The builder behind a previously approved housing application has asked the Edison Zoning Board to waive some of the conditions placed on the project’s initial approval. After a lengthy discussion during the board’s Oct. 16 meeting, the board agreed to some waivers but denied most.
The application in question had initially been approved in late 2006 with a host of conditions, such as providing the board with a detailed construction schedule and ordering more trees for buffering purposes. The project would build 12 houses on a 4.67-acre property along Phillip Drive that currently contains some one- and two-family houses.
According to the Zoning Board attorney, Karl Kemm, the firm Better View Homes Inc. took the township to court in order to get all of the conditions removed, a legal struggle that continues to this day. What the litigation is trying to accomplish by force, the meeting was trying to accomplish through negotiation.
Specifically, the firm was seeking a waiver to be allowed to make the ninth – rather than the fifth – house built as an affordable housing unit; to delay the conversion of a house currently used as a two-family to a single-family home; to clean the stormwater management system both before the construction is started and before the certificate of occupancy is issued; to promise that if an older single-family house on the lot is purchased, that it will be demolished to make way for additional road space; to construct higher swales in the wooded areas; and to lower the ground-floor height by 2 to 3 feet.
The board agreed to let the firm build its affordable housing unit as the ninth, rather than fifth, house. All other conditions were denied.
Much of the discussion during the hearing centered on two issues: the presence of a second family in a house that, by now, should have been a single-family unit, and the proposed height of the individual units.
At the beginning of the hearing, the firm’s attorney, Bernard Shihar, said the delay in converting the two-family house to a single-family unit was being sought because new tenants had recently entered into a lease in that house. When asked by board members just how recently this new lease had been signed, the applicant, Ernest Fantini, said the agreement was about two months old. This revelation caused anger among various board members.
“I’m perplex and confused, because I thought one of the conditions of your prior approval is this, and you’re coming in and asking for a waiver of a condition which we agreed to, and you’re violating this condition before you even request the waiver,” said board member Randolph Holmes. “Or am I missing something here?”
Fantini said the house had been a twofamily home forever and that it would be a lot of work to convert it to a one-family on such short notice. He wanted to keep it a two-family until the final building permit was issued. Board members felt this was an inadequate reason and demanded that before any further permits are given, one of the families be removed and the structure be converted into a single-family home. Fantini was instructed to use whatever legal means would be necessary before any building permit would be issued. Board member Robert Butvilla suggested that the board simply wait until the lease runs out to give approval, because he was hesitant to kick the tenants out of their home.
“The thing that really bothers me is the whole thing with the lease, and I’d like to suggest we hold off any approval, because I don’t want to kick these people out of the house, either. Wait until the lease runs out, and then we’ll give an approval,” said Butvilla.
Eventually it was decided that, using whatever legal means are necessary, the approvals will be granted when the tenants leave, whether that is next month or in 10 months. Some residents, during the meeting’s public comment portion, said the board should be more compassionate with regard to the people in the two-family house.
“I think it would be very difficult for the tenants … probably unknowing of any of this, to be asked to immediately move. Moving is expensive … I would ask the board to show some mercy to the tenants,” said resident Esther Nenitz, who also said that in all likelihood, by the time the legal dust settles, the lease would probably be up anyway.
Not everyone from the public agreed on this matter. Resident Lois Wolke said she had sympathy for the people who just entered their lease, but said the problem is that the applicant disrespected the requirements of the Zoning Board.
“The Zoning Board should not lose its credibility because of these tenants,” said Wolke.
The other serious point of contention had to do with the height of the houses which, if built, would stand at 32 feet, the maximum allowed in that zone. Shihar said that if the floor height were lowered 2 to 3 feet, there would be flooding problems. Board member Mary Petti said that she thought the applicant missed the point: the condition wasn’t to make the builder dig deeper, but to lower the height of the house.
“In an effort to be a good neighbor, you don’t have to build to the maximum height,” said Petti, who explained that the reason this condition was placed on the approval was to “prevent the people in the ranch houses from looking at a monument.”
Fantini didn’t feel this was a valid argument, saying that the tree buffers would successfully hide the houses from view. Chief among his points, though, was that shaving 2 to 3 feet off the houses would hobble his ability to compete in the market.
“I wouldn’t be able to sell these houses. … If everybody buys a car and so do I, why would I want to buy a car different from everyone else’s?” said Fantini. “… No house is built in such a way.”
He explained that people buying homes like high roofs and that lowering the roof height would make people not want to buy the homes. Holmes said that the board must also take the character of the surrounding neighborhood into account, noting that the houses would not be built in a void.
“We want to be sensitive to the character of the neighborhood and the impact on this neighborhood … where there are current dwellings in existence,” said Holmes.
Board member Rosemary Feterik also thought it was ridiculous that houses with roofs that size were the only ones that Fantini felt he could sell.
“And it boggles my mind … that this is the only kind of house you can build,” said Feterik.
Shihar put forth another argument, saying that the board has only limited discretion in the matter.
“The applicant has agreed to remove the second tenant. … As far as the height, everyone else in Edison in the RB zone is entitled to build a 32-foot-high house,” said Shihar, who added that the applicant had even agreed to shave 1 1/2 feet from the height as a compromise.
This did not move the board. At the end of the hearing, they voted unanimously to grant only the affordable housing waiver. All else remained.
“The people on the board did what they thought was right,” said board chairman Lawrence Cimmino.