The application has once again been continued as the developer for the Gateway at Sunnymead project requested an adjournment at Thursday’s Planning Board meeting with the goal of reaching a settlement agreement before a decision is made.
According to Township Planner Bob Ringelheim, the applicant has requested to have the opportunity to discuss affordable housing obligations and other requirements that would be outlined if the Planning Board were to approve the application to convert 383 of the 698 age-restricted units to nonage-restricted.
Mr. Ringelheim said a settlement will be discussed between the applicant and the Planning Board’s affordable housing attorney, Andrew Bayer of GluckWalrath LLP.
At the meeting, Bill Savo, attorney for the applicant, said the Planning Board had stated that the original settlement agreement approved for the building of the development would have to be changed if the application were to be approved. That agreement was to be decided upon at the same time that the board voted on the application.
Because the settlement agreement has not yet been outlined, Mr. Savo said, he requested that the decision be held. In this way, he said, the board would not be making a decision pending the creation of the settlement agreement.
Representatives from Gateway at Sunnymead first spoke before the Planning Board March 25 to request the conversion of units based on a bill sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarlo that allows developers to convert age-restricted units to nonage-restricted units as long as a portion not to exceed 20 percent is set aside for affordable housing.
If the application is approved, the township could receive a reduced affordable housing requirement — from 650 units to 475 units — and the opportunity to make adjustments to its plan that was submitted to the court in December 2008 for the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). The reduction also provides the possibility of eliminating a development project.
The applicant is basically requesting to keep 315 age-restricted single-family units, while converting the remaining 383 units to nonage-restricted, with 131 townhouses, 130 as apartments and 122 for affordable housing.
This final number is an increase from the originally approved 105 affordable housing units.
With this change in affordable housing units to be built, the township would have to amend its already-submitted third round regulation COAH plan because of a total reduction of 112 units needing to be built. This would effectively eliminate the need for a previously planned development for 108 affordable housing units to be built by Cherry Hill developer Ingerman Group on a site on Amwell Road east of Piney Woods Drive.
The elimination of the project creates a 17-unit shortfall, which would be made up by the Gateway at Sunnymead project.
Also affected by the possible change in COAH requirements would be a proposed Green Village district in the township, which was to account for a 50-acre property on Route 206, across from Valley Road, which is a highway service zone and does not support affordable housing development. The township’s third-round COAH plan requires that affordable housing be built in that area.
Originally, the district was to have 138 units of affordable housing, but, if the Gateway at Sunnymead conversion is approved, that number will change to 117.
The creation of the zone is expected to go through a public hearing at Tuesday’s Township Committee meeting.
With all the possible changes to the affordable housing plan, Mr. Ringelheim said the applicant asked for the adjournment Thursday in order to develop a settlement of what conditions and obligations would be placed on the developer with regard to those units, and other aspects of the plan, if the Planning Board were to approve the application.
Aside from the adjournment, Mr. Ringelheim said, the board did not hear any more testimony on the application, but residents were allowed to speak out, and several voiced their support of the revised site plan that includes additional buffers between the project and already established neighbors.
Previous testimony established that the application, if approved, would include buffers next to the development of 130 feet, rather than the previously proposed 67 feet. It would also allow for the building of two-story buildings 35 feet in height on the edge of the property, rather than three-story buildings 50 feet in height.
The developer has also proposed a 6-foot high berm on one side of the property, and a row of evergreen trees in another area to block it from neighboring properties.
“I fully support the conversion,” said Tom Rodriguez, of Grouse Road. “It is less invasive and more pleasing to the eye.”
The applicant is expected to come back before the board June 10.
