Rehabilitation plan gains board's support If passed, council would have more say on what can be built in Keyport BY KAREN E. BOWES Staff Writer "You're zoning right now by variance. So what we're getting is a patchwork quilt - without any planning." - Robert Bergen Mayor KEYPORT - The Planning Board backed a measure last week that would offer short-term tax breaks to residents who improve their homes and give the elected government more control over developers. On Jan. 30, the Unified Planning Board voted to support designating the entire borough an area in need of rehabilitation, a title that comes with some pretty complicated details. In theory, the point of adopting the state designation means the town will have more control over what types of new structures are built, such as the ability to refuse large-scale housing developments or anything else officials see as detrimental to the community. It would also create a program that gives short-term tax abatements to qualifying residents willing to fix up their properties. An area in need rehabilitation is similar to an area in need of redevelopment, but differs in that it does not provide the town eminent domain powers, according to a state law that was recently amended in 2006. And while last week's vote means little in terms of immediate results, it was the first step in what promises to be a long line of complicated procedures toward making the designation a reality. Now that the Planning Board has voiced its approval, the Borough Council needs to vote on the measure. If the council passes it, a redevelopment plan, not a rehabilitation plan, must be drafted. Confusion arose over this issue. "You say rehabilitation in one word and redevelopment in the other," said Planning Board member John Kovacs. "So what are we going for here, rehabilitation or redevelopment?" Kovacs was questioning Paul Ricci, a planner from T&M Associates, the firm hired by the town to investigate if Keyport qualifies for the designation. Ricci explained to Kovacs that the title of the plan was simply a matter of semantics; it has nothing to do with eminent domain, Ricci repeated several times. Still, Kovacs later cast the lone dissenting vote against the measure and continued to question the necessity of the designation throughout the evening. At one point, Kovacs noted that the borough's master plan already acts as a guide by which development projects are chosen. So how does an area in need of rehabilitation designation differ from simply updating the master plan? "The distinction is, we believe that by undertaking the process of rehabilitation, preparing for redevelopment plans that have the community input, you're getting community input at the onset of the process," Ricci said. "Essentially, it ends up creating a master plan with teeth." "It also takes power away from the Zoning Board, doesn't it?" Kovacs asked. "It could," Ricci replied. According to Ricci, the borough could conceivably draft a plan that specifies exactly what can be built on private property. "You can be as specific as where buildings will be located," Ricci said. "And it's difficult to delineate from." Reactions were mixed. Planning Board member Joseph Vecchio said he sees the new designation as an opportunity to share responsibility with the Borough Council. "I feel better about it myself than if I made the decision, sitting up here," Vecchio said. "Let the governing body be a part of that process in determining what goes there, especially when there are no design standards, no designs set as it is." Planning Board member Gay Lee Benedict questioned if the designation would apply to the entire town or just certain sections. She worried, she said, about creating various design standards for different parts of town, turning Keyport into a "patchwork quilt." Mayor Robert Bergen, a member of the Unified Planning Board, replied, "I can tell you as a member of the governing body, that's exactly what's happening right now. That's exactly what your Planning Board is planning. You're zoning right now by variance. So what we're getting is a patchwork quilt - without any planning." Planning Board member Roy Cadoo Sr. pointed out that there was no need to re-plan every part of town. "Everyone's lollygagging, but in this town, there are only certain areas that are open left to develop," Cadoo Sr. said. "Nobody's going to come into the middle of a block and tear it down and build what they want there." Residents were also opinionated on the subject. "Did I hear you say you were going to enact a pay-to-play ordinance?" asked Rowland Seckinger, resident and part-time property code enforcer for the borough. "Oh. I didn't hear you say that." Only a week earlier, Councilman Joseph Sheridan suggested that a pay-to-play ordinance be applied to the rehabilitation process. Bergen sent the suggestion to committee to be studied, calling it "a good idea." "What about the people who have improved their property?" Seckinger asked. "What are you going to do for them?" Bergen said that neighbors of people who receive tax abatements will benefit through an overall improved neighborhood. Resident Michael Reedy said he feared an onslaught of new multifamily units as a result of the new designation, a move he believed would put a strain on the town's police and other resources. "What's to stop a developer from buying up commercial properties and converting them into multifamily structures?" Reedy asked. Bergen disagreed with the question's pretense, saying single-family homes require more municipal services than multifamily structures. Bergen cited a Rutgers University study as his source. "The most empirical data today shows exactly the opposite," Bergen argued. "Actually, that's from my talking to the police and fire departments right here in Keyport," replied Reedy. Borough Historian Jack Jeandron also spoke about the influx of multi-family housing in Keyport. Jeandron said he can remember when his father was the chairman of the Planning Board during the 1950s and '60s. It was during this time, Jeandron said, that the borough began to allow the conversion of large single-family homes into multifamily dwellings. "I was in Holmdel at that time and we had pushed through a measure to restrict Holmdel to 1 acre [per housing unit]. And I said to my father, you're going in the opposite direction. ... He said, 'Well, what are we going to do with these elderly women, widows who want to hold on to their homes?' So therefore they divided them into a couple of apartments." Jeandron spoke in favor of the designation, saying he hopes that through the use of tax abatements, some of those same old houses can be converted back into single-family homes. The measure now heads to the mayor and council for consideration.