Builder’s appeal imminent, after plan’s rejection

Matzel & Mumford

says its proposal followed

twp. ordinances ‘to a T’

By vincent todaro

Staff Writer

EAST BRUNSWICK — Developer Matzel & Mumford is expected to appeal the Planning Board’s denial of its controversial Tamarack Hollow application.

The firm’s vice president of government affairs, David Fisher, said last week that the application to build 56 homes on 230 acres off Fresh Ponds Road conformed with township ordinances and should have been approved.

The board last month voted 7-2 against the application after several hearings during which many residents objected to the proposal.

The board memorialized its resolution rejecting the application May 28, and Fisher said his company has a 45-day period in which it can file an appeal from the time the resolution is published.

"We’ll probably file well in advance of that," he said.

Fisher said the proposal "followed township ordinances to a T" and met the requirements of the township’s recently enacted Rural Preservation zoning ordinance.

He said there was "no reason" for the board to deny the plan.

The application marked the first time that anyone sought to build a large-scale development under the rural preservation ordinance, which allows one home per 6 acres.

The developer used the zone’s cluster option, which permits the construction of one home per 3.5 acres as long as at least 75 percent of all properties involved remains open space.

Township officials have supported establishing the rural preservation zone as a way to preserve open space and reduce the density of future development, but the zone is being challenged in court by a group of landowners who argue it has unfairly devalued their property.

In denying the Tamarack Hollow application, some board members said they were concerned about a proposed wastewater treatment facility that would provide sewer service to the homes.

The facility was sought because there are no municipal sewer lines in that section of the township.

According to Fisher, the wastewater system was in compliance with the guidelines of the state Department of Environmental Protection.

"It has to meet ground water standards, which are a higher standard," he said. "Instead of the usual raw sewage (treatment), this is treated biologically and chemically to meet state ground water standards."

The plant would have been owned and operated by a private company, Applied Wastewater Management, whose representatives testified as part of the application process.

"All of the information we provided reassured, or should have reassured, the township that this is a competent company that can handle wastewater," he said.

Fisher suggested that public pressure may have caused the board’s decision.

"It’s hard for me to believe we didn’t adequately comply with their regulations," Fisher said of the township.

"We consulted with the township along the way to know what they were looking for," he said. "They felt this option was a way to preserve the open space concept they developed that fit this particular property."

He said Matzel & Mumford was encouraged by the township to use the cluster zoning option rather than running sewer lines "all over the place," as would be needed if the application called for building homes on a larger portion of the 230 acres.

The application called for construction of the 56 homes on only one of the four non-contiguous parcels that make up the 230 acres owned by the company. Each home would be built on a lot of about one acre in size, meaning that about 175 acres would remain undeveloped.

Former planning board member Richard Walling formally contested the application, arguing that the applicant misrepresented facts regarding the development and that the proposal would present an environmental nightmare. He and members of the Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership said a state Department of Environmental Protection memorandum showed good reason for the application to be denied.

The memo, dated Sept. 19, 2001, from a state report on Matzel & Mumford’s application, says the proposed site of the treatment facility is within an environmentally sensitive planning area (PA5).

"Because the environs in Environmentally Sensitive Planning Areas are by definition more sensitive to disturbance than the environs in other Planning Areas, new development in these environs has the potential to destroy the very characteristics that define the area," the memo said, quoting the state plan.

"This project has a high potential to degrade the area’s environment by fragmenting an open space corridor," the memo said, noting the single-family housing development would be surrounded by preserved areas.

"A single-family tract development, at this location, is contrary to the PA5 land use policy objective," it said, later noting the proposal "generally is inconsistent with the objectives and goals of the State Plan in this area of the state."

Councilman David Stahl, who also sits on the board, said he voted against the application in large part because of concerns he had with the wastewater treatment facility.

He said he feared local water aquifers could be damaged "catastrophically" in the event of a failure with the system.

Stahl said he also was concerned East Brunswick property owners would eventually be forced to pay to support the facility.

The applicant testified that only the owners of the 56 homes would subsidize the facility, but Stahl said there have been other instances where private developments have made the township pay for services. For example, the township is now providing garbage pickup for some condominiums in accordance with a state mandate.

He said he also was troubled by traffic studies that were presented. The amount of traffic on Fresh Ponds Road would increase, especially where the road intersects with Hardenburg and Church lanes, he said.

"The intersection of Riva Avenue and Hardenburg would also be impacted, and that’s at Bicentennial Park," he said. "There are a lot of kids playing there."

He said his vote had nothing to do with the rural preservation zoning law.

"There are additional grounds a planning board can deny an application," he said.