Little Silver Mulling Removal of Age Restriction for Proposed Condo Complex
Developer's plan for 39-unit complex featuring 8 affordable units deemed COAH compliant by town planner; borough faces possible suit if they reject it.
Videos
Public concerns have caused the Little Silver Planning Board to carefully consider the impact of allowing a previously approved but undeveloped 39-unit condominium complex to remove its age restriction, pushing back their vote on the matter for a special meeting to be held on Sept. 13.
Carriage Park, which is proposed for construction on a 4-acre tract of a 14.5-acre property at the corner of Eastview and Oceanport avenues near the train station, would provide 8 affordable housing units to contribute to the borough's Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) obligations. Opponents have cited concerns over the size of the project, traffic, the safety of children living close to the busy train station, and COAH legislation itself.
However, according to town planner Richard Coppola, who testified at a planning board hearing on Aug. 9, developer Javin, L.P. has met the three requirements set by New Jersey's conversion law to garner planning board approval.
Coppola said S-2577, enacted by Gov. Jon Corzine in July 2009, requires the developer to have received preliminary or final approval for construction from the planning board, which it did in October 2007 when a 59-unit age-restricted community was set to be constructed on the same property.
The developer also can't be holding a deposit or have sold any of the units, which Javin hasn't, as the development has not been constructed yet, and 20 percent of the units must satisfy COAH regulations, which the proposed development will by offering 8 units of affordable housing.
"If the approving board determines that the requirements have been satisfied and the conversion can be granted and a conversion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and will not substantially impair the zoning ordinance, the application for the conversion shall be approved," said Coppola.
Coppola noted he was not endorsing the legislation, which he referred to as "a troublesome law," but said the town had to act in accordance with it.
"Even though COAH may disappear, that's what's in the operative statute," said Coppola. "What the statute has done is taken the rug out from under the planning board."
Coppola's sentiments were echoed by several members of the planning board, as well as former Little Silver councilman and current state assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, who was not present at the meeting, but sent a letter dated July 25 in which he said he believed that the board could reject the proposal if they could prove the project a detriment to the community.
Board Attorney Michael Leckstein and Coppola expressed some fear about rejecting the proposal and triggering a builder's remedy lawsuit, which would strip the town of all rights to the property and allow the developer to proceed with a development at a higher density than would otherwise be permitted.
Javin has reduced the number of units planned for the development from 59 to 39, and project Attorney John Giunco said they have made changes to their plan in order to get the board's approval and begin construction.
Conversion law stipulates the developer must provide documentation that they have amended their plan to address the different parking, recreation and sewer needs of a development without an age restriction. To that end, engineer Tim Holmes, of Najerian Associates, testified on behalf of Javin, presenting the revised project's plans, which added a "tot lot," or fenced play area for children.
Though conversion law does not require an educational impact study, licensed planner Christine Cofone testified on behalf of Javin, presenting an analysis which found the development would likely produce 10 students, 7 of which would go into the elementary school district, and 3 to the regional high school. She determined that revenues generated from the project's residents paying local taxes would have a positive financial impact of $26,282 for the borough.
By Giunco's estimation, the 31 market rate units will sell for $450,000 to $475,000. A third party establishes what the market value is for the affordable units based on the prospective buyer's income level.
More information is available on the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs website, which offers a COAH fact sheet.
Joan C
8:22 am on Monday, August 15, 2011
Approve it already! our community needs more tax ratables. And 39 units is not going to have a huge impact. School enrollments have been declining for the last 20 years so a few more children should be no problem.
Bill Holobowski
9:40 am on Monday, August 15, 2011
Comical, in that developers now come into towns that have approved 55-and-over developments and dictate what is best for that town and the outcome of conversion to market-rate housing, rendering the Planning Board powerless in the face of potential lawsuits. My town's PB, to its credit, rejected conversion of a 300-unit development (recognizing the obvious detriments; i.e. strain on public service, schools), only to be circumvented by the mayor and Zoning Board so as to avoid a possible lawsuit if the town denied the conversion application. Good luck, Little Silver Planning Board...
Roberta B
11:48 am on Monday, August 15, 2011
This has disaster written all over it. Little Silver already has 3 empty properties sitting just around the corner from the site of this proposed development: the former Wicker Rose building and the two neighboring gas stations. If Carriage Park is allowed to proceed, do the developers really think they can "sell" 31 townhouse units for $450,000+ in this real estate market? In this economy? They can "ask" that price, but I sincerely doubt they will be able to get it.
It would be a shame to develop one of the few remaining wooded areas in this town to build properties that are going to be difficult to sell.
I don't think Little Silver or the developer has anything to gain by allowing this development to proceed.
Don
11:54 am on Monday, August 15, 2011
Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon and others need to fight this. Who does COAH think they are? It's already terribly busy near the Little Silver train station. To add 39 more Units is just ridiculous. Little Silver and other towns are being threatened by COAH and this has to stop. Gov Christie has to step in and stop COAH. No regime shoud be allowed to tell a town what they can build and how much the homes will cost. If that's the case, I will insist that Porsche sell me a cheaper car just because I can't afford one. How absurd isn't it?
Bill Holobowski
10:04 pm on Monday, August 15, 2011
Roberta and Don, best advice is to address your opposition to the Planning Board, council and mayor. Based on my observation of a few such cases, the developers send their attorneys to your town with a "better alternative" to what was originally proposed (i.e. saying they'll build only 38 market-rate units instead of the original 58 senior units), so that your town can avoid an eventual lawsuit and rigged courts letting that builder instead double the unit count to 70+.
If you have local leaders (it HAS to be your mayor, planning board, etc) willing to really stand behind you (and the logic that more housing is a bad idea, no matter the type), they'll reject the application and be willing to let the builder take the issue to court (and the town pay the costs to contest the conversion application), then God bless you. What NJ needs are some test cases to reveal the absurdity of the 55-and-over conversion bill.
Otherwise, your attorney will probably advise (like what happened in my town) that you take the deal to avoid a "worse" outcome. The process is criminal, really, and it's happening there, in my town (Tinton Falls), Holmdel and Middletown and elsewhere. At the same time towns try to bank money to buy open space, COAH and Trenton have laws that mandate over-development of land in a real estate market downturn.