Does anyone else find this whole arrangement fishy??? Somerset had agreed to NOT build outside the oval before all the Sterling hubbub hit...NOW, Somerset is going to be building 40 "large-lot" houses??? What the heck??? Totally fishy.

I hope Somerset has the ability to pull all of this off, as based upon their website www.sdnj.com, their strength and history is entirely in "higher-end" single home developments.

This is a very tough real estate market, and a very historically and important site to Homdel due to the Bell Labs building. I'm assuming that guarantees are in place, both for Homdel to expedite permitting (the bane of NJ property deals), and for Somerset to go beyond building the new-homes.

The "animated, great public space" which will provide long-term benefit to Homdel, and the bike/pedestrian paths to connect it to nearby homes, is the real long-term community benefit and need. I hope that this part of the plan comes to fruition as well.

It doesn't matter what the video says, as more changes were brought about subsequent to it, including Mr. Zucker's plan to have all housing construction within the Oval. Perhaps others reading this attended Somerset's large open house at Bell Labs where they sought to make friends with the residents by giving everyone free ice cream? Subsequently, the Township Committee initiated the Redevelopment Plan / Ms. Sterling came on the scene...and we have been in the dark until yesterday morning when Patch broke this story. VERY fishy.

Carol,

I'm sorry to say that you really have your head stuck in the ground and you fail to see what is really going on. I just caught you in another lie and you fail to recognize it.

Watch the video again, he proposed housing outside the building from the very beginning. STOP LYING. It's the desperate Democrats that are very fishy.

Between you and Orsini, your poor candidates have aligned themselves with some very fishy people indeed.

Nick J, I said Mr. Zucker had proposed to keep the housing within the OVAL...not within the building. Absolutely TRUE. Please stop your vulgar name calling; it is especially despicable because you conceal your own identity, yet spew venom at those of we who do not hide who we are.

who cares about what they do with the property? As long as ALU gets the cash from the sale of the building thats all I give a dam about. Were ALU shareholders I dont give a rat's ass if the city never develops the building not my or the company's problem....GO ALU!

The Holmdel Dems have learned their lessons well from Obama...Lie, distort...blame

And thank-you to Christina Johnson of the Patch for interviewing Ralph Zucker and for re-posting the videos. It is great re-fresher course on what his vision was (at least his vision from June 2011).

Carol
What seems to be your problem other then to say anything to get your guys elected. Is their anything the Mayor and TC can do that makes you happy?
The only time you don't criticize, is if the democratic party makes a suggestion. I lived in this town for 30 years and have been following the Lucent issue for a long time . I attended the open house both presentations and anything else that had to do with this property.
What are you looking for? The mayors for the last I don't know 7-8 years have done all they can to get this property back on the tax rolls. I understand they sent out inquaries to all major companies spoke to the past two govenors and Lt governor to help advertise the property. Get this- nobody wants a 2 million square foot building! It's obsolete. They tried Carol. If this property was so attractive don't you think someone whould have jumped on it be now. What has it been 7 years? It's a bargin at 20-30 million. So please stop! You can't be right all the time.
By the way , as far as being kept in the dark, I guess their was nothing to report. The mayor told us last night that there is and has been a confidentialiy agreements between Lucent and buyers.When the project moves foward and we all hope it does I am sure we will all be told what is going on.

I also want to thank The Patch for there interview with the Mayor to get the story out.
Keep up the good work Patch . Thank you Mayor for trying to do what is best for taxpayer. We believe in you Ponisi, Deputy Hinds and Buontempo. Thankyou Formers Mayors DiMaso and Fink for trying to help with this white elephant known as Lucent

Mr. Boyd, I am not writing here because of this election...yes, I do support the Dems ...but Lucent will be ours to live with LONG after the election is over. I was also at the Lucent events...Preferred's and Somerset's. What will make me happy??? To see the property developed in a way that minimizes detrimental effects on our drinking water, our schools, our traffic and our general quality of life. I am suspicious because of the erratic nature of business deals going on behind the scenes. That is not Democrat or Republican...it is plain old AMERICAN to care about our towns, our natural resources, our taxes and whether our government is on the up and up with us. I have nothing personal against any of the Committee members and appreciate their dilemma and effort...but I will wait until we know what the heck is really happening before I thank them for what is happening with Lucent.

don't know who you are nick, but you sure do have a comment about everything and anything. nothing more divisive and unproductive than a nameless, faceless know it all who throws out the word liar at a moments notice. you don't represent my party bro.

I am most concerned with the sewer portion. All along our Mayor said he was fighting against sewering, then suddenly he did an about face and is now FOR sewering the property. THATS what I find fishy. I don't believe for one minute that sewers will be limited to 40 homes and 185 townhomes. Somerset will want to build many more homes on the property, plus it threatens all the open land in the entire surrounding area with being sewered and developed.

Pam, thank you for expressing your concerns...you speak for a lot of us!

I'm glad that someone is going to re-develop the property. I only hope that they come up with a plan that will not over-develop the area or deviates from the proposals. Also, we do not need our roads widened any further. I've seen too many builders promise one thing and then do what they want. Check out the house on the corner of Everett and Stillwell Road as an example. That was a beautiful farm - now....

The problem is someone owns the land - In the US we have property rights - this is not cuba or venezuaela - as long as they follow applicable laws they can build what they want. It is nice that you all have your house and do not want any more development but others have the right to use their property.

Lucent does own the property. However, it is ZONED O/L (Office / Laboratory.) They have to conform to that use unless the zoning changes; ie, they are not zoned residential. It is the Township Committee who CONTROLS Zoning. That is why I am adamant about electing the Democrats at this juncture. We need over-sight and checks and balances; one mind-set is not in the best interests of the public. Besides, the Dems are far more concerned with what happens to the environment at Lucent. The land should not be chopped-up nor sewers extended any futher. That is why I advocate for keeping the development within the oval, at least.

No thanks. I'm sure they bring a unique set of skills to their positions, but I don't need two yes-men to whatever the mayor's whims are. I want two people in there who are going to ask hard questions when the mayor flip-flops on another issue with no real rationale behind it.

William Y (Orsini), why don't you go to the Township Committee meetings to ask your "hard questions". This is open government at its best, so give it a try.

And as the puppet master for the Democratic Luttrell and Levinson candidates, you know all too well about pulling strings.

Nick J (Mayor Pat), I'll see you there. Although your definition of open government is a lot different than what the rest of us Holmdelians (both red and blue) expect.

Nick J's calling me "(his) dear friend Carol" is more than a little creepy.

If readers want to find out what is going on first-hand with Lucent, please go to the Township Committee meeting this Thursday evening. I am.

Carol,

I haven't seen the agenda yet, can you fill us in with what is going to be discussed about Lucent?

Why did the Patch take down my comment, It wasn't offensive. Was I too pro Republican. Because most of Holmdel knows where Christina Johnson sits

Patch values constructive dialogue. Personal attacks in this space are devaluing the conversation. Citizens who bravely use their name and cite their opinion should not be subjected to hurtful comments. Unfortunately, this is becoming more common. So let's keep the conversation above board and keep ideas flowing.

The patch constantly takes down the comments that do not support their agenda.

RE: PAM
" don't believe for one minute that sewers will be limited to 40 homes and 185 townhomes."....
Your comment on sewers is an issue that has not been sufficiently covered or addressed.
The Township code at one time stated that when a sewer trunk or main line runs past a property, a property owner
must (shall) hook up at their own expense.
My understanding of this was that to defray the cost of some, many would be mandated to contribute to cover the overall costs.
If this is still the case and if the mandate to hook up is still on the books, then the impacted property owners should have been notified and informed. The total costs for propery owners other than Alcatel/Lucent for hook ups should be completely disclosed before any agreements (contracts) are signed with the developer.
Property owner mandated hook ups and the costs should be included in whatever public hearing the Committee holds. This should have been a part of any Public Hearing held on the Redevelopment Plan. I do not beleive it was..
Due to the location of my property, I am a property owner that would fall under the mandate to hook up. I am justifiably concerned.

To all concerned residents: please attend the Township Committee meeting this Thursday evening. It is common sense that "Lucent" will be discussed, with the breaking news that Patch brought us. Let's all find out what is happening at Lucent, regardless of our political affiliations. Republicans and Democrats can work together on this, as we are all taxpayers and, as property owners, have a financial stake in our township.

Unfortunately, it is not impossible for a developer to convert age restricted housing to regular housing. Check it out.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/03/robbinsville_to_appeal_ruling.html

http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1569

Mr. Luttrell,

While I am not a lawyer like yourself, I do have the ability to read plain and simple documents and come to a conclusion.

I have copied here an excerpt from the second link you provided and it clearly states to my novice eyes, that this conversion you refer to would in no way apply to what can potentially happen at the Lucent site. Here it is. As a candidate and lawyer, I expect better research that your scare tactics.

Eligibility for Conversion
The act applies to any age-restricted community that complies with the "housing for older persons" exception under Federal law, including communities that restrict residency to persons 55 and older. For a project to be eligible for conversion, it must meet all of the following requirements:
• preliminary or final approval for construction was granted prior to July 2, 2009
• the developer must not be holding a deposit for any unit in the development, or have conveyed any unit within the development and
• the developer must agree to set aside 20 percent of the units as affordable housing in accordance with the Council on Affordable Housing rules.

A conversion application may be submitted before July 31, 2011; however, the approving board is permitted to extend the deadline by an additional 24 months if it finds that poor economic conditions continue to adversely affect the real estate market in New Jersey.

To William Y,

His own link contradicts what is he saying. If that's not a scare tactic, then it's an outright lie. Read it yourself and come to your own conclusion and tell me if I'm wrong.

Of course things can change (everything can change), but we can only operate under the rules as they are today.

Like I said above, I expect better from a candidate but more so from a lawyer.

"Nicole Magnotti",
Your accusations are unfair and baseless, but that seems to be business as usual for some folks like you hiding behind pseudonyms. Before enactment of the statute In 2009 that I cited, conversion of age restricted housing was a near impossibility. With pressure from the real estate developers lobby, that changed overnight with one stroke of the pen by Gov. Corzine. Do you really believe that the same lobbyists cannot pressure Trenton to amend the statute to expand the cutoff date just as it has done with the Permit Extension Act several times already? We should all be concerned.

First of Larry, just because I don't use a picture with my post, why is it in your eyes that I am hiding behind a pseudonym? And even if I were, the facts are the facts.

If people were to read your link like I did, they would say that you are lying or trying to scare people for your own political gain. That's what I see from a distance.

The truth is of course things could change in the future, everything can change. Should I not buy a home because I think Congress might exclude the interest deduction from my income taxes? Of course not. We live within the parameters of today.

I know you would prefer to see that building remain vacant, than see some housing go up on the property.

However, I can tell you that myself and ALL of my friends want to see progress made at that site. Sitting vacant for another 6 years is not an option. It will under your plan.

I fully support the Mayor's plan and Ponisi & Critelli.

Re: Nicole Magnotti
With reference to your comment below I agree with you......
" The truth is of course things could change in the future, everything can change" I agree with you however....
This week's Independent reports that "That plan, which Township officials said was left INTENTIONALLY BROAD,..." and that (our Mayor) "Impreveduto said that once Somerset and the township come to an agreement on the proposed site plan, a public forum will be held and residents will be given an opportunity to weigh in."
A public forum is not, I repeat not an official PUBLIC HEARING.
At meetings and in print our Mayor has consistently used the word FORUM. This might be unintentional but leaves me skeptical and highly suspect. The public deserves a commitment from our current Township Committee that there will be duly noticed PUBLIC HEARINGS on all applications before approvals are granted, agreed to and signed.with any builder. All we have to go on is the BROADNESS of the uses allowed. All we have seen are the promotional purely conceptual presentations offered by Mr. Zucker. Other applicants are required to submit applications before the approprate boards and have PUBLIC HEARINGS. I do not have blind faith in any politician and their chosen developer that find loop holes to exclude the public from the PUBLIC HEARING process.

In those 6 to 7 months, the Township Committee also passed the Lucent Redevelopment Plan. We have to see what effect that has on Somerset's plans. I am afraid that Redevelopment Plan will give Somerset too much freedom to expand their options - including more housing - than was last shown to the public at the Lab's open house. I am hoping the Mayor will elaborate on that aspect, this evening.

Re: Nicole Magnotti COMMENT
"you are being overly critical on the Mayor's choice of the word forum"

Please do not confuse criticism with cautionary apprehension.

The Mayor's assertion that there will be "a public forum," does not make a forum a legally recognizable proceeding. Minutes do not have to be taken. Transcripts do not have to be kept. The record of a public forum has no legal weight in the courts.

Public hearings require minutes, transcripts and records to be included in the PUBLIC HEARING process. Public forums have no legal requirements.

PUBLIC HEARINGS are legally accountable. Public forums are not.

If our Mayor and his Committee want the public to establish trust in his and their positions and actions, it would be prudent to say what he means and not leave his words open to interpretation or misinterpretation.

When the Redevelopment Plan was approved in May, our Mayor and Township attorney had no problem saying what they meant. They stated clearly on the record that the town DID NOT HAVE to serve certifIed notices to property owners within 200 feet of the zoning change.

My concerns are valid and not overly critical. What else does this Township Committee and the builder DO NOT HAVE TO DO under the Redevelopment Plan will speak volumes to how much public trust the current Township Committee deserves.

Did anybody go to the Township Committee tonight? Unfortunately I was not able to go, but I would like to hear if anything was said.

Perhaps the Patch can update us on this.

Well if you attended the meeting tonight. I guess you have your answer. I thought the Mayor and his team did a wondeful job of explainning what has happened and the process moving foward.
They stopped all political rumors like if you live near Lucent you will need to tie into the sewer line( the attorney and town engineer explained that not true) the planner and attorney explained that you can't change proposed age-restricted housing to anything other then waht they were attended for.
It was only attended by about 15-20 people most politically motovaited. The guy who put his kids on You Tube video taped the meeting What out here comes another distorted representation of what really happened

Nicole
Not well attended 15 people. Most with a politically moviated agenda. Mayor Pat and his team explained what has happened and what the process. I don't attend many meetings. I don't know how the mayor does it, out of the 5 people who sopke 4 were nasty, they had an agenda and if you don't agree wow! The only guy who didn't have an agenda was a man named Ralph. He was intelligent spoke well and seemed to understand the process.
All lies that were being spread were put to rest in my opinion.

I'm glad to hear that the Mayor and his team put all the rumors to rest. The fact that it was not that well attended (except for those few with their own political agenda), tells me that the people of Holmdel trust the Mayor and agree with his plans for the future of the Lucent site.

As long as the people of Holmdel can have their say about the development of the site, I think we are good to go.

I have to back up what "Steve H" said, as I DID attend the meeting. There will be no Public Hearing by the Township Committee re: Lucent. There will be forums and presentations by Somerset and maybe even free ice cream if the public demands it...however, the only Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board. Opinions will be given by the public at the forum but only at the Planning Board will they be part of the public record and the public record is all that matters. So, Nicole Magnotti was 100% wrong about what she wrote. The terms used DO matter. Another disappointment at the meeting was discovering that all parties involved from the DEP to the Mayor are on board with sewers being extended at Lucent. For a short time the Mayor seemed to be an ally of the environment but that didn't last long. Another notch in the belt of development and another loss for our water supply.

Carol, perhaps you attended a different meeting than sam and john above because they came to different conclusions. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING, except that nobody really cares what YOU have to say.

My sources informed me that some of the biggest bloggers on this subject, including yourself, Luttrell, Steve Strickland were in attendance but noticeably silent, while Orsini didn't even show up.

One more thing, as noted by john boyd above, Mr. Luttrell's attempt to scare people into believing his rumor about age restricted housing being flipped to regular residential was completely put to rest by the professionals.

I cannot believe the level that the Democrats will stoop to in an attempt to sway voters. How sad.

Nick J., Sam Lindner, Nicole Magnotti and John Boyd are ALL MADE UP NAMES.

My name is real and so am I. I was at the meeting, IN PERSON, MYSELF...not to talk but to listen. I stand behind what I wrote, above; it is true to the best of my knowledge. The public is free to decide if FAKE people are to be listened to...or me. I am a taxpayer and 21-year resident of Holmdel. I have a lot at stake in what happens at Lucent. Don't berate me because I care. You are being a bully yet a coward in your anonymity. Pitiful.

Carol, I can't speak for the other people, but just because you choose to use your real name doesn't make what you write to be the gospel.

We all care about what will ultimately happen at Lucent and as long as the administration keeps the public informed along the way and allows for that public input, what more do you want?

Do you really think that this will not be a give and take process? Of course it will as NOBODY will get everything they want. It's called compromise and that's what will ultimately happen here.

And exactly what do you have in stake in what happens at Lucent? Please tell us.

I hate to break it to nicole but the fact that 15 show up has nothing to do with trusting the mayor - it’s that people don’t give a crap. Other than this lonely old bored carol person. The property will be developed, whatever can net the builder the biggest profit will go there and everyone will get their payoffs - plain and simple. It is the NJ way.

Nick did not go to school when there were bullying rules, so dont berate him. He's just an Impreveduto sycophant.

Re: Jon Boyd’s comment….”They stopped all political rumors like if you live near Lucent you will need to tie into the sewer line( the attorney and town engineer explained that not true).”
According 18-2.7Use of Public Sewers Required Holmdel Township ...Use of Public Sewers Required.
d.The owner of each house, building or property used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purposes, SITUATED WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP AND ABUTTING ON ANY STREET, ALLEY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IN WHICH THERE IS NOW LOCATED OR MAY IN THE FUTURE BE LOCATED A PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER OF THE TOWNSHIP, IS HEREBY REQUIRED AT HIS EXPENSE TO INSTALL SUITABLE TOILET FACILITIES THEREIN AND TO CONNECT SUCH FACILITIES DIRECTLY WITH THE PROPER PUBLIC SEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS AFTER DATE OF OFFICIAL NOTICE TO DO SO.....
e iin this section refers to hardship cases being exempt
Could the attorney, engineer, & Mayor's Committee be mistaken or did Mr. Boyd mis-hear at last night’s meeting? Would like to know when and if the above ordinance was amended and if the property owner supposedly does not have to hook up will that owner be subject to the assessment regardless.

Are you a lawyer, Nick? If it HAS HAPPENENED, how can it be against the law?

Tony, it's against the law TODAY. Just like smoking in a restaurant.

Thick Nick, here's how it HAS HAPPENED: developer comes to the town. "I cannot sell my senior housing, thus, I cannot proceed with developing your ratables. I need to sell them as regular housing." Town caves. Voila, your Trojan horse breaks open and the troops raid the town. Got it, Nick?

...Zoning change. THAT easy.

That's really funny, Nick, since in the past Holmdel Rs have taken $ from Spalliero. And if they'd sell open space, they'd sell the town to developers in a heartbeat. Tell me more about Critelli's "impeccable credentials:" I think I know him better than you.

Is tony still trying to sell land again like he did for td bank..