Morgan Estates marathon of hearings continues

Township zoning board chairman says public will get its turn at next meeting

By: Courtney Gross
   Check off hearing No. 8 — and that’s only counting this year.
   Professional representatives of opponents of Morgan Estates, a proposed age-restricted condominium development before Princeton Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment, wrapped up their testimony Monday evening, paving the way for the general public to make their voices heard at the marathon hearings.
   Before calling it quits — for the evening — board Chairman Carlos Rodrigues assured the several remaining members of the audience that the next hearing, the ninth on the residential development in 2006, would be dedicated toward public comment. That hearing is tentatively scheduled for Dec. 13, and, the board’s chairman added, more hearings will be booked if need be.
   The 96-unit market-rate condominium development slated for two contiguous lots on Bunn Drive first came before the zoning board over a year ago. Since then, environmental groups as well as corporate and residential neighbors have continuously voiced opposition to its approval.
   Both household products company Church & Dwight, which is headquartered next to the development site, and a neighboring resident have hired attorneys and planning experts that have testified before the board.
   On Monday, Church & Dwight’s final witness, an independent planner, traded arguments with representatives from Morgan Estates on the "special reasons" why the zoning board should grant the use variances needed for the development’s construction.
   One of the two lots that make up the property is zoned for single-family residences, while the other allows office or research uses. Morgan Estates would construct three condominium buildings on the 14-acre property.
   Church & Dwight’s planning expert, Richard T. Coppola, said the age restrictions posed by Morgan Estates are not in accordance with the township’s ordinance nor municipal land use law. Morgan Estates proposes to restrict occupancy to persons 55 and older, while the township defines age-restricted housing as beginning at 62.
   Ultimately, Mr. Coppola said, the residential proposal calls for a complete rezoning — a decision that should be left to a Master Plan and ordinance review by the Township Committee, not by the zoning board.
   A Master Plan review is scheduled to begin in 2007.
   "There is no turning back" after approval, Mr. Coppola said. "There is not much opportunity (left) for development in Princeton," he added.
   By approving the residential development, Mr. Coppola added, the township’s growth share obligation for affordable housing mandated by the state Council on Affordable Housing would be increased.
   Morgan Estates has proposed to allocate 20 of its units for affordable housing, which would fall within COAH’s designated age-restriction mandate.
   Although the township’s growth share obligation for affordable housing is increasing as a result of the Morgan Estates proposal, representatives from the development said, the development would provide much-needed market-rate senior housing in the township.
   Also on Monday, the board heard testimony from Township Arborist Gregory O’Neil and Township Engineer Robert Kiser on the applicant’s as-of-right plan — a depiction of what the property would look like if developed as it is currently zoned. The township’s professionals addressed the lot zoned as residential, but not the lot zoned for office or research uses.
   From this analysis, Mr. O’Neil said, the township’s professional staff would be more inclined to deal with a single-family residential proposal for the property as it is more in line with the township’s current policy on preserving land and minimizing disturbance.
   "Anything that would minimize the impact we would be open to," Mr. O’Neil said of the current proposal. "The township always looks at what is reasonable."
   The development’s attorney, Frank Petrino, said if residences were constructed, homeowners could always increase the amount of disturbance on the site by incorporating amenities, such as a tennis court, that would not be subject to the board’s approval.