Township Committee Amends Parkside Zone Map

Township Committee Person Jerry Ryan wanted to make a point at the Jan. 18 committee meeting that the governing body does listen to the public.

Ultimately, the entire five-member committee made that point by voting to amend the Parkside Zoning Map to remove four northern lots that either were currently part of or bordering on a residential zone.

Nine members of the public addressed the committee in opposition to the inclusion of the northern lots. None spoke in support. As Maplewood Avenue resident Beth Daugherty noted, "I haven't heard a single person speak in favor of this in the last five months."

Indeed, even the Planning Board recommended that the four northern lots be excluded .

The objections to the inclusion of the properties centered around the fact that the new Parkside Zone would allow for greater density than currently allowed under the R-2-4 residential zoning of three of the lots and the Office Business zoning of one lot, which is currently home to a gas station.

Parkside Zoning would allow for 60 units per acres at 50 feet maximum height, while R-2-4 allows for 17 units per acre and 35 feet maximum height, and Office Business allows just 12 units per acre and maximum heights of 40 feet (or 80 feet in some rare exceptions).

More than one member of the public noted that he or she was not opposed to development. In fact, Alberto Fernandez of Maplewood Avenue said that "development is important to us — but it has to be very well planned, professionally planned."

Fernandez and others called for a professional study of the properties, either independently or through the current re-examination of the Master Plan, as recommended by the Planning Board.

Planning Board Chair Tom Carlson even came to speak on the ordinance but not in his capacity as Planning Board Chair. Carlson did defend the actions of the Township Committee in part, providing a reasoning for the inclusion of the properties, even though he opposed it. He noted that two of the four lots contain non-conforming uses. "It's legitimate in such cases to put on the table — should we change the zoning."

But Carlson added, "What concerns me most is putting commercial and business uses penetrating into a residential zone.... I'm nervous about the trend. Even if two of four are non-conforming." Carlson noted that the current non-conforming use buildings were relatively small in scale and the street was attractively tree-lined and residential in character.

One resident read a letter from Steve Latz, formerly of the Board of Education, decrying the potential negative impact on the town if development on the lots led to the attraction of more children to be educated in the school district.

A number of speakers asked the Township Committee, "Why the rush?" Said Daugherty, "Why aren't we willing to wait a couple of months to see what professional opinion is?"

When it came time for the governing body to discuss, Vice Mayor Kathleen Leventhal set the tone. "I'm very influenced by public comment." She noted that she was concerned about the riparian issues at lot 126 — the gas station — which apparently is partially located in a flood plain. Leventhal also said that since the current restrictions on the lots were "heavier now, I don't see the need to change them at this time." Leventhal wanted to proceed with a study of the properties.

Deputy Mayor Fred Profeta was pointed in his remarks. "I haven't heard reasons why this is a good idea," he said, in reference to the inclusion of the four northern lots (for the record, lots 156, 157, 161 and 126). He added, "We're talking about enormous change and I'm concerned about the intrusion of this kind of mass on a residential, tree-lined street."

When Marlon K. Brownlee also said he was "not comfortable voting to disregard the Planning Board's recommendation absent explanation of why the R-2-4 and OB properties are included," it was clear that the ordinance, as it was, would not pass.

Mayor Vic DeLuca quickly responded. He was very willing to exclude the four lots and seek a professional study. But he did want to explain the process. DeLuca noted that on Dec. 17, 2009, the Township Committee asked the Planning Board to make recommendations for modifications to the NB zone which included properties around the old police station on Dunnell Road. The idea was that more restrictive and proscriptive could be applied to the other four properties (lots 6, 11, 12 and 14 — respectively, the train station, Nelson's Garage, a commercial office building, and the fire house).

[The adopted redevelopment plan for the former police station remains controversial with some, most notably the group savememorialpark.org.]

In May 2010, the Planning Board delivered its recommendations which called for the creation of a Parkside Residential Zone and proposed that the other, northern properties be considered in future after a study.

DeLuca said, "We did deviate and decided to include other uses," such as commercial retail uses. The Township Committee turned the Parkside Residential Zone into the Parkside Zone, with Jerry Ryan dissenting.

While DeLuca was willing to comply with the wishes of the majority of the Township Committee at this time, he did say that he still thought that lots 157 and 161 were well-situated for inclusion in the new Parkside Zone — saying that they bordered on the park and "we can get a better, higher use" for them.

The Township Committee amended the ordinance to include Block 1716: lots 6, 11, 12 and 14 and exclude lots 126, 156, 157 and 161. The motion to amend was carried unanimously. The amended ordinance will now be republished and re-noticed to property owners in the affected lots and those within 200 feet. A hearing and final vote on the ordinance is scheduled for February 15, 2011.