Lakewood's Planning Board is set to hear an application Tuesday night for a major residential development proposing 60 dwelling units at the busy intersection of Route 70 and New Hampshire Avenue — with the plans seeking numerous design waivers and apparently providing no on-site recreational facilities.
Kettle Creek Holdings LLC is seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval for Block 1086, Lot 22, a roughly 9.37-acre tract at the southwest corner of Route 70 and New Hampshire Avenue.
The proposal would subdivide the property into thirty zero-lot-line residential lots (60 units including basement apartments), together with one undeveloped lot which is vastly wetlands. Duplexes are a permitted use in the property's B-5A Highway Development Zone, and the Township Engineer confirms that no bulk variances are presently requested.
However, while the application may be zoning-compliant on paper, the Township Engineer's October 1 review identifies a lengthy series of design issues and potential waivers which will need to be addressed at Tuesday night's public hearing.
Perhaps most notably given the project's location, the plans do not propose sidewalks or curbing along Route 70, and do not propose completing the existing sidewalk along New Hampshire Avenue. The Township Engineer specifically identifies each of those deficiencies as requiring potential design-waiver relief.
The plans also raise a significant buffering concern.
Most of the proposed homes would have their rear yards facing Route 70, with rear yards only 15 feet deep. Township Engineer Remington & Vernick Engineers states that the required buffering has not been provided. Instead, the plans propose preserving only a six-foot strip of existing vegetation along Route 70 — an arrangement the Engineer bluntly describes as "impractical and not a buffer." The Engineer recommends planting screening trees along the highway frontage.
Perhaps the most significant issue not identified in the Township Engineer's review letter is one readily apparent from the plans themselves: there is no playground or other recreational open space shown anywhere in the proposed 30-unit development.
That omission could prove particularly significant because Kettle Creek's proposed 30 dwelling units place the application exactly at the threshold established by Lakewood's open-space ordinance.
Section 18-808 generally requires major residential developments to provide common open space comprising at least five percent of the development. While the ordinance encourages a payment in lieu of constructing recreational facilities for developments containing 30 dwelling units or fewer, it expressly provides that for projects containing more than 30 dwelling units, the recreation standards apply. That precise provision was the subject of previous litigation involving the Lakewood Planning Board.
And that litigation could have major implications for Tuesday night's application.
In Chestnut Holdings LLC v. Lakewood Township Planning Board, the Planning Board determined that basement apartments could be counted as separate "units" when calculating the number of units for purposes of the Township's recreational open-space requirement. Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson upheld that interpretation, explaining that the Board had determined that permitted basement apartments would be counted as separate households “for purposes of determining the size of the recreational amenity that's required.”
Judge Hodgson further found that the Board could interpret the basement units differently for recreational-open-space purposes than it does when calculating zoning density.
That distinction could be pivotal for Kettle Creek.
Unlike the Chestnut application, which was presented as a 28-unit development, Kettle Creek already proposes 30 dwelling units before any basement apartments are counted.
Therefore, if even one basement apartment is proposed and qualifies as a separate household under the Planning Board's previously upheld interpretation of its ordinance, the development would appear to cross the more-than-30-unit threshold at which §18-808 says the recreational standards apply.
Remarkably, the Township Engineer's October 1 review letter expressly requires the applicant to testify Tuesday night regarding “whether unfinished basements will be proposed.” It nevertheless does not appear to identify the absence of recreational open space as an issue requiring Board consideration.
The issue is hardly academic.
Many of the proposed homes would have rear yards only 15 feet deep and would back directly toward Route 70. The Township Engineer has already found the proposed buffering along Route 70 inadequate, describing the applicant's proposed six-foot strip of preserved vegetation as “impractical and not a buffer.”
At one of Lakewood's busiest highway intersections, an on-site playground would provide children and families with a recreational amenity within their own development rather than requiring them to leave the subdivision and walk toward neighboring residential developments simply to find a playground.
Whether Kettle Creek's basements will push the project over Lakewood's 30-unit recreational threshold - and why no playground or recreational open space is presently depicted on the plans - is therefore likely to be an important question for the Planning Board Tuesday night.
The applicant's traffic consultant, McDonough & Rea Associates, studied the proposed 30 dwelling units and projects approximately 50 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 60 during the afternoon peak hour. The consultant anticipates 30% of site traffic traveling north on New Hampshire Avenue, 20% south on New Hampshire Avenue, 30% west on Route 70 and 20% east on Route 70.
Vehicular access to the subdivision is proposed directly from Route 70 through a boulevard-style entrance known as Brookview Drive, leading to the proposed Kettle Creek Road.
The Lakewood Fire District has also raised concerns with the internal roadway design. Its June review found that the access width alongside the proposed median is less than the required 20-foot minimum for fire apparatus access roads and requested that the cul-de-sac be clearly designated as a no-parking area to preserve emergency access. The Fire District additionally called for another hydrant near the development's entrance.
The Township Engineer has raised still other concerns, including the project's proximity to freshwater wetlands. The report states that the 50-foot wetlands buffer would extend up to the proposed rear decks of numerous homes and expressly describes the proposed design as "not practical," recommending redesign through buffer averaging.
The application is scheduled for a public hearing before the Lakewood Township Planning Board Tuesday, October 13 at 6:00 p.m.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment