Affordable housing movement at issue
By Audrey Levine, The Packet Group, and Vic Monaco, Managing Editor
ROBBINSVILLE A proposed amendment for a mixed-use development plan for Town Center 1 involving the moving of affordable housing units into one free-standing building recently prompted a group of residents to express concerns.
Township Administrator Tim McGough said this week that, as result of that concern, the developer has decided not to make the change.
The entire proposal before the Planning Board on Sept. 23, he explained, calls for 92 housing units in four buildings, of which 26 would be affordable units as defined by the Council on Affordable Housing. Three of those buildings, he added, would each also house between 15,000 and 16,000 square feet of retail space.
Three buildings, in addition to the four before the board, have already been built and include 12 COAH units.
About 15 residents attended Planning Board meeting late last month to speak out against the proposed amendment from Sharbell.
”Why are the units not divided and equally distributed among the buildings?” asked Vijay Anane, of Union Street, who said she would have that freestanding property in her backyard. “If I had been told that when I bought the property, I may not have bought it.”
Thomas Troy, senior vice president with Sharbell said the 26 units were originally planned to be distributed among the four buildings still to be completed.
”But we think it is better to consolidate them all into a single building,” he said of the company’s request to not put the affordable units in the buildings labeled D, E, F and G. “This is based on the difficulty of finding qualified tenants for the units.”
More specifically, Mr. Troy said, the company would like to consolidate the COAH units into one building and possibly have a nonprofit organization run the facility and rent the units. This building could be placed where Park Street crosses Union Street, near Route 33, he said, but he emphasized that the plan had not been finalized, and other options were being considered.
And Planning Board attorney Jerry Dasti emphasized that a plan had not been submitted for a separate building to be constructed for affordable housing.
”It will be addressed later if it comes before the board,” he said.
Still, many residents objected to the possibility of having this one building of only affordable housing units near their properties.
”I think all buildings should have affordable housing,” said Helen Decillis, of North Commerce Square. “Maybe it could be 40 percent rental housing and 60 percent owned. As an owner in Building C, I think the housing should be equally divided.”
Many residents said they would not have purchased their homes close to the Town Center if they had known there was a possibility of an affordable housing building being constructed so close by.
”I would never have bought my house if I knew there would be affordable housing behind it,” said Sharon Martin, of Lake Drive West.
As a result of the expressed concern, Mr. Troy asked the board to accept the application with the condition that Sharbell meet with the residents and the township’s affordable housing board a session that had already been planned to discuss the best way to handle the units.
”Clearly the residents are distressed,” added Planning Board member Thomas Kolibas. “If something can be done for them, I think it should be.”
Mr. Troy said if the board decides a separate building is not appropriate, based on resident concerns and other factors, Sharbell would reincorporate them into the planned buildings.
”It will not have an effect on any of the structures,” he added.
Mr. McGough said Monday that he had been informed by Sharbell that the proposed change related to affordable housing units will not be made as a result of the residents’ concerns.
The discussion about affordable housing units was just one proposed change presented to the Planning Board for the project but the only one that drew ire from residents. All of the others were approved by the board.
Mr. Troy said Building D was originally designed to have ground-floor retail, with residential floors above. The amended plan eliminates the ground-floor retail from this building and makes Building D completely residential, with 29 units.
In order for the units to be added to Building D, the plan proposed shifting 12 residential units from Building F to D.
”It is hard to find retail for the building,” Mr. Troy said. “But we want to make Building D fully residential. We are seeing a demand for home offices and we thought that would be good in Building D.”
To accommodate this change, architect William Feinberg said the ground floor of Building D will be raised about 2 to 2.5 feet above the sidewalk so residential units are not right at ground level.
In the amended plan, Building E would still have about 15,000 square feet of retail on the first floor of the building, with 33 units built on the three stories above.
As for parking, in a separate interview Mr. Troy said modifications to the original plans to accommodate the changes in residential units will yield a total of 197 parking spaces in the area. He said there will be 62 spaces reserved for the residential units, with a total of 135 left.
According to township ordinances, 40 parking spaces are required to accommodate the retail space being built, which leaves a net difference of 95 spaces.
”This is more than adequate for the extra vehicles, and additional vehicles during (heavy hours) for the shops,” he said.
The final changes in the plan were requests for three different site plan waivers. The first waiver is to have an area striped behind building E to accommodate loading and unloading trucks for the retail properties, but not having an actual loading dock as is usually required.
The second waiver allows a trash enclosure to have a screen only on one side, instead of the usual three sides.
”There would be a buffer on one side of the area,” said Mark Cannuli, director of development with Sharbell. “There is parking adjacent to it, but we have agreed to assign it as a space only for compact cars.”
A final approved waiver involves the planting of trees around the parking lot. Township ordinance requires 36 trees to be planted based on the amount of parking available, but Sharbell requested to plant only 24, while working with the township to plant the remaining 12 on other sites.