Planners to review zoning change BY JAMIE ROMM Staff Writer HAZLET - At least one township residentwill be paying close attentionwhen the Planning Board gets down to business and reviews a proposed zoning change on Thursday, Steven Sanfilippo lives next door to a tract on PooleAvenue thatwould be rezoned for higher density development, a change he said last week is not beneficial to the township. "It's outrageous, it's a blatant disregard of decisions made by the Township Committee and the Zoning Board in the past," Sanfilippo said. "It's going to cause more problems than help. It benefits the developer and not the township." Sanfilippo questioned how 26 houses can fit on a tract that he says ismostly wetlands and unusable areas. "It's not a completely buildable area," he said. "The property is wet back there and other areas are beyond wet. It's just going to sink into the ground." The controversial amendment to current zoning would affect a 4.2-acre tract behind the Walgreens on Route 36 and Poole Avenue and will be scrutinized by the Planning Board at its Feb. 7 meeting. The amendment, introduced at the Township Committee's meeting on Jan. 15, creates a new zone for townhouse development and would allow for no more than 26 town homes on the 4-acre site. The ordinance creates a Medium Density Residential Transition (MDRT) zone and amends the zoningmaps. The new zoning would transition from highway commercial to single-family residential. The committee voted at that meeting to send the amendment to the Planning Board before taking a second vote. The committee vote was 4-1 in favor of introducing the zoning ordinance, with Committeeman ScottAagre casting the lone no vote. He said he voted against themeasure because it would allow greater density and is tailored for the developer. Township Attorney Daniel McCarthy confirmed previously that the developer has sued the township in the past for denial of a land use application and the ordinance "emanates from the litigation. John J. Curran III, of the Hazlet Area Quality of Life Alliance, also said the alliance opposes the rezoning because the change may affect wetlands on the site. Sanfilippo said that he has been following the issue since June 2006 when a proposal by Elegant Properties to develop the tract was denied by the Zoning Board. According to Sanfilippo, a proposal to build 26 town homes on the site was previously denied by the Zoning Board and Elegant Properties subsequently sought approval to build 12 single-family homes on the tract, but never went ahead with the project. Sanfilippo said his attempts to review tapes of previous hearings on the developer's proposals were thwarted because three tapes of the Zoning Board hearing were erased as a result of the applicant's efforts to prepare a transcript. He said that he would continue to speak out about it at meetings and hopes that he can stop the ordinance from passing. "I don't recall a single member of our community saying that we need this ordinance," Sanfilippo said. "I've only heard people speaking against it." The ordinance will go in front of the Planning Board this Thursday when the public will have a chanced to weigh in on the rezoning.