March 8, 2012
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM — The petition to repeal the governing body's decision to increase the limit on municipal appropriations and establish a cap bank was dubbed invalid by the township attorney Tuesday.
In a seven-page letter of opinion presented to the Township Council, municipal attorney Thomas Collins concluded that vote was not eligible for referendum.
The ordinance to increase the budget appropriations cap from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent and to establish a cap bank was passed in a 3-2 vote Feb. 7. A committee of five petitioners then swiftly delivered a petition of 420 signatures to repeal the decision by referendum. To be considered, the filed petition requires at least 253 signatures or 15 percent of the total votes cast in the last municipal election.
"It is our opinion that the special election should not be scheduled because the subject matter of the ordinance dictates that it is not subject to repeal by the referendum process, and a referendum is not authorized by state statutes for this type of ordinance," Collins said.
According to state statute listed at the meeting, Collins said the petition and referendum process only applies to ordinances that do not take effect until 20 days after the time of the final passage. Collins said the budget-related ordinance in question requires immediate implication upon adoption and therefore cannot be repealed by referendum.
"I think (the attorney's) out of sequence in inserting himself in this process," petitioner Harvey Roseff said.
Collins then cited case law.
He summarized: "The Legislature has allocated authority to initiate legislation in the areas of municipal budget, debt and salary to the municipality's governing body, while allowing only limited voter review by referendum or initiative."
Collins' letter of opinion further stated: "The referendum proposed by the petitioners would, if held and sustained, result in a restraint on the exercise of budgetary discretion by a future governing body or bodies. ... Therefore, the petition for a referendum ... is not authorized by law and is not effective. The clerk should not schedule a special election."
Roseff said the cases cited by Collins were "thoroughly unlike the present situation," "editorialized," and "out of context."
Roseff said the committee of petitioners is anticipating petition certification by March 18, 20 days after it was submitted. The council specified that the verification process will still be completed.
"Should the mayor and council wish to challenge the petition after the town clerk has certified our petition, we look forward to presenting our arguments to the same judge who will consider Byram's argument as well," Roseff said.
Showing posts with label Z) Byram Twp. Petition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Z) Byram Twp. Petition. Show all posts
20120306
State casts doubt on Byram petition
March 2, 2012
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM -- The state Department of Community Affairs doesn't believe the township's ordinance to increase its appropriations cap from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent can be repealed by petition.
The ordinance was approved in a 3-2 vote Feb. 7; however, a committee of five petitioners submitted a petition for a referendum Monday.
"About 99 percent of the municipalities and counties pass the COLA (cost of living adjustment) ordinance to go to 3.5 percent," said Lisa Ryan, a public information officer for the Department of Community Affairs. "Even if they don't need the increase, the law requires the ordinance to be passed so the local governing unit can create the appropriation cap bank. We don't believe this is the type of ordinance that can be repealed by petition because it is part of the budget process and it would not be able to wait to November for an election to decide a result," Ryan said.
Township Manager Joe Sabatini could not comment on the issue Thursday; he is currently waiting for a response from Township Attorney Thomas Collins, who is reviewing the state requirement.
Petitioner Harvey Roseff said there is no case law on this matter after speaking with the state Division of Law Services.
"I say she's wrong," Roseff said. "If this has to be, we have spoken to our legal scholars and we'll take this to court."
"A Faulkner government allows us to challenge our local government when we think they've done something wrong," Roseff said.
Roseff and fellow petitioners Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness believe that increasing the township's spending limit and establishing a cap bank is not fiscally responsible.
Matthew Weng, staff attorney for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less. The municipality also has the option of voting to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
On Feb. 5, the petitioners turned in their petition in support of a referendum with 420 signatures. The number required was 15 percent of voters in the last election, or 253 signatures.
Township Clerk Doris Flynn has 20 days from the submittal date to certify the petition and verify the signatures.
Should the petition be certified, the Byram Township Council would have to hold a special election at an estimated cost of $15,000 if it wanted to exceed the spending cap, Flynn confirmed. Otherwise the issue is moot, as it would not automatically be placed on the November ballot.
Weng said state statute requires that any ordinance to be voted on by the voters must be submitted at the next general or regular municipal election occurring not less than 40 days after the final date for withdrawal of the petition, provided that if no such election is to be held within 90 days the council shall provide a special election to be held not less than 40 nor more than 60 days from the final date for withdrawal of the petition.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap each year as recommended by township professionals. The council has routinely approved the spending cap increase, and any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank to be used in case of emergencies.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 3.5 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 2.5 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM -- The state Department of Community Affairs doesn't believe the township's ordinance to increase its appropriations cap from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent can be repealed by petition.
The ordinance was approved in a 3-2 vote Feb. 7; however, a committee of five petitioners submitted a petition for a referendum Monday.
"About 99 percent of the municipalities and counties pass the COLA (cost of living adjustment) ordinance to go to 3.5 percent," said Lisa Ryan, a public information officer for the Department of Community Affairs. "Even if they don't need the increase, the law requires the ordinance to be passed so the local governing unit can create the appropriation cap bank. We don't believe this is the type of ordinance that can be repealed by petition because it is part of the budget process and it would not be able to wait to November for an election to decide a result," Ryan said.
Township Manager Joe Sabatini could not comment on the issue Thursday; he is currently waiting for a response from Township Attorney Thomas Collins, who is reviewing the state requirement.
Petitioner Harvey Roseff said there is no case law on this matter after speaking with the state Division of Law Services.
"I say she's wrong," Roseff said. "If this has to be, we have spoken to our legal scholars and we'll take this to court."
"A Faulkner government allows us to challenge our local government when we think they've done something wrong," Roseff said.
Roseff and fellow petitioners Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness believe that increasing the township's spending limit and establishing a cap bank is not fiscally responsible.
Matthew Weng, staff attorney for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less. The municipality also has the option of voting to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
On Feb. 5, the petitioners turned in their petition in support of a referendum with 420 signatures. The number required was 15 percent of voters in the last election, or 253 signatures.
Township Clerk Doris Flynn has 20 days from the submittal date to certify the petition and verify the signatures.
Should the petition be certified, the Byram Township Council would have to hold a special election at an estimated cost of $15,000 if it wanted to exceed the spending cap, Flynn confirmed. Otherwise the issue is moot, as it would not automatically be placed on the November ballot.
Weng said state statute requires that any ordinance to be voted on by the voters must be submitted at the next general or regular municipal election occurring not less than 40 days after the final date for withdrawal of the petition, provided that if no such election is to be held within 90 days the council shall provide a special election to be held not less than 40 nor more than 60 days from the final date for withdrawal of the petition.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap each year as recommended by township professionals. The council has routinely approved the spending cap increase, and any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank to be used in case of emergencies.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 3.5 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 2.5 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
20120229
Byram residents submit petition against budget cap hike
February 29, 2012
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM — A petition to repeal the Township Council's Feb. 7 vote to increase the township appropriations cap from 21⁄2 percent to 3 1⁄2 percent was submitted for a referendum Monday.
Petitioners Harvey Roseff, Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness turned in 420 signatures, well over the 253 necessary to be considered, The number required was 15 percent of voters in the last election.
"I think we're breaking a 10-year habit of continually raising the budget cap limit and we're now returning to a more prudent budgeting policy, one that will require more fiscal responsibility and there will be more respect for the taxpayer," Roseff said. "We're looking to stick to the state's budget cap not the optional exception limit that Byram keeps selecting."
Township Clerk Doris Flynn has 20 days to certify the petition and verify the signatures.
"We had five circulators of the petition and we gathered about 420 signatures in a week's time," Roseff said. "We had pretty much overwhelming support from the public."
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap as recommended by township professionals. The council has routinely approved the spending cap increase, and any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank to be used in case of emergencies. On Feb. 7, however, newly elected council members Nisha Kash and Carlos Luaces were the first to vote against the cap increase ordinance in nearly 10 years.
Matt Weng, staff attorney for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less, or a municipality can vote to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 31⁄2 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 21⁄2 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
Last week, Township Manager Joe Sabatini said Byram has never used or exceeded the maximum allowable amount set by the cap. If the ordinance gets repealed, Sabatini said the township will not have cap banking for 2012, which could have adverse affects in the 2013 and 2014 budget cycles.
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM — A petition to repeal the Township Council's Feb. 7 vote to increase the township appropriations cap from 21⁄2 percent to 3 1⁄2 percent was submitted for a referendum Monday.
Petitioners Harvey Roseff, Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness turned in 420 signatures, well over the 253 necessary to be considered, The number required was 15 percent of voters in the last election.
"I think we're breaking a 10-year habit of continually raising the budget cap limit and we're now returning to a more prudent budgeting policy, one that will require more fiscal responsibility and there will be more respect for the taxpayer," Roseff said. "We're looking to stick to the state's budget cap not the optional exception limit that Byram keeps selecting."
Township Clerk Doris Flynn has 20 days to certify the petition and verify the signatures.
"We had five circulators of the petition and we gathered about 420 signatures in a week's time," Roseff said. "We had pretty much overwhelming support from the public."
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap as recommended by township professionals. The council has routinely approved the spending cap increase, and any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank to be used in case of emergencies. On Feb. 7, however, newly elected council members Nisha Kash and Carlos Luaces were the first to vote against the cap increase ordinance in nearly 10 years.
Matt Weng, staff attorney for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less, or a municipality can vote to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 31⁄2 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 21⁄2 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
Last week, Township Manager Joe Sabatini said Byram has never used or exceeded the maximum allowable amount set by the cap. If the ordinance gets repealed, Sabatini said the township will not have cap banking for 2012, which could have adverse affects in the 2013 and 2014 budget cycles.
Byram residents lead petition against budget cap hike
February 21, 2012
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM — The council's Feb. 7 vote to increase the township appropriations cap from 2 percent to 31⁄2 percent has triggered a referendum petition drive to repeal the decision.
"The state has a law that says that homeowners should be protected from the spiraling costs of municipal government, and Byram, for 10 years, has chosen to continually pass an ordinance to circumvent the mandated budget cap," said Harvey Roseff, one of five petitioners.
Roseff, Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness make up the committee of petitioners in favor of a referendum. Nearing the 20-day deadline to submit a petition with 10 percent of the electorate's signatures, Roseff expects to deliver the document this week.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap as recommended by township professionals.
Councilman Scott Olson said the council has routinely approved the spending cap increase for years as any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank, representing a "line of credit" or a "safety net" that can be used in upcoming years in case spending is cut or an unforeseen situation arises in the township. On Feb. 7, however, newly elected council members Nisha Kash and Carlos Luaces were the first to vote against the cap increase ordinance in nearly 10 years.
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
Further, the township's ordinance incorrectly states that the mandated cap is 2 percent; however, the mandadate was changed this year to 21⁄2 percent. Township Clerk Doris Flynn said the ordinance is still valid after speaking with the state about the error.
"I want to lead by example," Luaces said. "It's time that someone starts to rein in spending."
Kash compared Byram's appropriations to a household budget: If a family can't exceed that amount, they don't.
"If that means cutting services here and there ... we just can't afford to keep increasing," Kash said. "Since 2003 we've had a cap bank, and since 2003 taxes have gone up steadily."
Olson countered, " To say that this has been the cause of tax increases or that this is taxing people is confused and not knowing of the facts. This is a tool for sound financial planning that's totally appropriate to use, especially in difficult times."
Matt Weng, staff attorney for the League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less, or a municipality can vote to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
"(If a municipality votes to increase the cap to the maximum), you earned that right to spend more because you spent less in previous years," Weng explained.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 31⁄2 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 3.5 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
"This cap bank is a slush fund," Roseff said. "We are asking the government to be more conservative and in these times be more focused on tighter budgets."
Township Manager Joe Sabatini said, "If you look back, we've never used the maximum allowable that this cap has given us in any year; we've always stayed within the amount. Just because we do this doesn't mean taxes are going up."
"If the (Cost of Living Adjustment) ordinance doesn't get passed, we can still adopt the proposed 2012 budget using cap banking from prior years," Sabatini said. "If the ordinance gets repealed, we will not have cap banking for 2012, which could be detrimental to the 2013 and 2014 budget cycles."
By LYNDSAY CAYETANA BOUCHAL
BYRAM — The council's Feb. 7 vote to increase the township appropriations cap from 2 percent to 31⁄2 percent has triggered a referendum petition drive to repeal the decision.
"The state has a law that says that homeowners should be protected from the spiraling costs of municipal government, and Byram, for 10 years, has chosen to continually pass an ordinance to circumvent the mandated budget cap," said Harvey Roseff, one of five petitioners.
Roseff, Joann Smith, Eugenia Moran, Merwyn Lee and Nelson Drobness make up the committee of petitioners in favor of a referendum. Nearing the 20-day deadline to submit a petition with 10 percent of the electorate's signatures, Roseff expects to deliver the document this week.
Since 2003, Byram has unanimously voted to increase the spending cap as recommended by township professionals.
Councilman Scott Olson said the council has routinely approved the spending cap increase for years as any unappropriated funds are retained in a cap bank, representing a "line of credit" or a "safety net" that can be used in upcoming years in case spending is cut or an unforeseen situation arises in the township. On Feb. 7, however, newly elected council members Nisha Kash and Carlos Luaces were the first to vote against the cap increase ordinance in nearly 10 years.
The appropriations cap determines how much Byram can spend, while the tax levy cap determines how much Byram can tax its residents.
Further, the township's ordinance incorrectly states that the mandated cap is 2 percent; however, the mandadate was changed this year to 21⁄2 percent. Township Clerk Doris Flynn said the ordinance is still valid after speaking with the state about the error.
"I want to lead by example," Luaces said. "It's time that someone starts to rein in spending."
Kash compared Byram's appropriations to a household budget: If a family can't exceed that amount, they don't.
"If that means cutting services here and there ... we just can't afford to keep increasing," Kash said. "Since 2003 we've had a cap bank, and since 2003 taxes have gone up steadily."
Olson countered, " To say that this has been the cause of tax increases or that this is taxing people is confused and not knowing of the facts. This is a tool for sound financial planning that's totally appropriate to use, especially in difficult times."
Matt Weng, staff attorney for the League of Municipalities, said municipal appropriations are limited to a 2.5 percent cap increase or the cost of living adjustment determined by the Department of Community Affairs, whichever is less, or a municipality can vote to raise the spending cap to a maximum of 3.5 percent.
"(If a municipality votes to increase the cap to the maximum), you earned that right to spend more because you spent less in previous years," Weng explained.
Byram's appropriations that were within the cap in 2010 equated to about $8.1 million. With the 31⁄2 percent cap applied, appropriations totaled about $8.4 million. About $240,000 was retained in the cap bank for potential use in 2011.
In 2011, Byram's appropriations were nearly $8.4 million, about $74,000 over the 3.5 percent cap. The township then used $74,000 from the 2010 cap bank for assistance, dropping the unappropriated funds to about $165,000. An additional cap bank was created in 2011 from other unused funds, equating to another $122,000, or a total of $287,000 for potential use in 2012.
"This cap bank is a slush fund," Roseff said. "We are asking the government to be more conservative and in these times be more focused on tighter budgets."
Township Manager Joe Sabatini said, "If you look back, we've never used the maximum allowable that this cap has given us in any year; we've always stayed within the amount. Just because we do this doesn't mean taxes are going up."
"If the (Cost of Living Adjustment) ordinance doesn't get passed, we can still adopt the proposed 2012 budget using cap banking from prior years," Sabatini said. "If the ordinance gets repealed, we will not have cap banking for 2012, which could be detrimental to the 2013 and 2014 budget cycles."
20080328
Byram Twp. Future Petition
Save Byram Township NJ from shooting range and gunshot noise
http://www.savebyram.org
In Opposition to Proposed Hudson Farm Shooting RangeA shooting range and commercial recreation business is being proposed by Hudson Farm on the former Westby property along Roseville Road.
The shooting range is to be located on the mountain facing the Forest Lakes Community and adjoins the CO Johnson Park. Shooting at the range is all year, seven (7) day per week from 9:30 a.m. to dusk.
Typically, with 75 to 200 rounds per shooter will be expended during the day. Advertisements for the shooting event are at $400 per person and $1500 per four-some indicate that a significant group of shooters will assemble.
Mr. Ursin talked of groups of 20 on December 20th. On September 6th it was mentioned there would be 100-200 shots/person. Then on December 20th there was testimony of 75-100 shots.
Over a couple of hours, this intense shooting, with its reverberations, will change your life. We won't comment on how such limitations can be enforced as they are changing with the wind.Mr. Kellogg, owner of Hudson Farms is requesting a zoning change for the property from Agricultural zone to Commercial Recreation zone (this is the same zone as Wild West City).
The request conflicts with the guiding Byram Township Master Plan. Mr. Kellogg just recently purchased the property knowing full well that the Westby property was not zoned for commercial recreation and that it conflicted with the Master Plan.
Why do we need a Commercial Recreation zone in this residential area of Byram Township?
We don’t. Mr. Kellogg has a similar outdoor recreation business located in the Northeast section of Byram Township and there is no need to proliferate this type of commercial recreation business within the Township.There are numerous disadvantages to allow a shooting range business at the former Westby property:
1. The tranquil nature of Forest Lakes will be significantly and unnaturally disturbed by the continuous gun fire during the outings. The continuous gun fire will degrade the quality of life for the residents within one of Byram Township most densely populated areas.
2. Because of the gun fire disturbance, property values in Forest Lakes will be negatively affected and thereby impact the total Byram Township tax ratables.
3. Because of the gun fire disturbance, realtors may have to disclose that a shooting range is located in the area when selling a property in Forest Lakes.
4. With all the gun violence in schools and the most recent Lenape Valley HS incident, what is the affect of continuous gun fire on the children of Forest Lakes and children playing at CO Johnson Field?
5. The concentration of lead from the shotgun pellets will create an environmental hazard on the property.
6. Byram Townships Master Plan, that took many years to create, would need to be altered as the “Shooting Range” and “Commercial Recreation Business” enterprise does not conform to the Master Plan. The Commercial Recreation zone opens the door to further development of non critical businesses of a similar nature.
7. There are virtually no advantages to the residents of Byram Township to alter our Master Plan and afford a special zoning change to a landowner that purchased the property as an agricultural entity.
http://www.savebyram.org
In Opposition to Proposed Hudson Farm Shooting RangeA shooting range and commercial recreation business is being proposed by Hudson Farm on the former Westby property along Roseville Road.
The shooting range is to be located on the mountain facing the Forest Lakes Community and adjoins the CO Johnson Park. Shooting at the range is all year, seven (7) day per week from 9:30 a.m. to dusk.
Typically, with 75 to 200 rounds per shooter will be expended during the day. Advertisements for the shooting event are at $400 per person and $1500 per four-some indicate that a significant group of shooters will assemble.
Mr. Ursin talked of groups of 20 on December 20th. On September 6th it was mentioned there would be 100-200 shots/person. Then on December 20th there was testimony of 75-100 shots.
Over a couple of hours, this intense shooting, with its reverberations, will change your life. We won't comment on how such limitations can be enforced as they are changing with the wind.Mr. Kellogg, owner of Hudson Farms is requesting a zoning change for the property from Agricultural zone to Commercial Recreation zone (this is the same zone as Wild West City).
The request conflicts with the guiding Byram Township Master Plan. Mr. Kellogg just recently purchased the property knowing full well that the Westby property was not zoned for commercial recreation and that it conflicted with the Master Plan.
Why do we need a Commercial Recreation zone in this residential area of Byram Township?
We don’t. Mr. Kellogg has a similar outdoor recreation business located in the Northeast section of Byram Township and there is no need to proliferate this type of commercial recreation business within the Township.There are numerous disadvantages to allow a shooting range business at the former Westby property:
1. The tranquil nature of Forest Lakes will be significantly and unnaturally disturbed by the continuous gun fire during the outings. The continuous gun fire will degrade the quality of life for the residents within one of Byram Township most densely populated areas.
2. Because of the gun fire disturbance, property values in Forest Lakes will be negatively affected and thereby impact the total Byram Township tax ratables.
3. Because of the gun fire disturbance, realtors may have to disclose that a shooting range is located in the area when selling a property in Forest Lakes.
4. With all the gun violence in schools and the most recent Lenape Valley HS incident, what is the affect of continuous gun fire on the children of Forest Lakes and children playing at CO Johnson Field?
5. The concentration of lead from the shotgun pellets will create an environmental hazard on the property.
6. Byram Townships Master Plan, that took many years to create, would need to be altered as the “Shooting Range” and “Commercial Recreation Business” enterprise does not conform to the Master Plan. The Commercial Recreation zone opens the door to further development of non critical businesses of a similar nature.
7. There are virtually no advantages to the residents of Byram Township to alter our Master Plan and afford a special zoning change to a landowner that purchased the property as an agricultural entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)