Somerset Development has entered into a contract with Alcatel-Lucent to purchase the 473-acre Crawfords Corner Road property in Holmdel for an undisclosed price, Mayor Patrick Impreveduto said Wednesday night. The closing date is Dec. 31.
Somerset will develop the property in accordance with the township's Redevelopment Plan adopted in May if the deal is sealed, Impreveduto said.
"I'm really excited -- excited we are moving forward," said the mayor, who met with Somerset's Ralph Zucker and his associate at Town Hall on Wednesday afternoon.
The new agreeement with Somerset was confirmed by Alcatel Lucent spokeswoman Denise Panyik-Dale. "We can confirm a new contract has been signed with Somerset Development," she said Wednesday night, adding that Somerset agreed to follow the Redevelopment Plan adopted by Holmdel in May, 2012. She could not offer further details.
According to Impreveduto, the deal with Elsie Sterling Howard Oversight officially fell apart last week.
"We had known that Elsie Sterling had put down a significant amount of money, but Elsie Sterling had missed a payment in August. They had tried to work it out with Lucent. As of last week, it feel apart," he said.
Ralph Zucker, who had been one of several developers working with Sterling Oversight to develop the vacant 2-million square foot building "jumped right in, and offered Lucent a contract last week," said the mayor.
Somerset Development already knows its way around the property, as the company had previously worked for many months on a mixed use plan in consultation with Holmdel Township officials until Sterling Oversight suddenly stepped in and contracted for it in February.
The Somerset plan broadly focused on enhancing ratables, mitigating the impact on the surrounding residential areas, preserving the architecturally significant Bell Labs building, creating a vibrant public space and retaining the open space on the property in agreement with Holmdel's priorities. Much of the Redevelopment Plan (see document attached to this article) reflected its ideas.
Zucker was traveling Wednesday night and could not be reached for comment.
Impreveduto said Holmdel's next step is to get a Redevelopment Agreement in place with Zucker. "The lawyers will be drawing it up," he said.
You bring up some very important points about Somerset possibly flipping the sr housing back to regular housing. I believe that we as a community need to make sure that doesn't happen here. Our Township Committee must be made aware of this (if they are not already aware of this possibility) and put into its contract with the developer that this cannot happen. As far as Holmdel seniors moving in here, it's the constant turnover in housing that produces students. These seniors can move anywhere in the country and it would still produce additional kids for the Holmdel schools. Point is, if these seniors want to move, they are going to move anyway. I ask you though, what would you propose to happen here? It was made very clear by the professionals, that this property will never be sold without a housing component attached to the sale.
You know that I am a supporter of you and admire all you do for the children of Holmdel. As no one wants to see the quality of education diminish here in Holmdel, I am a strong advocate of small class sizes in general, but particularly at Village School. I wonder if you could share with us what those class sizes currently are and where there were a few years ago when staffing levels started to decrease. I'm curious because I thought most of the teachers are tenured (which occurs after only 3 years) and therefore cannot be laid off. Lastly, when you refer to a 10% reduction in staff, what positions were you referring to? Thanks.
First, at every board meeting, we get a breakdown of class sizes for the Village and Indian Hill grades dating back to 2000. The largest enrollments within the lower grades (K-6) are in the fourth and sixth grades. Between Grades 3 and 6, you see class size range from 23 to 27. Once I get historical data on the teacher/student ratios, I'll be in a better position to give you some perspective on the impact of staff reductions and class sizes. I think we would all agree we would like to keep the class size as low as possible, while balancing the community's desire to keep costs contained. A difficult balancing act that Board carefully addresses every year around budget time. You are correct in pointing out that tenure does impact staffing decisions, but any position can be eliminated due to economic necessity. Many of the reductions involved open positions due to retirement, which the District chose not to fill....and those positions are across the board. We also completed the outsourcing our transportation department in 2011, which eliminated roughly a dozen bus driver positions. If you have any other questions, I'll do my best to find answers. My phone number is in the book. Always happy to help where I can.
So by your reasoning we can put 50 students in a classroom with a quality teacher and we will see spectacular results? Class size matters.
I remember a lot of teachers that KNEW (not new) how to manage a classroom. Apparently the one that taught you spelling wasn't one of them. As for Special Ed students, they deserve everything they get. It is not discrimination. If putting out money at this stage of their lives produces the fact that they become productive citizens, the money spent is worth it.
It is clearly discrimination. There is no evidence that shows that smaller class size is a guarantor or prerequisite for academic success. By the way what does "produces the fact that they become productive citizens" mean? I guess we had the same english teacher.
Not sure when the video presentation was made, but I sure would like to hear from Somerset again. As the prospective new owner, he needs to keep the public engaged.
If you were a parent of a Special Education student I am sure you would not be making the statements that are attributed to you in the above posts. I think that you would appreciate everything that was being done to help your child.
Give the man a chance to prove himself.
Mr. Mayor, I recommend that the taxpayers, voters and neighboring property owners are YOUR NEXT STEP PRIOR to getting a Zucker agreement. Zucker has not been presented an application to any appropriate Holmdel Board or authority. Any input from the public that should have been acquired and public hearing required by way of a formal application process will be a moot issue, AFTER YOU AND YOUR VOTIONG MAJORITY HAVE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT (CONTRACT) WITH A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT BUILDER. Please cite any statute, regulation, rule, or ordinance that will guarantee the right of the public to a hearing AFTER you have signed an agreement /contract. What court would side with the Township if you ever wanted to veer from this contract? It appears that you and your Committee brothers are more interested in preserving Lucent/Alcatel's rights above that of your constituents. I was wrong in thinking this would be the first step after your party gained a full 5 seat majority. Maybe, the rush is fueled by doubt that your party will not retain your super majority and will lose your 4 vote power to approve anything and everything just as you have approved anything and everything in the Redevelopment Plan.
Let the ink on the Somerset contract dry before having a knee jerk reaction. Remember they haven't even closed on the deal yet!! They are just in contract.
Very well said. You precisely echo my thoughts.
Regarding your comment "ink drying on the page before knee jerk reactions." This is exactly what I am concerned with. The Holmdel people and grass roots organizations are reaping their regrets of being reactive instead of proactive. Trying to undo what should have not been done in the first place is next to impossible (especiialyy where private interestes trump public trust). A primary concern is the fact that our Mayor and Township attorney stated publicly at the May TC (passing of approval for the Redevelopment Plan)meeting that due and certified public notice to neighboring, adjacent property owners within 200 feet was not required under the Redevelopment Plan controlling statutes, rules and regulations. If our Township Committee is acting only within minimal compliance of the law, then the rights of adjacent property owners and the rest of us surely are at risk. Although there was a protest petition submitted by property owners that would be impacted by the Redev. Plan, the Township attorney virtually rejected it out of hand, giving no consideration to the other property owners in town,Essentially the TC and attorney gave deference and preference to whatever :"Master Developer" that they sign an agreement (contract) with over that of of current residential property owners. Rushing to any port in a storm is not a always a safe harbor (especially after the ink has dried). Be careful what you wish for Holmdel..
Michele Thomas
Somerset is known to try and overbuild and bypass town ordinances. Hopefully Holmdel has an independent thinking planning board and inspectors who can not be bought... See the Lakewood inspector found guilty in the Dweck case. See the Toms River court cases involving the Fairways Senior Community whereby Somerset tried desperately to overbuild on land adjacent to the community. The Pine River senior development was for seniors but was marketed to orthodox Jewish seniors with the real estate broker located in Boro Park .. Testimony to this fact was presented at a public meeting.. Hopefully a word to the wise will be sufficient ...