Allentown residents fight commercial uses in planned village transition zone
By Joanne Degnan, Staff Writer
ROBBINSVILLE The Planning Board is urging the Township Council to narrow the types of commercial development allowed in the proposed village transition zone, an area that includes the 18th century Wittenborn house and farm on the east end of Robbinsville-Allentown Road.
The proposed VT zone ordinance, which is listed on the Township Council’s agenda for action tonight, has drawn fire from Allentown residents who are fighting commercial development on the farmland near their border and claim the Wittenborn property, which is up for sale, has historical significance.
Chairman Frank Cettina reminded the Allentown residents at the Planning Board’s Sept. 15 meeting that the board’s role is limited to advising the Township Council whether the proposed ordinance is consistent with the 2009 amendments to the Master Plan, the document that guides all future development in Robbinsville.
”We are not here to change the Master Plan,” Mr. Cettina said. “We are here to see if the ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan.”
Robbinsville council members have said the zoning change from rural residential to VT would bring badly needed ratables to the township. The Township Council held a public hearing on the ordinance Aug. 19 that also drew a contingent of Allentown residents, but council members postponed the vote on the rezoning because the Planning Board had asked for time to review it.
No Robbinsville residents have spoken during the public meetings on the rezoning issue aside from Christiana Wittenborn, who lives at the 20-acre property at 824 Robbinsville-Allentown Road. Those 20 acres are part of about 59 acres that would comprise the village transition zone. Ms. Wittenborn, the daughter-in-law of the property’s owner, Dr. William Wittenborn, supports the VT rezoning.
Although the Allentown residents’ objections center on the two lots that belong to the Wittenborn family, the proposed VT zoning change also would affect other lots with different owners, including a modern home on a 3-acre lot at 900 Robbinsville Allentown Road, also up for sale, and four undeveloped lots farther west that are located across from the Mercer Corporate Park.
Last week, after a line-by-line review of the proposed VT ordinance with Township Planner Abbe Kooper, the Planning Board identified a number of “permitted uses” that it said were at odds with the Master Plan’s vision of creating a rural campus-style gateway of buildings near its Allentown border.
The board recommended the Township Council amend the VT zone ordinance to remove flex/office space, veterinary hospitals, short- and long-term healthcare facilities and private schools as permitted uses. It also said the “product repair establishments” permitted by the ordinance are inconsistent with the Master Plan because it could mean that a home appliance repair business could set up shop there and park a fleet of vans outside its doors.
Ms. Wittenborn said Monday she disagrees with the Planning Board’s recommendations and hoped the council refrains from making any amendments.
The Planning Board took no issue with the other permitted uses in proposed ordinance, including parks, farms, banks, business and medical offices, a bed and breakfast, conference center, self-storage facilities, specialty retail shops and indoor recreational facilities and instructional studios. The board did, however, suggest that “specialty retail” be further defined as “small boutique store not similar to something in a strip mall.”
While banks with drive-through lanes are inconsistent with the Master Plan, the Planning Board said it had no objections to permitting them in the VT zone as long as they are behind the buildings, as in Town Center.
The Planning Board also suggested its advisory Historic Preservation subcommittee review any site plan or subdivision application in the proposed VT zone.
Allentown resident Bill Borkowski, of South Main Street, pointed out the proposed ordinance did not require minimum building lot sizes, and without that, the envisioned campus-style development could turn into mishmash. The board agreed and suggested the Township Council set minimum 5-acre building lots.
In addition, the Planning Board recommended the Township Council insert language in the ordinance that specifically states that every effort must be made to either preserve or “adaptively reuse” the existing Wittenborn house and to “incorporate the open vistas” that currently surround it.
Mike Sullivan, of Church Street in Allentown, argued it is a contradiction to think a rural setting could be maintained in a commercial development that allows three-story buildings.
Other Allentown residents said the Wittenborn house and farm should be preserved because it has been owned by historical figures important to Allentown’s history, including Nathan Allen and John Imlay.
Greg Westfall, of Johnson Drive in Allentown, asked why Robbinsville isn’t pursuing a transfer-of-development-rights program that would protect the property from development and still enable the Wittenborns to be compensated for the market value of their property.
Historian John Fabiano, of High Street in Allentown, pointed out the state Historic Preservation Office had already determined in 2006 that the Wittenborn house was eligible for inclusion on both the state and national registers of historic places because of its association with John Imlay, who lived there until 1790 when he moved to the Imlay mansion on South Main Street in Allentown.
Allentown’s historic John Imlay mansion is renowned as one of the finest example of Georgian architecture in the country from the 18th century, he said. Today, the mansion, which is on the state and historic registers of historic places, houses boutique shops in its first-floor parlor.
”The (Wittenborn) house itself is also a historic resource that would be irreplaceable,” Mr. Fabiano said. “Like our own Imlay house that we treasure, I hope that you would give the same respect to the Wittenborn house.”
Ms. Wittenborn told the Planning Board Mr. Fabiano had pursued the eligibility certificate without her family’s consent and that Historic Preservation Office staff had never even seen the inside of the house. The house is not on the state or federal historic registers because the family opposed that, she said.
Ann Garrison, of High Street in Allentown, said it doesn’t matter that the Wittenborn property wasn’t officially on the state and national historic registers, noting “it’s historic all the same.”
Ms. Garrison gave Planning Board members copies of a 1705 deed showing the land now owned by the Wittenborns once belonged to Nathan Allen.
”It does appear on Allen’s deed,” Ms. Wittenborn responded, “but it specifies that it is in a separate town … it was never part of Allentown.”
Ms. Wittenborn also addressed Mr. Fabiano’s preservation arguments comparing the Wittenborn house to the Imlay house in Allentown.
”I just want to point out that the Imlay house is now a commercial piece of property,” Ms. Wittenborn said.
The adaptive commercial reuse of older buildings is sometimes the best way to save them, she said.

