ROBBINSVILLE: Land by Allentown rezoned for commercial uses

Robbinsville council acts despite criticism, planners’ suggestions

By Joanne Degnan, Staff Writer
   ROBBINSVILLE — The Township Council has voted to rezone farmland and residential properties on Route 526 near the Allentown border for commercial use in an action criticized by residents from neighboring towns who decried the loss of the greenbelt anchored by the 18th century Wittenborn house and farm.
   The new village transition zone, approved Sept. 23, permits flex/office space and medical buildings, specialty retail shops, hair salons, restaurants, a bed and breakfast, indoor recreational facilities, residential schools, and long- or short-term health care facilities. Buildings in the VT zone can be up to three stories tall and have a footprint of up to 10,000 square feet.
   The council, by amendment, incorporated some minor suggestions made by the Robbinsville Planning Board the week prior but disregarded the board’s more substantive recommendations, which would have narrowed the scope of the permitted commercial development.
   ”I have to question why there is this urge in Robbinsville to totally commercialize it,” Upper Freehold resident Marc Covitz, of Burlington Path, said to the Township Council before its vote.
   Mr. Covitz, who is the chairman of the Crosswicks-Doctors Creek Watershed Association, cited a July study by the statewide policy research group NJ Future which found that the municipal ratable chase ultimately doesn’t pay.
   ”The study done by NJ Future showed taxes did not decrease regardless of how much commercial there was in a town,” he said.
   Mr. Covitz and several Allentown residents who spoke at the Township Council meeting said changing the zoning from rural residential to permit commercial development also would cause traffic congestion and destroy part of a rural greenbelt surrounding Upper Freehold and Allentown.
   Council Vice President Rich Levesque sparred with the ordinance’s opponents during the public comment portion of the meeting.
   ”Sir, you do realize … this is something that has been discussed for 21 years, right?” Mr. Levesque asked Mr. Covitz.
   After Allentown resident Greg Westfall, of Johnson Drive, suggested the council might look into preserving the Wittenborn farm through a transfer of development rights arrangement, Mr. Levesque responded with a question.
   ”Do you support the bypass that was proposed by the residents of Allentown and Board of Freeholders 15 years ago?” Mr. Levesque asked. “The reason I ask is I want to see if there’s as much zeal behind getting the bypass done as there is about stopping development in Robbinsville.”
   Mr. Westfall contended a TDR program could redirect development from the rural gateway area outside Allentown to Route 130, which he said is more suited for commercial use.
   ”I don’t see it as stopping development if you look at the opportunity that transfer development rights might present,” Mr. Westfall said.
   Allentown resident Jean Hunter, of Waker Avenue, said developing the Wittenborn farm would destroy a scenic gateway into Allentown and overburden narrow roads in the borough’s historic district.
   ”I can understand your reasons for wanting to expand your commercial areas,” she said. “But building anything on that property, especially anything of height, is going to totally destroy a rural vista.”
   Although the Allentown residents’ objections centered on the two lots at 824 Robbinsville-Allentown Road (Route 526) owned by William Wittenborn, the VT zoning change affects other lots on the county road as well.
   The other VT zone properties include a home on a 3-acre lot at 900 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, which according to township records is owned by Donald and Geraldine McGrath, and four undeveloped lots farther west between Circle Drive and Corporate Boulevard across from Mercer Corporate Park. Three of those four lots, now cornfields, are owned by the Pentacle Corp., of Summit, and the fourth is owned by Alvin Gutman and Lee Maimon of Cherry Hill.
   The Wittenborn property, which totals 20 acres, includes 15 acres of farmland adjoining the 5-acre lot where a three-story Colonial house, parts of which date to the late 1700s, stands. Both the Wittenborn property and the McGrath property next door are for sale.
   Christiana Wittenborn, who thanked the council after the vote, has said previously that her family’s property had originally been zoned commercial when her father-in-law purchased the land in the 1970s. The zoning was changed to rural residential in the 1980s by the township, and the family has been trying to have it changed back since then.
   Ms. Wittenborn had opposed the Planning Board’s suggested amendments, which were sent in a letter to the Township Council five days before the vote.
   The Planning Board had wanted the ordinance changed to delete flex/office space, veterinary hospitals, short- and long-term health care facilities and private schools as permitted uses. The board also had wanted “product repair establishments” omitted as a permitted use because it said that could mean large home appliance repair businesses with a fleet of vans. The board also had urged the council to set minimum 5-acre building lots in the ordinance.
   The council rejected all of these recommendations, which Township Attorney Mark Roselli said were “substantive” changes that would necessitate scheduling another public hearing. The council did, however, adopt several non-substantive amendments suggested by the Planning Board, which fixed typos and inserted clarifying language and definitions.
   The council amendments included the suggestion by the Planning Board stating that every effort must be made to either preserve or adaptively reuse the existing Wittenborn house and to “incorporate the open vistas” that surround it. The council also inserted the Planning Board’s language defining a “view shed” and clarifying that “specialty retail” means a “small boutique store not similar to something in a strip mall.”