Cranberry Road Project Granted Extension

An application in front of the Howell Planning Board received a one year extension on Thursday night after questions arose about its original progress and its financial viability. 

The project, known as Cranberry Estates on Cranberry Road has a plan for seven buildable lots on a 16 acre property. Peter Krauser, the lawyer for the application said the extension was being sought to keep the project's "protections provided in the Municipal Land Use Law," he said. The application first went in front of the board in 2008. 

Sharif Ali, the design engineer for the project was asked about what progress had been made in that three year period. Ali said they had gotten approval from the Monmouth County Planning Board, the board of health and the state department of environmental protection among others. The biggest approvals still being sought are for sewer, water and bringing electricity to the development. 

When board member Maria Portilla asked him about problems his application has encountered, Ali said the tough economic times have been a problem. "There's no market out there for this product," he said. "The market is saturated."

While board attorney Ronald Cucchiaro said economics could not be a basis for an extension based on the Permit Extension Act, the fact that the applicant was still looking for approvals from outside agencies still made it a possibility. 

One member of the board who came out in favor of the extension was Paul Schneider. "I think it's a suitable application for the particular area," he said. "It's an ARE-2 Zone that if there's going to be any development in that area, I think this development is suitable."

At least one member of the board, Evelyn O'Donnell said she believed the three years the applicant had was enough time to get the needed approvals. "I realize that certain departments do require a lot of time for you to get approval. I think that three years has been a sufficient amount of time."

O'Donnell also said she was concerned about the precedent it would set if economics were figured into this or future applications. "I feel the board philosophy has never granted an extension based on finances," she said. "I would be very concerned if we did so tonight that in fact we would be sending a message that applications could get extensions based on their profit margins which is not my concern as a board member."

Schneider said that while understanding his colleague's questions, he believed it was important for the local board to consider its economic standings in order to protect their local interests. "The reason for this philosophy is what is precipitating these [state] legislatures to take the power away from us on the local level to make these decisions," he said. "Because local zoning is refusing to take economics into consideration, you have legislatures that are doing this."

He said with people all over struggling with money, the board could not ignore financial aspects of the applications they faced. "Whether we like it or not, it appears to me that economics does play a role. If this developer, a small developer is going to put six homes up and contractors and such are going to be put to work, I think this would alleviate the need for this kind of legislation."

Ali said that if the extension was granted, by the time the year was up he would be coming back in front of the board looking for approval with all the needed paperwork. After a vote by the board, O'Donnell was the only vote cast against the extension.