A borough in need of rehabilitation? Keyport council denies designation in lieu of a public hearing BY KAREN E. BOWES Staff Writer In an effort to gain more control over housing developers, Keyport officials are considering turning the entire borough into an area in need of rehabilitation, a new designation that would give the borough, not property owners, final jurisdiction over what is built on private property. On Dec. 5, planner Paul Ricci, T&M Associates, presented a report stating the borough meets the necessary state criteria to apply for the designation. According to Ricci, Keyport qualifies because more than half of its housing stock is over 50 years old and the sewer and water infrastructure dates back to the 1890s and is in need of much repair. Under the designation, the Borough Council would not have the power of eminent domain. Only an area in need of redevelopment, which is different, allows for the use of eminent domain. According to the state’s Office of Smart Growth, the primary reason for the designation is to offer five-year tax abatements to property owners who convert their multifamily dwellings into single-family homes. Single-family homeowners wishing to make improvements like installing a new roof or heating system could also be granted a tax abatement. Commercial property owners would also have a shot at a tax break, although the process to obtain one would be more complicated. Overall, the measure is meant to encourage the private real estate market to invest in the area, according to Smart Growth’s Web site, www.smartgrowthgateway.org. But Mayor-elect and Councilman Robert Bergen hopes it will do much more than that. Bergen praised the measure, saying it will stop the borough’s practice of “zoning by variance,” which is how most developers currently usurp the borough’s ban on multifamily structures, as listed in Keyport’s master plan. Bergen said he proposed the idea as a way for the council to control developers who wish to build housing projects not suitable for Keyport. Under the designation, borough officials would draft a plan stating exactly what will and will not be allowed. He added he hoped the prospect of a tax abatement would inspire someone to open up a bed and breakfast in town. But not everyone agrees about the benefits of the designation. “As a Planning Board member, I look at it as a question of power,” resident Al De Gracia said, adding he felt it didn’t really matter whether power was shifted to the councilmen or to the Planning Board members. “I don’t think anyone should have that kind of power. There should be a better system of checks and balances.” “Someone has to make the decisions,” Mayor John Merla replied. The Office of Smart Growth does provide a list of several options, including establishing “enhanced zoning controls” to act as a roadblock to haphazard development. As for structures that are deteriorating, the state also suggests using financial incentives such as an income tax credit in exchange for rehabilitating a historic building. The state’s Urban Home Ownership Recovery Program is another option, providing subsidies as a way to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. The mayor supports the idea of an area in need of rehabilitation. “I don’t think it’s giving anyone more power,” Merla said. “It’s really giving the Planning Board and council more options. That’s how I view the plan.” Merla said the new designation would be faster than applying for a use variance. “I don’t think it’s fair to the developer or the borough to have an application [in] for two and half years and $450,000 later,” Merla said. “If the developer spent $450,000, I guarantee you the borough spent a good chunk too.” Ricci, along with Borough Engineer Don Norbut and special planning attorney Andrew Provence, of the law firm Ansell, Zaro, Grimm & Aaron, all recommended that the borough go forth with the designation process by voting on a resolution that evening. Residents were quick to react, pointing out that a public hearing had yet to take place, that more time and information was needed to make an informed decision. Provence recommended the council vote anyway, saying a hearing was not required by the law. Nevertheless, the resolution ended up failing 4-2 and a public hearing was planned for sometime in January. Bergen and Councilman Richard Hassmiller voted in favor of the resolution while Councilmen Bill Ortman, Joseph Sheridan, George Walling and Joseph Wedick all voted against it. Had the resolution passed, the planner’s report would have been sent to the Planning Board for review. After 45 days, the Planning Board would return the document to the council with recommendations. The council would then vote on the matter, making the new designation official. After that, it would be time to come up with a detailed plan for each section of the town the council hoped to rehabilitate. Wedick was the most vocal of the dissenting voters, explaining that although he believes developers currently have too much power and often succeed in finding legal loopholes, there was no reason to rush into the designation process without first hearing from residents. “This is important enough, I think, to have a meeting,” Wedick said. “I’d like to hear what the Planning Board has to say,” Bergen replied, arguing in favor of conducting a hearing after passing the resolution. Although no exact date was given, the matter will be up for discussion at a public hearing sometime in January. A copy of the report submitted by T&M is available at borough hall.