Residents continue protest of Old Orchard proposal

BY NICOLE ANTONUCCI
Staff Writer

 Community members crowded the Planning Board meeting room on May 13 to hear plans for the Old Orchard Country Club site.  NICOLE ANTONUCCI Community members crowded the Planning Board meeting room on May 13 to hear plans for the Old Orchard Country Club site. NICOLE ANTONUCCI EATONTOWN — Residents opposed to the rezoning of the Old Orchard Country Club site filled the Planning Board meeting room last week, armed with signs that read “Don’t Let Eatontown Become Gridlock City” and “Trees and Grass are Better than Concrete and Glass.”

Professionals for National Realty and Development Corp. (NRDC) continued testimony at the May 13 meeting to support amending the borough’s master plan and rezoning the 135-acre property that also borders West Long Branch and Oceanport.

“As it stands as a golf course, it’s not viable as a golf course,” Jerrold Birmingham, project manager with NRDC, said.

The concept plan calls for 175 active-adult townhomes at the north end of the property, bordered by the Mill Brook, and a 450,000- square-foot commercial complex at the southern end, near Route 36.

Since the commercial use is not permitted under current zoning, the board would have to approve an amendment to the master plan, which designates the property as open space.

The zoning change would also require the approval of the Borough Council before the developer could present a site plan application.

Christine Nazzaro Cofone, project planning consultant, explained that while the master plan calls for the property to be a park, the site is actually zoned for residential use and could be developed with as many as 105 single family homes. These homes would generate traffic through the surrounding residential neighborhoods, she said.

“It is going to bring activity to the surrounding neighborhoods.”

This caused an outburst from many in the audience, who shouted “No way!” and waved their signs until the board asked for silence.

“That is what is permissible under the current zoning,” Cofone said. “We don’t think it’s the best plan either. We think the townhomes would have the option to create fewer access points, greater buffer and transitional use.”

In addition, Cofone told the board that single family units would bring “a negative net fiscal impact of almost $900,000 … annually to the municipality,” adding that this is associated with the number of school-age children who would live in the homes.

“Single-family homes generate the most school-age children,” she said.

At last month’s meeting, Cofone testified that the proposed plan would generate approximately $2 million in ratables for the borough.

Board Vice Chairman Mark Woloshin asked for a breakdown on the numbers, noting that the schools are not up to capacity.

“It’s more than the schoolchildren,” Woloshin said. “We are not going to overcrowd our school since they are underpopulated.”

Residents agreed, calling the analysis faulty and saying that more residential areas, rather than commercial, are needed in the borough.

“[You] talked about it being a detriment having children in the borough, but I think it’s what makes communities,” one resident said.

“Eatontown needs more residents and more homes. We are overcommercialized as it is.”

Oceanport resident and former Monmouth County Freeholder John D’Amico referred to a resolution from the Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders, which raised concerns with an application presented in 2009 for the site. That application proposed a high-density plan with 700 housing units and a large-scale, commercial shopping center, but the plan drew wide opposition and did not move forward.

“I think that the [2009] resolution … continues to raise and pose to this Planning Board critical questions about the deviations that you are being asked to make to the master plan and the fair share [housing] plan,” D’Amico said, noting that traffic impacts were a major concern then and now.

“That is in the resolution and still applies … We need to preserve this open space, or at least restrict the development to the current zoning in order to offset the overburden of development in the area,” D’Amico said.

“If you do decide to recommend the change in the master plan, then you should suggest to the Borough Council the renaming of the borough to South Brooklyn.”

Mayor Gerald Tarantolo replied that he hopes the freeholders take as much interest in the development at Monmouth Park.

“Eatontown seems to be the corridor for all the traffic that comes off the [Garden State] Parkway and goes to Long Branch, goes to Monmouth Park and all the other locations,” Tarantolo said. “When that time comes, I hope that the Board of Chosen Freeholders will take the same interest on behalf of Eatontown.”

Peter Falvo, attorney for the applicant, said in response that the current application differs significantly.

Board attorney Mark Steinberg suggested that the board engineer review the previous application and make comparisons.

“If we can have a copy of that 2009 plan, the engineer can compare and say that it differs,” Steinberg said.

The board will continue discussion of the Old Orchard proposal at its June 10 meeting at Borough Hall.