Hazlet planners reject rezoning of tract
Board votes new zone is not consistent with master plan
BY JAMIE ROMM Staff Writer

HAZLET - The Planning Board sent a controversial ordinance back to the Township Committee last week, after deciding the new zoning isn't consistent with the master plan.

In what came as a shock to the residents in attendance who waited four hours for a decision, the board voted to send back to the committee a proposed amendment that would rezone a tract to allow for town home development.

Mayor James DiNardo, a planning board member, made a motion to pass a resolution to accept the planner's report advising the committee to go ahead with the ordinance and suggested amendments to the proposed rule.

Deputy Mayor Kevin Lavan seconded DiNardo's motion.

In a surprise bi-partisan 6-3 vote, the motion was denied to applause by those in attendance.

A second motion was made by board member Ric Medrow stating that the proposed ordinance does not comply with the township's master plan and that the board did not recommend it.

"The master plan specifically states that we [ought] to subscribe to lower density housing," Medrow said. "This provides for higher density. I can't believe we are even here to discuss this matter."

The second resolution was passed by a 9-0 vote and a final vote on the ordinance will be held at the Township Committee's Feb. 19 meeting.

At the start of the meeting, board Chairman Jeffrey Tyler asked board attorney Mark Kitrick to explain to residents in attendance the scope of the board's role that evening.

"Tonight we are going to make a determination on whether this ordinance is consistent or inconsistent to the master plan," Kitrick said. "It is the task of the board tonight to make a decision and send a resolution to the Township Committee."

Before any discussion on the ordinance got underway, Planning Board member David Tinker remarked that the ordinance members were given that morning to review was slightly different than the one discussed by the Township Committee Feb. 4.

"You gave us this copy of the ordinance with revisions at 9 a.m. and we were able to look at it, but the residents did not know that this occurred," Tinker said. "Therefore they were unable to read it over and prepare comments. They are commenting on an ordinance that has been revised."

Some of the revisions include changing the maximum amount of units per acre to six homes from seven; reducing the minimum lot area from 1,800 to 1,600 square feet; adding a minimum setback between building and parking area at 20 feet; a minimum of 20 feet for the front yard and rear yard and lot/building width.

Also, the new version deleted a special provision that each townhome have a mix of two- and three-bedroom units with up to one-third being three-bedroom units. Tyler said the changes were made after suggestions were received from Planning Board members and that they were not permanent replacements just suggestions.

"These are proposed changes," Tyler said. "Nothing is set in stone. I received suggestions from some members and felt that they made sense. They are not in the ordinance. Just suggestions."

The controversial amendment to current zoning would affect a 4.2-acre tract behind the Walgreens on Route 36 and Poole Avenue.

The amendment, introduced at the Township Committee's meeting on Jan. 15, creates a new zone for townhouse development and would allow for up to 26 town homes on the 4-acre site.

The ordinance would create a Medium Density Residential Transition (MDRT) zone and amends the zoning maps. The new zoning would transition from highway commercial to single-family residential.

The township hired planning consultant Marcia Shiffman to report to the board on whether the ordinance is consistent with the master plan.

"The site is what I consider a transition zone," Shiffman said. "It can be compatible with commercial and residential zones. This is not a high-density area. It is a more moderate density area."

Shiffman's summary stated that the MDRT Zone District and rezoning of the track "in my professional opinion would be an appropriate action by the township.

"Should this not be accomplished through amendments in the Master Plan Land Use Plan or through the re-examination process, the MDRT Zoning Ordinance and Zone Map amendments as proposed would create an inconsistency with the 1978 Master Plan and subsequent re-examination reports."

That finding was enough for Medrow and Tinker to oppose the resolution in support of the ordinance, but Tyler and board member Joseph Pobega both said that they were still undecided on the matter.

Members of the public were able to comment after Shiffman's report and did so for well over two hours.

Resident Steven Sanfilippo, who lives next door to the property, said he could not believe that the rezoning was even being considered.

"We already went through this three years ago and it wasn't approved," Sanfilippo said. "We have to remember that we are the Township of Hazlet, not the city of Hazlet."

Albert Fuller accused the committee of spot zoning.

"You are creating this ordinance for one specific tract," Fuller said. "That to me is spot zoning and you are opening yourself up for someone to come in and sue."

Kitrick disputed that contention.

"It's not spot zoning," Kitrick said. "It is for one specific tract but it can technically be used for others."

Township Attorney Daniel McCarthy confirmed previously that developer Elegant Properties has sued the township in the past for denial of a land use application and the ordinance "emanates from the litigation."

Residents at the meeting urged the board and the committee to stand up against the developer.

"They have nothing on the people of this town," John Curran III, president of the Hazlet Area Quality of Life Alliance, said. "We have a right to live."

Jim Brady also wanted to know why Hazlet is bending to the developer's demands.

"I don't see why we are not fighting it," Brady said. "They have no basis for any of their lawsuits."

Elegant Properties had previously received permission to build 11 houses on the property after failing to gain approval for building 26 town homes on the site.

According to McCarthy, the developer brought a builder's remedy suit against the township over affordable housing regulations but lost the suit and is appealing the decision.

Some of the residents expressed the belief that the reason the ordinance is being voted on in the first place is that if passed, the developer will drop its suit.

Medrow agreed with the residents' remarks.

"Sadly the reason we have got to this point is because of the threats of a developer," Medrow said. "It's ridiculous that we are even here to hear this ordinance in the first place."

Board member Barbara Ronchetti, who voted to approve the resolution along with DiNardo and Lavan, said she was voting for the ordinance because she feels there is no other option and it will help the community.

"Sometimes you have to bite the bullet on an issue like this," Ronchetti said. "We have to make hard choices sometimes."

Pobega said that matters such as the rezoning might occur more often in the future if the ordinance were to pass.

"It's not going to end with one site," Pobega said. "It's probably going to grow to other sites."

When the public portion was closed, the vote against the approval of the ordinance had many residents applauding the board's decision.

The rezoning ordinance will be before the Township Committee for a final vote on Feb. 19.