The Helmetta Planning Board has rejected Kaplan and Cos.’ proposal to turn the former snuff mill into nonage restricted housing, ruling that it would violate the redevelopment agreement the town and builder signed in 2005.
Kaplan, in response to a new state law allowing the conversion of unsold senior housing, sought to redevelop the 32-acre mill site with 200 non-age-restricted housing units, instead of its previously approved plan for 225 senior homes.
The board voted 8-0 to reject the conversion at its Jan. 13 meeting following the second hearing on the plan.
While the first hearing, in December, saw Kaplan’s professionals testifying on the new plans, and many members of the public raising objections to the proposal, last week’s meeting allowed for closing arguments from Helmetta Borough Engineer Terry Vogt, Spotswood Borough Attorney James Kinneally and Kaplan attorney Douglas K. Wolfson.
The vote that followed was well received among residents in attendance, many of whom applauded. The meeting, like the December hearing, was packed with people, some of whom had to stand.
Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin summed up the reasoning behind the board’s decision.
“The borough of Helmetta put a redevelopment plan in place, and the Kaplans willingly entered into the agreement to construct an age-restricted project. If the borough had wanted an apartment complex built in the center of our town, we could have had the original owners of the property construct an apartment complex,” she said.
“The Kaplans entered into this agreement willingly and should stick to their commitment to the borough,” Martin added. “The Kaplans should not pick and choose which parts of the redevelopment agreement it wants to follow.”
After the meeting, Jason Kaplan, the Highland Park-based firm’s president, said he was “disappointed” and that he expects to appeal the decision after the borough formalizes the vote. Martin said a resolution doing so will be up for approval on Feb. 10.
“The statute affords any applicant that has been denied their request the ability to appeal to Superior Court within 30 days of passage of the resolution of denial. At this point, we believe we have met all the criteria of the statute and will be weighing all of our options,” he said.
Martin said she would not be surprised to see the decision appealed, “because the law was put in place for the benefit of the developers and not the benefit of the municipalities.”
“It is a disgrace when 21 out of 36 [state] senators [voted] on the conversion law, which was signed by [then-Gov. Jon] Corzine, which totally disregarded the desire of towns to develop and authority of local planning boards,” Martin said.
Kinneally, who raised concerns about the plan on behalf of Spotswood, was cautiously optimistic after the vote, saying it was “step one” in the process of stopping a non-agerestricted housing development.
The vote — which included an abstention from board member Sewell Peckham due to the proximity of his residence to the mill — followed about an hour of testimony from Kinneally, Vogt and Wolfson.
Attorneys make cases over plan
Asked by Planning Board Attorney James Clarkin III as to whether Kaplan could satisfy the criteria for the conversion, Vogt said, “The majority of [the criteria] have been met or can be met with some minor iterations.”
However, Vogt said he was not comfortable that Kaplan met the onsite recreation upgrades that would be required for children in the complex.
Vogt said the redevelopment plan only allowed senior housing, as a conditional use, so nonsenior housing would not be in compliance with the borough’s plan.
Wolfson addressed the recreation issue and said it could be a condition of approval, but not a reason for denial. At the hearing last month, planner Paul A. Phillips, representing Kaplan, testified that having an abundance of childfriendly amenities could serve to attract families to the complex — something residents adamantly spoke against during the hearing. Wolfson said recreation was a “marketing issue.”
Wolfson’s primary argument during testimony last week was that Kaplan had in fact satisfied all the criteria required for conversion, and the state had essentially “rezoned” the site when it passed the new law.
“The one thing that is clear from the legislation … is that [non-age-restricted housing] is a permitted use now,” he said. The negative criteria typically applied in land use applications — that there is no substantial detriment to the public good and that there is no substantial impact to the zoning ordinance — does not apply here, he said.
“I think we covered everything in that statue,” Wolfson told the board. “I think you have an affirmative obligation.”
Kinneally, in the last testimony to be heard, said Kaplan did not have valid preliminary site plan approval that would be needed to proceed with construction as currently proposed.
Kinneally argued that Kaplan was in violation of the redevelopment agreement that the town and builder had entered into for senior housing at the snuff mill site.
“Kaplan came forward and said, ‘We’ll do what you want.’ So Helmetta entered into a redevelopment plan with Kaplan,” he said.
Kinneally also said one of the conditions Helmetta had in its agreement with Kaplan was that the builder have the funding to complete the project “no matter what happens.” That, he said, negates Kaplan’s argument that poor market conditions for age-restricted housing led to the amended proposal.
Kinneally also said in regards to the negative criteria that there would be “substantial detriment to the public good if you grant the application,” referring in part to the potential burden on the school system and traffic. Regarding what he estimated could be 200 additional schoolchildren, he said, “The impact it would have on the school system could be catastrophic.”
Following their testimony, Clarkin advised the board as to what it could and could not consider as it deliberated. The board could not consider potential school and traffic issues. However, the redevelopment agreement was “a permitted issue for you to consider.” Another issue he said the board could look at was whether Kaplan, if in violation of the redevelopment agreement, still owned the land.