Council encourages cluster
developments in new zone
E.B. residents refer to new guidelines as ‘confiscation without compensation’
The East Brunswick Township Council has adopted a controversial zoning ordinance that would expand the allowable land uses in the southwest section of town.
The Aug. 27 vote loosens development restrictions adopted by the council in 1999, when officials first sought to make a number of changes in three township zones — the R-1, rural preservation and modular home zones.
A group of developers and property owners has sued the township over the 1999 ordinance, and was granted an injunction by a state Superior Court judge. Therefore, even though the 1999 ordinance and the amended version were formally adopted, neither is presently in effect.
The 1999 ordinance sought to combine three zones — R-1, rural preservation and modular homes — into one, which is referred to as the new rural preservation zone, R-6. That zone would have allowed developers to build one house per 6 acres. The original rural preservation zone, which remains in place due to the injunction, allows one house per 2 acres, while the R-1 zone allows one house per acre, and the modular-home zone permits seven homes per acre, according to Mayor William Neary.
As a result of complaints from property owners who live there and suggestions from the township’s planners, the amended ordinance was adopted last week, Neary said. The new version would allow cluster options for developers and property owners, meaning they can build more homes, so long as they are close together and a large part of the property remains open space.
Last week’s amendments also came in the wake of the lawsuit and the subsequent injunction.
The township and plaintiffs have met with a court-appointed mediator to try and resolve the issues.
Neary said he feels the township is in a strong position to fight the lawsuit because the ordinance changes are in accordance with the state’s master plan. He also pointed to recent similar cases where municipalities have won, including a case involving Mount Olive Township, Morris County.
There are two new cluster options in the amended ordinance.
One option allows developers to build senior housing on tract sizes that are a minimum of 350 contiguous acres, provided that at least 80 percent of the area is kept as open space, Neary said.
The other option allows for owners of property comprising 7 acres or more to build two homes per 7 acres instead of one home, so long as at least 65 percent of the area is maintained as open space, he said.
The township has received at least two proposals from developers interested in building in the area, the mayor said. One developer wants to build 10 homes, while another, the Matzel and Mumford Organization, Hazlet, wants to construct 58 homes on a tract of roughly 65 acres off Fresh Ponds Road. As part of the plan, the company would agree to keep 210 additional acres that they own in the area as open space.
That development would be in keeping with the 1999 ordinance, Neary said, even though it is not effective yet.
Using the original zoning that is in effect, the developer could build 75 to 80 homes on the same property, but spread them farther apart. That would mean more that streets would be built and less open space would be preserved, Neary said.
"They would be building all over the place," he said.
Matzel and Mumford is not a party in the lawsuit, he said.
However, a number of residents who are involved in the lawsuit expressed their agitation at the Aug. 27 council meeting. The residents said the rezoning would diminish their property values because it would make their land less attractive to potential developers.
Many of them said the changes represent "confiscation without compensation" and that the township was in "collusion" with Matzel and Mumford, which Neary denied.
Paul Street resident Herb Heim argued that property values could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent as a result of the changes in the ordinance. He said it is not fair that a limited number of homeowners are being asked to subsidize open space.
"In many cases, this is the single biggest asset these people have," Heim said.
"To be told this is being done for everyone’s benefit is a further slap in the face," he said.
Neary said that property owners who feel their land has lost value can appeal their assessments.
Neary also told the Sentinel that there is no evidence to suggest the changes will diminish property values.
Sherwood Avenue resident and former councilman Anthony Riccobono referred to the changes as a "boon" for developers, and suggested that the clustering options would adversely affect the quality of life in the area.
Another concern among residents was the possibility that a sewer system could be installed in the region. At present, the area has public water service, but no sewer connections.
One township official said that Matzel and Mumford presented a proposal that included a "community septic plan," but that it would need both Planning Board and state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approval.
Neary confirmed that there has been a proposal from Matzel & Mumford, but no formal application. The township has no plans to install its own sewer system there, he said.
A community septic system would probably cost those who use it more than the cost of hooking up to the municipal system, though it would present no cost to non-users, Neary said.
However, a possible problem with a community septic system is that the homeowners who use it could end up complaining that it is unfair for them to pay more than those who use the township lines, Neary said. In that case, if a future council agreed, the cost of the system’s use could be shared among all residents.
He added that it would probably not be "economically feasible" for a developer to connect to the township’s sewer system because it would mean bringing the sewers underneath the New Jersey Turnpike.