Redevelopment plan sent to Boro Council

Some say snuff mill
plan should require
age-restricted housing

By tara petersen
Staff Writer

Some say snuff mill
plan should require
age-restricted housing
By tara petersen
Staff Writer

When residents cheered at last week’s Helmetta Planning Board meeting, it wasn’t in favor of the proposal before the board to approve a snuff mill redevelopment plan.

It was in support of an outspoken critic of the entire redevelopment process.

Despite opposition expressed by some residents at the June 16 meeting, the board voted 8-1 to recommend the redevelopment plan for the 31-acre former Helme Tobacco Co. site. The plan, which can now be reviewed and possibly adopted by the Borough Council, allows mixed commercial, retail, residential and open space areas over five separately designated parcels within the snuff mill site.

The board’s approval followed a presentation from the borough’s redevelopment planner, Stuart Wiser, of Remington, Vernick and Vena in Toms River, who drafted the redevelopment plan.

Parcel 1, which is a 3-acre tract north of John Street and near Jamesburg County Park, would be preserved as open space. A 1-acre area dubbed Parcel 2, near Brookside Place, would be designated for commercial use only.

Parcels 3 and 4, which contain the two main high-rise buildings on the north side of Main Street — comprising 2.4 and 5.5 acres, respectively — would be zoned to allow both commercial and residential uses. Developers are strongly encouraged to renovate, rather than demolish, the main brick structures.

Parcel 5, which spans about 4 acres and is located across Main Street from the other four properties, would be designated for "a mix of general retail and commercial office space," according to Wiser.

Developers would be granted "bonuses" that would allow them to build on a larger portion of the property if they build a multi-level parking deck rather than a parking lot.

Also, Wiser said there would be a "greenbelt — essentially, a landscaped jogging path — that would ring the redevelopment area and link all the parcels together."

During the public comment portion of last week’s meeting, several residents voiced concerns over the fact that the redevelopment plan does not require the new housing to be age-restricted, since younger families with children could lead to increased school taxes.

Wiser said that it is best to remain flexible so that more developers would be interested. He also said that the borough can and would negotiate with the developer to make sure that any added costs associated with more children would be covered.

"It would be part of the negotiations with the hopeful developer," Wiser said. "We can say that the developer can pay ‘X’ per student. There are any number of creative ways to get there."

Some residents still were not convinced.

Resident Gail Drysdale expressed mistrust in the elected officials.

"The residents are in the hands of the council to [negotiate], and they do what they want," Drysdale said.

Another resident, who said he did not want to be named, claimed the whole process is designed to allow Matrix Development Corp., Cranbury — which last year proposed to build 294 non-age-restricted rental units — to build its proposal.

"This plan is tailor-made to the plan that was presented [by Matrix]. There’s no more disguising this," he said.

The comments were met with applause and shouts of support.

"He spoke for all of us," said another resident.

A petition was previously circulated against Matrix’s proposal.

Many residents also said they want to make sure any project yields minimal new vehicular traffic.

Mayor Frank Hague tried to assure concerned residents that the council would make the best decision for the borough.

"We worked very hard on this. Whatever plan we go with will be in the best interest of the borough," Hague said.

Wiser said renovating the existing high-rise buildings would be very expensive, the cost of which may not support future age-restricted housing, in part because it is already available in nearby areas such as Monroe, where it is likely to cost a lot less.

"We don’t know what the market is here," Wiser said. "We didn’t want to get boxed into [age restrictions] and have no takers at the time of the RFP." The RFP, a Request For Proposals, is a document that the borough may present to developers that would outline the borough’s goals and criteria for a redevelopment project.

Board member and Councilman Lou Adornati, who voted against recommending the plan, said he would have preferred to require age restrictions so that the negotiations would be more simple.

"I still feel confident in the process, I just have reservations about the negotiations process," Adornati said after the meeting.

Hague, who noted that some people have been spreading false rumors about the current ownership of the property, said residents are mistaken if they believe the redevelopment process is being guided by Matrix’s plan. He said Matrix’s current plan "isn’t suitable to the financial needs of our community."

"If Matrix still proposes what they presented before, it won’t get approved. I can guarantee that," Hague said.

Hague said the traffic problem is mostly out of the borough’s hands.

"We live in central New Jersey; you can’t get away from traffic. We get more traffic from surrounding communities than from our own residents," Hague said.

Wiser assured residents that there would be ample opportunity to be more specific later in the redevelopment process.

"What we’re doing here tonight is a recommendation phase, not an approval phase," Wiser said.

Wiser said once the council adopts the plan by ordinance, the borough would solicit proposals through an RFP. He urged the board and the residents to have faith in the process, and remain open to several types of plans.