EAST WINDSOR: Regional school district assails housing proposal

2009 law allows change to no age restrictions

By Evan Grossman, Staff Writer
   EAST WINDSOR — A proposed 137-unit housing development got an “F” from the regional school district this week.
   At a crowded Planning Board meeting Monday night, school officials warned that the controversial Enchantment at East Windsor development would cause the district’s student population to swell and lead to higher taxes.
   Enchantment at East Windsor is a proposed residential project on Monmouth Street before the township planners that has gone through several incarnations. Originally zoned for industrial use, the property was re-zoned in 2003 for age-restricted housing. And now, thanks to a state law passed in 2009 in light of the poor housing market, the developer has the option to build a non-age restricted development that includes a percentage of affordable housing units.
   Many opponents to the development have come from the adjacent Enchantment development in Hightstown, a 55-and-over community.
   But now the East Windsor Regional School District has joined the chorus of critics to the non-age restricted project, citing the number of new students that would likely move into the district’s six schools. The development company, Robertson Douglas, of Red Bank, wants to build affordable and market-rate housing for the general workforce, a demographic they believe they’ll have a better chance of financing and selling, versus that of another adult community.
   James Higgins, a planner for the developer, said Monday the firm estimates an additional 67 students enrolling in the school system, a number that seems low to planners.
   ”They will likely bring numbers of children with them and the board hasn’t conducted a demographic study,” said school board attorney David Coates said at Monday’s meeting. “I don’t know if it’s 67 or 110, or what the number is, but it’s a large number and these numbers add up. The board believes … that basically this application is not in the public interest. It’s not in conformity with the Master Plan, the expectations of this community for growth, and that the impact is potentially very substantial, so there’s a very genuine and deep concern about this issue.”
   School board member Bruce Ettman said the system cannot sustain any additional students moving into the proposed community.
   ”My opinion — as a member of the board who’s studied the educational issues of this community for many, many years — is that we simply cannot afford any increase in student population, in this particular project, or any other project to come down the road,” Mr. Ettman said. “It’s inconsistent, not only with the Master Plan … but it’s inconsistent with the state policy of limiting expenditures for schools.”
   The district lost more than $4 million in state aid this year, and after voters rejected its budget, the councils of both towns cut $968,000 from the school spending plan.
   Meanwhile, the school board recently redistricted 266 elementary school students in overcrowded schools, allowing for staff cuts that saved more than $500,000 in salaries.
   ”It is my opinion that this is a detriment to our community,” Mr. Ettman said of the development plan, “and is inconsistent with the stated goals of our community and of our state.”
   ”We’ve been able to maintain a stable budget because of a stable population,” Mr. Ettman added. “Over the course of the last 10 years, when there have been dramatic increases in population, we’ve seen increases in budget.”
   The only way to be able to accommodate an increase in student population, according to Mr. Ettman, would be to raise taxes.
   The Planning Board did not act on the conversion application Monday and will carry the issue to its Oct. 18 meeting.