OK for ‘empty
nester’ homes
Zoning board opens
application for 30-home
project in north Marlboro
By jeanette m. eng
Staff Writer
MARLBORO — An audience that included residents and Township Council members had a lot of questions about a developer’s application for a use variance at a recent meeting of the zoning board.
On March 12, applicant Terry Sherman of Holmdel presented the board with his proposal to build a 30-home "empty nester" development at the intersection of Greenwood and Ticetown roads in the Morganville section of the community. The 9.71-acre tract is currently zoned R-60 [homes on 1.5-acre lots], which would allow the construction of five single-family homes.
Sherman, a principal of J. Sherman Holdings, L.L.C., is seeking a use variance for density.
In testimony to the board, Sherman described his proposal for an "empty nester" development as a need in Marlboro, saying there are no such developments in the community.
"This is designed for people whose kids had gone to college and who don’t want the maintenance of a regular home," Sherman explained. "This answers a need in the community."
Sherman presented photographs of a similar, although larger development in Holmdel called Beau Ridge to demonstrate the upscale brick and stucco architecture he wants to build in Marlboro. Ranging in price from $450,000 to $500,000, he said each home would be between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet.
Zoning board Chairwoman Sherry Hoffer was concerned as to how families with children would be prevented from purchasing one of the "empty nester" homes.
Sherman said he could not legally restrict people with children from buying homes in the development unless he proposed a 55-year age limit for residents.
While he is not proposing a development with an age restriction, Sherman said that speaking from historical and practical standpoints, such an occurrence [people with children buying homes] would not be common in an "empty nester" development.
"The architecture and cost of these homes is not practical for people who have children and would want a yard," he explained. "This provides a lifestyle for people who don’t yet qualify for an adult community."
Attorney Wayne J. Peck, representing the applicant, further explained that although society is conditioned to believe that everything has to be determined by governmental restriction, real estate is mostly set by market forces.
"The buying public has demonstrated that people with young children don’t want units designed in this way," he explained. "These projects are designed to not be conducive to people raising children. There are no amenities, no places to play and no other young children."
With the help of Peck, Sherman qualified himself as an expert on zoning and land use.
"I have been a land developer since the 1970s and am a second-generation developer," Sherman said. "I have reviewed zoning ordinances, bulk ordinances and have previously developed in Marlboro."
Sherman answered a series of questions from Peck until the zoning board members were satisfied with his expertise in the field.
With that, Sherman proceeded to assess the nature of the area surrounding his proposed development site. According to Sherman, the uses in all of the neighboring zones are more intense than his proposal.
Residents questioned that assertion during the public hearing.
Veronica Vezeris of Ticetown Road asked Sherman whether many of the areas he pointed out were actually Land Conservation zones and whether they were much larger than his proposed Concord Manor.
"Many of the areas are mediated settlements with developer [Tony] Spalliero to meet the [town’s] affordable housing obligation," Vezeris said, noting it was not accurate to use this as justification for a use variance.
Heidi Card of Greenwood Road asked about the economics of building 30 homes compared to building five homes.
According to Sherman, 30 homes that would sell for $500,000 each would produce $15 million, while five homes sold at $800,000 each would produce about $4 million.
"That’s a substantial difference," Card commented.
A number of other residents, including Thomas Aaron, Township Councilman James Mione, Jack Appel and Peter Bellone, sought answers for issues ranging from the number of children such a development would yield, to the wetlands situation on-site, to what would be done to ensure that only a targeted type of people would live there.
Residents and Township Council members expressed concern over the application, foreseeing the added traffic and homes that would result should such a use variance be granted.
One resident described the application as a rezoning request masquerading as a variance request.
Only the council can rezone property.
The hearing is scheduled to continue at the zoning board’s May 28 meeting.