New Jersey Developers Withdraw Plans

For Apartments At Exit 10

By Andrew Gorosko

A New Jersey development firm has withdrawn its request for zoning regulation changes it had sought in order to pursue its proposal to build 120 rental apartments on the west side of Edmond Road, near Exit 10 of Interstate-84.

In a brief July 28 letter to Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Chairman Daniel Fogliano, attorney William Denlinger, representing Princewood Properties, LLC, of Princeton, N.J., withdrew Princewood’s application to change the town’s zoning regulations. That rule change proposal was to have been the subject of an August 3 P&Z public hearing.

The proposed zoning regulations had sought to create a new land use called a “multiple family housing development,” only in M-2 Industrial zones, such as the 27-acre site on the west side of Edmond Road, where Princewood proposed building the apartment complex. Town zoning regulations currently do not allow such apartment complexes in any zone.

In its regulatory proposal, Princewood described minimum lot sizes, vehicular access, frontage, setbacks, construction density, waste disposal, building sizes, building separation distances, and design standards.

Jeffrey Albert, managing member of Princewood Properties, could not be reached for comment.

In late June, the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) told Princewood that it is unwilling to provide sewer service for most of the buildings proposed for the site, thus casting the project’s future in doubt. Most of the 27-acre development site and most of the construction proposed for the 120-unit project lie outside of the town’s sewer district. WPCA members said the town has no allotment of sewage treatment capacity for new development outside of the sewer district.

In a July 25 critique of Princewood’s proposal to modify town zoning for such development, Elizabeth Stocker, the town’s community development director, recommended against such a rule change.

“The ramifications of allowing housing in the industrial M-2 zone extend to issues [ranging] from the effect such will have on community character, sustainable economic growth, and the state Affordable Housing Appeals Act. I do not recommend favorable action on the proposal,” she writes.

“The potential for conflict between industrial and residential uses is greatly enhanced when they are located in the same zone. Residential use is not generally compatible with industrial use, and care should be taken when allowing such uses in the same zone. Often residential neighbors will influence non-residential growth and development in an area, thereby affecting the long-range economic development policies of a community,” she added.

Town zoning regulations currently do not allow housing as a permitted use in any of the seven different types of industrial zones.

In her report, Ms Stocker notes that there are approximately 1,260 acres of industrially zoned land in town, 57 acres of which were added last April when the P&Z rezoned sections of Hawleyville. Currently, there are approximately 616 acres of vacant industrially zoned land in town, she adds. Approximately 180 acres of that vacant industrial land has M-2 industrial zoning.

Ms Stocker determined that based on the zoning rule change proposal, which had been submitted to the P&Z by Princewood, four multiple family housing developments could be constructed in areas with M-2 zoning, using current vacant industrially zoned land.

“These four properties of 160 acres could support up to 437 apartments based upon the proposed density of 4.5 units per acre [and] up to 150 units per development,” she writes.

The proposed zoning rule change did not require that the environmental constraints of a property be taken into consideration in developing the property, she adds. Such factors include the presence of wetlands, streams, bodies of water, steep slopes, and buildable land.

Ms Stocker adds that Princewood’s proposed zoning rule changes did not state requirements for the maximum number of stories, maximum lot coverage, minimum parking spaces, and recreation areas. The proposed setbacks are much less than the setbacks required for any other use in the M-2 zone, she writes.

“The proposal is lacking adequate setbacks and buffers to permit reasonable separation between residential and industrial uses within the M-2 zone or adjacent industrial zones,” she adds.

  In the past, Princewood has explained to WPCA members that the availability of sewer service would be a key aspect of the project, adding that unless the development firm is allocated sufficient sewage treatment capacity by the WPCA, it probably would not proceed with the project.

The municipal sewer system was designed with current town zoning regulations and zoning designations in mind. The WPCA has a development framework with which it decides how to allocate the town’s limited remaining sewage treatment capacity at the sewage treatment plant.

Besides the Princewood project, two other development firms have expressed interest in developing high-density housing complexes served by sewers.

The other proposals are Benchmark Assisted Living’s proposal for a 78-unit assisted living complex for the elderly on Church Hill Road at The Boulevard, which is within the sewer district; and Ginsburg Development Connecticut’s proposal for 110 townhouse condominium units for people over age 55, for a site on Mt Pleasant Road, near Taunton Lake Drive. The Ginsburg site abuts the sewer district.

The WPCA has told Ginsburg the town has not allocated sewage treatment capacity for its project, which is outside the sewer district. WPCA members have said that if Ginsburg could convince the appropriate town agencies that such a complex would create “some major public benefit” and would be better served by municipal sewers than by large-scale septic systems, they would reconsider their position on providing sewer service.