By Lea Kahn, Staff Writer
LAWRENCE — Nearly 100 townhouses will be sprouting up where golfers used to tee off on a portion of the Greenacres Country Club property, located opposite the Municipal Building on Lawrence Road.
In a split vote of 8-1, the Planning Board gave its approval to a proposal to develop 15 acres of the 140-plus acre Greenacres Country Club at its Nov. 21 meeting. Planning Board member Philip Duran cast the lone “no” vote.
Lennar Homes, which is a national homebuilder, will develop the age-restricted subdivision. The Greenacres Country Club is not being dissolved. The residents of the new townhouses, one of who must be at least 55 years old, will become social members of the country club and may apply for expanded membership.
David Friedman, whose father was one of the original founders of the Greenacres Country Club in 1938, told the Planning Board that the country club embarked on a plan to develop a portion of the property to raise revenue.
“I think you have to know why we are really here. Time has not been kind to country clubs. It is partially demographics. Young couples are interested in family activities,” Mr. Friedman said, pointing to their interest in youth soccer, for example.
Golf also takes a long time to play — up to four hours, Mr. Friedman said. Lately, there has been more competition from newer golf courses, he said. It is likely one of the reasons for the club’s dwindling membership, and also why the club has to update its facilities.
The Greenacres Country Club has hired a course designer to reconfigure the golf course around Lennar Homes’ development, Mr. Friedman said. He assured the Planning Board and the standing-room-only crowd in the lower level conference room that “nothing will change.” The club will still be governed by its members, he added.
The plan calls for relocating the driveway entrance to Greenacres Country Club to the north, aligning it directly across from West Long Drive. A traffic light may be installed at the new intersection of West Long Drive and the new entrance to the country club and development at some point in the future.
Project architect Josh Eckert said the 97 townhomes would be scattered among 17 buildings. Most of the buildings will contain six units, and others will contain four units and five units. All units will have a kitchen, dining room, family room and master bedroom on the first floor, and two bedrooms and a loft on the second floor.
When Planning Board member Philip Duran asked about sustainability, Mr. Eckert replied that he had not looked into LEED (X) certification, but the builder installs Energy Star-rated appliances. He said he had not conducted an extensive study into sustainability yet.
Lennar Homes vice president Robert Calabro told the Planning Board that the company conducts a market study before it embarks on a project. Lennar has built thousands of houses, and the “active adult” segment is the only healthy real estate market in New Jersey, he said.
The company has received “significant interest” in the proposed development without advertising it, and “we feel confident it will be successful financially,” Mr. Calabro said. It will represent a good addition to Lawrence Township for residents who are downsizing and who want to make life easier and stay close to family and friends.
When the meeting was opened for public comment, township resident Barry Edelman urged the Planning Board to approve the application. It would be a “win-win” for the community, the township and the country club, he said. Active adult communities are a “fiscal plus,” he said. Because it is an age-restricted development — 55 years or older — no schoolchildren would be expected to live in the development.
The proposed development would add about $1.4 million in property taxes based on the 2015 property tax rate, according to the Community Impact Statement submitted with the application. Of that amount, about $278,800 would be earmarked for Lawrence Township and $747,700 would be earmarked for the Lawrence Township public school district.
Mr. Duran, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said after the meeting that he voted “no” because there would be too many buildings on the property. It will be too crowded and not an enjoyable place to live, he said. The applicant also did not give much thought to sustainability, in terms of construction, he said.
