to allow residential use
in commercial zone
Proposal for adult condos
rejected by Zoning Board
Panel members opt not
to allow residential use
in commercial zone
By jeanette m. eng
Staff Writer
MARLBORO — Zoning board members have rejected an application filed by a developer who was seeking permission to construct an adult condominium complex in a commercial zone on Route 79 near Lloyd Road.
Although board members such as Grover T. Burrows acknowledged that "there is a real need and demand for age-restricted housing … which allows people to live and reside in Marlboro as they age," they unanimously denied such an application at a Feb. 19 meeting.
Intell Management’s request for a use variance to construct a residential development in a C-2 commercial zone had been before the board since late 2001.
During the time the application was open, former mayor Saul Hornik and former councilman Thomas Broderick contended that the application, if approved, would amount to a de facto zoning change (commercial to residential). Zoning changes, they said, can only be approved by the Township Council.
In comments made prior to the vote on the Intell application, board member Steven Sukel specifically noted that his decision "would not be influenced by empty threats."
"A use variance in a C-2 zone is not a rezone," he said.
Intell’s proposal was for the construction of 120 age-restricted apartments in several buildings on an 18.4-acre site on Route 79, opposite the Lloyd Road intersection. Proposed amenities included a putting green, a 5,000-square-foot clubhouse, a gazebo, a storm water basin and a walking path. The site is in a neighborhood commercial zone in which there is a mix of residential and commercial uses, according to board planner Richard Cramer’s report. The C-2 zone does not permit residential uses of any type.
In testimony to the board on Feb. 19, representatives of the applicant described major revisions in the application.
According to the applicant, the project was reduced in density from 156 to 120 apartments. As a result, the size of the proposed pool facility was also reduced, although the clubhouse area would remain at 5,000 square feet. The applicant also explained a reduction in residential parking to 240 spaces, allowing two spaces per unit; 44 of the spaces would be "on-street" spaces (11 spaces per building) and 196 would be garage spaces under the proposed buildings.
Burrows expressed concern about the traffic situation that he said was exemplified by the fact that a pedestrian fatality had occurred in the area of the proposed development on Feb. 3.
"The speed is excessive there and the two traffic lights there now are more like a speed test," he said, explaining that drivers attempt to pass through both lights at once. "I am trying to make sure that we weigh the detriment to the public good. This may exacerbate the traffic issue."
Attorney John A. Giunco, representing the applicant, told board members that "my client will sympathize and will do whatever is necessary to accommodate your concerns."
Project architect Roger S. Lichtman testified about the design of the development, which he said was intended to "exude luxury and the mystique of luxury." According to Lichtman, the use of stone from the site and stucco materials as well as the landscaping would contribute to that objective.
The architect described individual floor plans which would range in size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Each residence would include a private laundry facility, a den/library, a dining room, a guest bedroom with a bath, a master bedroom suite with a walk-in closet, regular closet, linen closet and a bathroom with two sinks, a tub and a shower, according to Lichtman.
He said all of the units would comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Burrows expressed concern about the possibility of the use of the proposed facility changing over time.
"If the real estate bubble bursts will we be looking at something different?" he asked, speaking to the possibility of the development becoming a nursing home.
Giunco said the intention of the application was to market homes at $300,000 per unit and that any deviation from that would change the use group of the application.
"However, we will be open to any restrictions that you want to put in place to ensure that this does not happen," he said. "We understand if it is necessary for your comfort."
Giunco presented what he called positive criteria for the application, comparing it to the permitted neighborhood commercial use.
"This development has less odor and less noise [than if this was a strip mall]," he said. "It is also a more visually pleasing environment."
The attorney added that the development would generate less cars while an office building or strip mall has more cars during peak hours.
"This application makes sense," Giunco said, adding that the plan would fiscally benefit the town to the tune of $400,000 annually.
In a letter from Cramer, the applicant was asked to address the reasons why a use variance was being requested for the development rather than a rezone. According to Cramer, the applicant had previously petitioned the Planning Board to consider its site for designation in the master plan as an age-restricted site. However, because Intell had already filed an application with the zoning board, the master plan review made no recommendation on the site.
Project planner Gordon Gemma presented reasons regarding size and location of the application and the type of use being presented that, according to him, justified Intell’s request for a use variance.
"The size of the tract is 18.4 acres. This is relatively small compared to the entire C-2 zone," he said. "The type of use [residential use in a neighborhood commercial zone] being requested is another reason. This is not that substantial of a change. The use variance that we want is a tougher burden," he acknowledged. "But that doesn’t take away from the jurisdiction of this board."
During public comment on the application, JoAnn Denton of Tennent Road spoke as a resident and as a member of the town’s environmental commission. Denton is also a former township councilwoman.
"On Aug. 13, 2002, we [the environmental commission] asked for an environmental impact study on the property and to date, have not received that," she said. "There are a large number of trees there."
As a resident, she said she did not believe the application was in the right place, recommending that the board send the case to the council.
"This application can be called a use variance, but it should be called a rezone," Denton said. "This can be stated as an age-restricted development, but the owner can claim hardship and this can change."
Attorney Gerald Sonnenblick of Freehold Township, representing the owners of the land that was the subject of the application, spoke as the sole supporter of the application.
"I don’t think I’ve ever seen an application more deserving of a use variance. This application is a much less intense use, has much less of an impact on the environment and has considerably less traffic than any other use," Sonnenblick said.
During the board’s workshop, Chairwoman Sherry Hoffer responded to the applicant’s statement that the proposed development would be a better visual environment than the existing permitted use.
"If it is true that this would be a more enticing and appealing use than a strip mall, then shame on the Planning Board for allowing strip malls to look like that," she said, describing malls in Florida that have benches and trees and are made to look like a park.
Hoffer then commented on her concerns with the Intell application.
"There is a need for senior housing for those whose children have left the nest and want to stay in town," she said. "I agree with the concept, but not where it is being proposed."
Burrows echoed Hoffer’s concerns, adding that he was "not comfortable with the special reasons presented" and did not favor the application.
Sukel expressed his reasons why he did not believe the application was "inherently beneficial to the town."
"This is for people who have a choice as to where they want to live. This is not a Mount Laurel [affordable housing] development," he said. "This is not one of the designated areas for age-restricted units and in that case, I don’t believe that the enhanced burden of proof has been met."
Board member Deborah Hoffman described what she saw as a "negative impact."
"There is nothing like this in the area," she said. "This is also a critical intersection and although the traffic engineer has been creative, I don’t believe this property is suited for this use."
Board member Joseph Castelluci stated that, "based on the site-specific criteria, this site needs to remain C-2."
Board member Steven Wexler reiterated the significance of the public’s comments.
"We heard three residents of Marlboro: two against it and one for it, and he was the attorney for the property owners," Wexler said.
Board Vice Chairman Eric Menaker stated his hope to keep applications in sync with the rest of the town.
"Nowhere in town do we have such a use permitted as the one in this application," he said. "This is a multi-floor, multi-use application."
All of the board members voted to deny the application except for Hoffman, who abstained from the vote because she did not hear the entire testimony.