[ back ]
BLOOMINGDALE - No vote on AvalonBay ordinance
(by Deborah Walsh - Staff Writer - March 30, 2008)
BLOOMINGDALE - The Borough Council postponed a final vote on the inclusive multi-family zone on an 11-acre tract off Union Avenue where AvalonBay would like to build a 173-unit apartment complex.
At the March 25 council meeting, borough officials said that they would like to absorb and discuss the recommendations that they had received earlier in the day from the Planning Board, which went over the proposed ordinance at its March 20 meeting. It was indicated that some of the recommendations might be incorporated into the ordinance. It is anticipated that the possibly revised ordinance will be considered by the council at its April 22 meeting at 8 p.m.
At the March 25 council meeting, a handful of Morse Lakes residents asked questions and made comments regarding the zone change and AvalonBay's preliminary plan.
Lorraine Weinbrock of Highland Road asked why the borough needed to provide so many low- and moderate-income units and if the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) is taking into consideration existing housing and the borough's economic profile. Weinbrock also asked if a committee could be formed to locate alternative COAH sites.
Weinbrock said many people would like to see a mixed use of residential COAH units and commercial establishments along Main Street similar to the development that has taken place in neighboring Wanaque.
Borough Attorney Joseph MacMahon said Bloomingdale, like all other municipalities in New Jersey, has a low- and moderate-income obligation established by COAH. The fair share number is not based on the economics of the town, but on the economics of the county. The proposed 72 D.R. Horton units combined with the 26 proposed AvalonBay units, which the borough will get double credit for because the units are rentals, plus five other existing, will put the borough in compliance with its second round COAH obligation of 129 units, he said.
MacMahon said no one knows what the borough's obligation will be in the COAH pending third round. MacMahon said he has heard numbers ranging from 40 to 100 units for the borough's fair share.
MacMahon said former Councilwoman Susan Smith had established a committee that selected alternative COAH sites. Additionally, the borough earmarked three sites for COAH units, but in the D.R. Horton builder's remedy lawsuit against the borough, the judge felt the sites were not realistic because no developers came forward to build on the sites, he said.
MacMahon said the borough could not do anything to stop D.R. Horton, which won its lawsuit against the borough, and AvalonBay, which had joined that lawsuit. Superior Court Judge Burrell Ives Humphreys is requiring the borough to take affirmative action to meet its second round obligation, he said.
Councilman Thomas Marinaro, who recently attended a COAH training session, said the borough does not have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to opposing AvalonBay because the borough did not satisfy its fair share obligation. While Marinaro said he agreed that Main Street would be an ideal location for COAH units, he also said developers seem to be primarily interested in building COAH units in conjunction with large-scale developments. The developers do not seem to be looking for the smaller types of developments that could be built along Main Street and yield a single or couple of COAH units, he indicated.
MacMahon noted that the Planning Board has recommended that the developer submit an Environmental Impact Statement and that a pre-blast survey at homes within 200 feet of the site be required. While the council might not have issues with these recommendations and might incorporate the suggestions into its inclusive multi-family zone ordinance, the judge might have an issue with these requirements.
In the D.R. Horton case, the judge felt state regulatory agencies review environmental and blasting issues before permits are issued and it would be redundant and overly cost generative for these matters to be reviewed at the local level as well, he said.
MacMahon said he felt the Planning Board had a reasonable request when it asked the council to more clearly delineate whether a four-acre deed-restricted area where development is barred is part of the 20-percent open space on the site required in the ordinance.
Highland Road resident Timothy Traynor, a former borough councilman, said he would like to meet with the council to discuss alternatives to 173 units on the AvalonBay site. Traynor said he is not proposing that the borough simply fight the development. Traynor said it is his intention to establish a way to divide the density by three at the site and still be able to go back to COAH and show locations for more units than is being proposed at the AvalonBay site. Traynor indicated a mixed-use zone that includes residential and commercial would be beneficial to the borough.
"I'd like the opportunity to show COAH that we are not fighting them, but are one-upping them and have a tax-positive project," said Traynor.
Mayor William Steenstra asked Traynor to contact him when he has completed his plan and that he would appoint a committee to discuss the proposal. Steenstra said that MacMahon, as borough attorney, would sit on the committee because he would have to sell any alternative COAH plan to the court.
[ back ]
