By ROBERT LINNEHAN
If the Bancroft property were only to be sold for $12 million, would the organization not be able to move off its campus? The question was raised Tuesday night as several Bancroft representatives — including Chief Operating Officer Joseph Flamini — said the 19-acre property was undervalued in three redevelopment plans created by Phil Caton of Clarke, Caton, and Hintz.
In his study, Caton based his findings on the assessed value of Bancroft, about $12.1 million, that was determined through a tax reevaluation completed by the borough in 2007. Flamini said through discussions with developers, Bancroft believes the property could be sold for nearly $15 million if zoned for a specific use.
Caton originally proposed that a joint purchase of the Bancroft property by the borough and the board of education would result in an annual $280 municipal tax increase for the average homeowner in Haddonfield. The town house option would basically be a wash, he said, and taxpayers wouldn’t see an increase. Finally, independent senior living units would actually result in a $39 annual savings for the average taxpayer, he said.
Flamini — backed up by Chief Financial Officer Thomas J. Burke — said Caton overvalued how much revenue town homes and senior independent units would bring into the borough. The borough could see a gap of about $4.2 million for the town home option and $4.6 million for the senior independent unit, he said, which would make the fiscal impact much higher for borough residents.
“The $12 million value is understated,” Flamini said.
Bancroft has always had three goals in this process, Flamini said, which are to sell the property, find a new piece of property to purchase, and to have the funds to do so. Flamini alluded to the fact that if Bancroft sold its property for $12.1 million, it would not have the funds necessary to move and would have to consider staying in the borough.
When asked by Planning Board Chairman John LaProcido how Bancroft came up with its $15 million value, the representatives said that their number was based on the property being possibly zoned for a continuing care retirement community and a number of other factors. These included, said Robert Hill, Bancroft’s real estate consultant, the inclusion of several COAH units on the site, the sale of Lullworth Hall, and the purchase of part of the property for an athletic field.
“As we looked at possible different uses, we believed that a higher use was the CCRC that brought a certain value both for us and certain tax revenue values for the town,” Hill said.
Ed McManimon, redevelopment counsel for the borough, said appraisals of the property mean nothing if the property isn’t zoned yet.
Resident Joe Haro was the first citizen to speak in the public comment portion of the meeting and he criticized both Bancroft and the borough representatives for not bringing up these issues sooner in the process.
“I can’t believe that this has not been brought up in any meetings in the past eight years,” Haro said. “It’s an embarrassment to the community.”
Several residents also wondered why the planning board would consider crafting their zoning to make sure that Bancroft received the highest value for its property.
Joy Horwitz Fram said that she and her husband are currently looking to move into a penthouse in Manhattan, but the only way they could do so was if Haddonfield zoned their property to allow them to construct a 75-story apartment building. Of course, she said, the planning board would never give her permission to do this, so why would they even consider this for Bancroft?
“Bancroft is entitled to fair market value for a fair zoning,” she said.
The only official action taken Tuesday night was a motion from the board that the commissioners should consider all three development plans created by Clarke, Caton, and Hintz for the Bancroft property. All three plans are viable options and consistent with the master plan, board member Andrew Johnson said, when he made the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved.
