such resolution at that night’s meeting, which would follow the work session.
Project Attorney Keith Davis got right to the point. He wanted everyone to be clear about one thing. Whatever action committee takes, whether it passes or does not pass a Resolution of Need “does not mean the project will not go forward.” He reminded everyone that the developer already had all the legal green lights to build affordable housing units. “There is only one issue,” Davis said. “Will it qualify for additional funding?” The additional funding from committee would allow the developer to make enhancements for the disabled and “make this a much better looking project,” added Davis.
“We’ve been told all along this was for special needs and this is the first time we are hearing this,” said Dana Tyndall, a Court House resident.
Lockwood echoed her sentiments, “I believe there was a representation that this was going to target Special Needs folks.”
“You can’t do anything to prevent this developer from going forward,” Davis said.
Ruckstein responded by saying that the project had received super storm Sandy funds to provide replacement housing and that “we were not obligated to do special needs.”
Deputy Mayor Timothy Donohue also sought clarification, “Will this be developed as regular affordable housing? … Is there any mandate from the state (for special needs housing)?”
“The state application does not mandate special needs,” said Berhstein.
“I am shocked to hear this tonight,” said Committeewoman Susan DeLanzo. She added that she had been led to believe the homes would be equipped for the disabled. “I am very concerned,” she said.
David May, speaking as a private citizen and not the zoning officer, reminded the crowd that the developer already had all the permits he needed to build. “Why wouldn’t you want something nicer?” he urged his neighbors. “It’s going to be built. I’d rather have nicer than not.”
Dave Cohn who was present at the prior work session followed up by stating, “They did misrepresent,” and then asked a question about how rentals would be determined.
Peggy Mathis, armed with copies of the deed restriction, attempted to hand a copy to Davis and was rebuffed. “I’ve seen it,” he said.
Rukenstein, however, graciously accepted the copy and expressed his appreciation. John McCann also had questions about the square footage requirements under the deed. Davis acknowledged that the developer would abide by all the laws and deed restrictions, where applicable. “Whatever the deed says, we are obliged to do. But the deed restriction can be amended by a two thirds vote of the lot owners.” The developer would own all the lots in the development.
Madelyn McCarroll said that a lot of the tension in the room was “arising from the attitude of the gentleman” indicating Davis. She continued that she and her fellow residents were concerned for the safety of special needs residents whose lives would be jeopardized by flooding problems in the area. She referenced “firemen pumping water and kayaking in the street.”
Dolores Spaulding stood and spoke of her concerns about the effect this project would have on the character of the neighborhood. Burgess “Butch” Hamer, newly elected school board member, asked if there were other similar proposed enterprises in New Jersey.
“No,” said Rukenstein. Cape May County would be the first.
To contact Helen McCaffrey, email hmccaffrey@cmcherald.com.