MIDDLETOWN — Planning Board members challenged the density of the housing development planned for the former Avaya site at the Jan. 4 meeting, acknowledging that affordable housing quotas are the only reason they’d consider approving the application.
Board Chairman John Deus noted that the density proposed by applicant Four Ponds Associates is anywhere from three to six times that of surrounding areas in the Lincroft section of the township.
“That’s a pretty substantial density increase,” he said.
Board member Greta Siewic vehemently challenged the project’s planner, Victor Furmanec, of Beacon Planning in Colts Neck, on the four buildings that would contain 72 flats, including the affordable housing units.
“That’s part of the development that makes it more different than any of the residential homes surrounding it, let alone the density,” she said.
“The four [buildings] stand out and have the biggest impact on the whole development. To say ‘We put them there because that’s where the existing office building is,’ I’m having a hard time accepting that as a real wellthought out answer.”
Professionals representing Four Ponds Center Associates completed testimony at the Jan. 4 meeting, and opponents of the project, mainly members of the Lincroft Village Green Association, will have their turn on Feb. 1.
The applicant is proposing a 342-unit housing development on the site of the former Avaya headquarters off Middletown-Lincroft Road. The plan includes 68 affordable housing units.
“It’s one of the rare occasions where the board, I think, can find that the proposal of the application fully conforms with the use and bulk standards. … There is no indication [the application is inconsistent with the township’s zoning requirements],” testified Furmanec.
“The uses are permitted. The setbacks of the buildings from property lines and adjacent roadways are compliant. In some cases, they are just compliant. In other cases, they are more than compliant.”
Furmanec added that the plan was able to stay below the township’s projections for the site.
“Looking back to the township’s affordable housing plan, the township anticipated that there would be 375 units built on the site, 75 of which would be affordable housing units,” he said.
“In this case, we have 342 units overall with 68 units of affordable housing.”
The maximum density allowed on the property is 5.5 units per acre, a half-unit more than the five units per acre the project calls for, Furmanec said.
CommitteemanKevin Settembrino, newly appointed to the Planning Board, also challenged Furmanec on the density of the project.
“It’s important that although it’s permissible under the current zoning, that any good and proper planning procedures are followed such that we can minimize the differential between the people who live in the surrounding area and this proposed development,” he said.
Richard Brodsky, attorney for Four Ponds Center Associates, replied that the site is inherently different from the surrounding area because of its history.
“I think there’s no question that the permitted density on this site exceeds the densities of the surrounding residential properties,” Brodsky said.
“It’s also probably the only property that included a 350,000-square-foot office building. It’s certainly a different property than the surrounding properties.”
Project engineer James Kennedy replied to Siewic’s comments about density, stating that sound planning perspective would call for such a scenario.
“There’s mass involved. People get used to some sort of view [of the building] from Middletown Lincroft Road. It is a sound answer to swap mass when you are redeveloping a [property], especially when you break it up,” he said.
“This is not a 350,000-square-foot building now. We’re breaking it up into quadrants. There is going to be open space between the mass of the buildings.
“This is an improvement in that area where the existing building was,” Kennedy said.
Settembrino echoed Siewic’s concerns, adding that the “super density” in the area of the four flats was much higher than the density of the site as a whole
“In addition to the fact that it’s quite different from the remainder of the development, you have … a density that’s well in excess of the five-units-per-acre density that’s on the planner’s report,” he said.
“That density for that particular area, with the four buildings that are different from the entire area, is difficult to accept.”
Deus said the project itself was only being considered because of the affordable housing obligations it could fulfill for the township.
“I’m not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with the technical portion of this application in terms of ‘it meets all the standards,’” said Deus.
“Good planning is the question, not from an applicant’s perspective but from the town’s perspective.”
Furmanec replied that since the township considered this in the adoption of its master plan, it is good planning.
“The town considered that issue in the adoption of its master plan and its housing [laws],” he said.
“The town is trying to satisfy, through its land development regulations, its affordablehousing obligation.”
Deus intimated that the plan would not stand on its own.
“The point is, if there were no affordablehousing component, this would never have been zoned this way nor would [residential] have ever been considered as a use,” he said.
Furmanec was the last witness called by Brodsky on behalf of Four Ponds Center Associates.
At its scheduled Feb. 1 meeting, the experts will be questioned by attorney Ron Gasiorowski, of Red Bank, representing neighboring residents opposed to the project.
ContactMike Davis at [email protected].