Planners to review controversial duplex

A proposed duplex on Eggerts Crossing Road has drawn objections from neighbors over the design.

By:Lea Kahn Staff Writer
A developer seeking to tear down a vacant house at 359 Eggerts Crossing Road and replace it with a duplex is slated to return to the Planning Board with revised architectural plans Monday.
   The Planning Board is set to continue a public hearing on A&R Financial Services Corp.’s plan for the property when it meets at 7:30 p.m. in the lower level conference room at the Municipal Building. The developer is based in New Brunswick.
   The applicant began to outline its plans for the property at the Planning Board’s Sept. 19 meeting, but no decision was made because the board ran out of time. More than a dozen neighborhood residents turned out to object to the plans. The applicant agreed to consider comments offered by the Planning Board and the audience and return to the board in November.
   At the Sept. 19 meeting, land surveyor Tom Grybowski, who represented the developer, told the Planning Board that his client intended to demolish the house and replace it with a duplex. Each unit would be separately owned. A parking lot for four cars would be built at the rear of the property, with a driveway entrance off Albemarle Road.
   But some Planning Board members and audience members were not pleased with what they saw, commenting that the proposed duplex more closely resembled an apartment house. Some of the criticism was centered on the four-car parking lot at the rear.
   Planning Board member Marcy Kleiner said she thought the residents would be more likely to enter their units through the sliding glass doors on the rear deck planned for each unit. They would probably not use the front door because it means walking around the building, she said.
   Planning Board member Robert Mason pointed to the apartment house-like feel of the plan and questioned how it would fit in with future redevelopment of the Eggerts Crossing neighborhood. He was referring to a report prepared by a group of Rutgers University graduate students who studied the neighborhood for a class project. A key theme in that report was the need for more housing — especially single-family housing.
   Neighborhood residents objected to the proposal because they would prefer a single-family house. Some residents claimed that a duplex likely would be rented out and bring transients into the neighborhood. A single-family house would be more likely to be owner-occupied, they said.
   At the meeting, Planning Board Chairman Thomas Wilfrid noted the residents’ objections to the duplex — based on the building’s appearance and the possibility it could be rented out — and added that single-family houses could be rented out, too.
   Attorney Alan Frank, who represented the applicant, acknowledged the residents’ concerns. He added that his client has the right to build what has been proposed, under the township’s Land Use Ordinance.
   Mr. Frank said people assume that a duplex is not the same as a single-family house, but the owners plan to sell the duplex to people with families who will live in the neighborhood and become a part of it.