ROBBINSVILLE: Zoners OK conversion to 39 all-ages housing units

By Joanne Degnan, Staff Writer
   ROBBINSVILLE — The Zoning Board of Adjustment has voted to allow a developer to change already approved plans for a senior citizen condo building in Town Center into 39 two-bedroom units that can be sold to people of all ages.
   The Town Center proposal approved by a 5-1 vote on April 7 is the smaller of two so-called conversion applications that Sharbell has filed with the township. The requests have sparked controversy due to concerns that all-age housing would burden the school system and cause an increase in property taxes.
   The other application, which is still pending before the Planning Board, seeks to convert 150 unbuilt senior duplexes in the 265-unit Gordon-Simpson tract project off Gordon Road. The fifth Planning Board hearing on that application is scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 20.
   The developer is utilizing a 2009 state law that allows unbuilt age-restricted housing to be converted to all-age housing if the builder agrees to set aside 20 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income families and the plans meet criteria related to site improvements, infrastructure, parking and recreational amenities. The law says municipalities can deny a conversion application if it fails to meet these criteria, or if it poses a “substantial detriment to the public good.”
   The zoning board’s approval allows Sharbell to build a four-story residential building with 31 mostly two-bedroom condos that can be sold at market rate to people of all ages. The other eight units will be restricted to low- and moderate-income families. Three floors of residential units would be built over a street-level, enclosed parking garage on Robbinsville-Edinburg Road near Union Street.
   A retail/office building, with a drive-through pharmacy window, would be built next-door on an adjoining lot near the corner of Route 33 and Robbinsville-Edinburg Road. The state Department of Transportation is requiring a connector street to be built at the eastern edge of the commercial and residential buildings’ shared parking lot that would allow right turns in from Route 33 and enable cars to access an alley that runs behind the townhomes on Union Street.
   During the public comment portion of the 2.5-hour hearing, Meadowbrook Road resident Joanne Pannone urged the board to vote down the conversion because age-restricted housing for older people was sorely needed in Robbinsville.
   ”I don’t think you would have a problem selling senior housing,” Ms. Pannone said, turning to the table where Sharbell executives were seated. “And you don’t either because that was your original proposal.”
   ”Please don’t tell me what I think,” interjected Tom Troy, the senior vice president of Sharbell.
   After zoning board attorney Michael Herbert directed Ms. Pannone to address her comments to the board, and told Mr. Troy not to interrupt her again, she continued making her case against the conversion application.
   ”I’ve seen variances and waivers given out like lollipops lately and it’s sad,” Ms. Pannone said. “People who really don’t want to go along with it do so because they’re afraid of being sued. If you really don’t want it, you should say no.”
   David Wilson, another Meadowbrook Road resident, also urged the zoning board to reject the conversion application. He said he didn’t believe the developer’s claim that the age-restricted housing market had collapsed.
   ”Too much of this is about money,” Mr. Wilson said. “If it’s not age-restricted, then they can make more money.”
   Zoning board member Scott Boyarsky said public opposition to the much larger Gordon-Simpson tract conversion application was clouding residents’ view of the completely separate Town Center application involving just one building.
   ”I think people are using this forum to address their frustrations with other Sharbell projects,” Mr. Boyarsky said.
   Sharbell attorney Michelle Lemar, addressing Ms. Pannone’s premise that senior housing was needed in Robbinsville, pointed out that seniors who wanted to live in the condominium building could still do so if the conversion were granted.
   ”There is no reason why someone over the age of 55 cannot purchase these units,” Ms. Lemar said. “It is not restricting them, it is opening them up.”
   Zoning board member Debra Rogers said one building with 39 units and a projected demographic impact of five new schoolchildren did not, in her opinion, meet the “substantial detriment” standard set by the conversion law.
   ”When I hear the word substantial, I think of great impacts,” Ms. Rogers said. “With (less than) 40 units, I do not see that as ‘substantial.’”
   Parimal K. Patel, the only zoning board member to vote against the application, disagreed. He said the plan did not comply with the state law because the additional parking requirements that all-age housing demands were being met by reducing the size of the commercial building next door, instead of downsizing the number of units in the residential building.
   The fact that eight Union Street townhomes, which were originally part of the same 2007 mixed-use project, have already been built and occupied means the conversion proposal falls short in another area: the prohibition on applying for a conversion waiver if any units in the “development” have been sold, Mr. Patel said.
   In addition, Mr. Patel said the conversion law requires recreational amenities to be changed to reflect the needs of families of all ages, and this too had not been met. The public parks in other areas of Town Center are too far away from the converted condo building for kids to reach safely, and the private gym at the Lofts condominium complex, located inside another Sharbell building on Route 33, was unsuitable for youngsters, he said.
   ”The property does not provide any activities for children,” Mr. Patel said. “It is not safe for them to cross that busy street,” he said, referring to Robbinsville-Edinburg Road and Route 33.
   Ms. Rogers and Mr. Boyarsky said that as a practical matter they didn’t think families with young children would be interested in buying a condominium in a building that is located at such a busy intersection.
   Mr. Boyarsky, a Town Center resident, also appeared to take a more pragmatic view of the decision before the board.
   ”If we don’t approve of this use for this land, I question what will become of it,” Mr. Boyarsky said.
   ”Will it sit vacant for a very long time while court processes waste a lot of taxpayer money on a plan that I think when it ultimately gets up to the state (courts) will be approved?” Mr. Boyarsky asked.