Testimony continues on Crystal Lake application
Applicant may have
to go to Zoning Board for variance
ABERDEEN — Testimony on Crystal Lake at Aberdeen, a controversial high-density development located along the Old Bridge/Marlboro border, continued last week.
At last week’s Planning Board meeting, a principal in Greenwood Holdings, LLC, Holmdel, which has applied to develop the Greenwood Road property, testified that his company does not plan to buy or develop an adjoining piece of the property, which lies in neighboring Marlboro, at the present time.
Currently, the applicant has plans before the board to build 379 townhouse and apartment units, approximately 25 percent of which would be designated as affordable-housing units.
"I will testify for the record that Greenwood Holdings has no interest in the Marlboro property," said developer Terry Shea.
Although the contents of Greenwood Holdings’ contract to buy the site were not made public, Shea told the board that there was no reference to the section of the property in Marlboro in the contract.
Some Planning Board members said that the board wanted to be clear on the issue because of past experience with other developers.
"One of the reasons the question was asked about the adjoining property was that there have been cases where applicants swore to us there would not be additional development. In later applications we found out that was not the case," township Mayor David Sobel, who sits on the board, said during the meeting.
Old Bridge Township Planner Sam Rizzo, who has been attending hearings on behalf of Old Bridge to testify against the development, said that the Planning Board needs to "consider the whole property, not just the piece being developed."
Old Bridge has formally opposed the development, passing a resolution which cited traffic concerns as its reason for opposition earlier this year. In addition, Old Bridge officials looked into the possibility of closing certain roads which they felt would be affected by traffic from the development.
Whether or not the applicant was interested in purchasing the property became an issue when comments made at the meeting suggested that the applicant consider adding an additional point of access to the development on Wilson Avenue.
The plans currently call for two points of entrance and exit on Greenwood Road.
Harvey Yesowitz, the applicant’s traffic expert, said that in his opinion a point of access on Wilson did not make sense since it would have a negative effect on the traffic situation on Wilson, which is already an area of concern for residents.
"I’m not even sure you would want an exit onto Wilson," he said.
In addition to traffic testimony, the applicant and the board attempted to hash out whether a small pond located on the property should be considered a retention basin.
According to the board planner and engineer, if the pond is considered a functioning means for stormwater management, the applicant may require a variance since all units would have to comply with a setback requirement of 100 feet from the pond instead of 30 feet.
Board officials expressed concern for the safety of those who would reside in the units nearest the pond, especially small children.
"Many of us have heard horror stories of a small child who gets caught up in an output structure," said board Chairman Mark Kaplan.
Victor E. Venegra, the applicant’s engineer, said that the pond in question was shallow, with depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet and that the output structure consisted of a lone PVC pipe, which does not function because it is clogged.
"We are dealing more or less with a reflecting pool than a deep pond," he said.
The board planner said that whether it was a pond or a retention basin, the issue speaks to the heart of "public health and safety."
"In any application our purpose is to ensure the safety and health of the people that are going to live there," said Board Attorney Michael Leckstein.
According to Leckstein, the applicant is entitled to a ruling on whether the issue would require the applicant to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance or whether the issue only requires a waiver.
Leckstein said that the decision to grant a waiver or require a variance would be made at the next meeting at which testimony was heard.
Testimony is scheduled to continue at a special meeting of the Planning Board on July 10.