After three years of discussion and drafting, an ordinance to rezone a 46-acre tract of open fields tucked between Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook roads into a Planned Mixed Use Neighborhood has been adopted by the Planning Board, setting the path for bringing affordable housing for people with disabilities to West Windsor.
After continuing a dialogue with the residents in the immediate area who will be most affected by the project, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to adopt the ordinance. The ordinance will head to the Township Council for approval. Once approved there, the owners of the property will have to submit a site plan to the board, where specific details of the proposed project will be reviewed.
The ordinance calls for a mixed-use development on the former Maneely site off Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook roads. Maneely Princeton LLC, which owns the site, sought to have the site placed into a new Planned Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Affordable Housing (PMN) District.
Plans include a mix of modest-sized stores, personal and professional services, corporate suites, market rate-residential units and Project Freedom, which provides affordable housing for people with disabilities. Project Freedom is a non-profit organization that develops barrier-free housing to enable disabled individuals to live independently. Of the 46.21 acres, Maneely has proposed to provide 10 of the acres for Project Freedom. The concept plans also propose that 15 acres of the site be preserved, including the detention areas.
Plans originally called for 51 townhouses, 46 apartments, and 60 Project Freedom affordable housing units on the site. The non-residential component of the site was proposed to include 202 hotel suites with a 7,800 square-foot business center and a 3,200 square-foot fitness center, as well as 11,000 square feet of office space and 40,000 square feet of retail space. However, as part of the township’s third-round state Council on Affordable Housing obligations, 15 additional affordable units were added to the Project Freedom site before the township sent its plan to COAH in 2008.
Board members were most concerned with minimizing the impacts the project would have on one resident, Amira Scurato, who lives at the corner of Bear Brook and Old Bear Brook Roads, who urged the board to include more protection for her quality of life. The ordinance allows the retail on the Maneely tract to be located along Bear Brook Road, but prohibits it along Old Bear Brook Road, with the exception of one corner retail building which would be located at the edge of the roundabout, along Old Bear Brook Road, across the street about 200 feet from Scurato’s house.
The reason for this, board professionals said, was that at that corner, there would be a proposed roundabout at the intersection of the two roads, and retail establishments would be needed on the corners of the access road to draw patrons into the development.
In a prior meeting in August, the board had added the provision that no retail be allowed on Old Bear Brook Road, with the exception of the corner triangle of the property where Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook meet, where a roundabout would be located as a traffic calming and control measure. The height of the buildings on site was raised from 35 to 38 feet.
However, because of the residents’ concerns, particularly about having any retail along Old Bear Brook Road, the board included a cut-off line so that retail would not be allowed to be built anywhere along Old Bear Brook Road, with the exception of the one corner, which was located across the street from Scurato’s home.
With regard to setbacks of the buildings along both roads, professionals had changed the language to base the location of the buildings on “build to” lines, instead of setbacks so that the ordinance would be clear in defining where the building lines begin. Along Old Bear Brook Road, those “build to” lines would begin 35 feet from the public right of way, giving the residents a slightly larger setback area. On Bear Brook Road, the “build to” lines would begin 25 feet behind the public right of way, while nonresidential uses would get a build-to line of 35 feet.
However, during the September 2 meeting, the board changed the language back to a 35-foot setback — and not a 35-foot build-to line — because residents pointed out that having a build-to line would require that a developer build right on the 35-foot line. However, a setback would allow a developer to build the buildings further back from that line, if desired. Elsewhere, “we’re trying to create a streetscape,” so the build-to lines were kept.
The board also added language to specify that the retail be primarily be located along the development’s “Main Street,” or the internal road leading into the development from the roundabout. “We didn’t conceive of them all the way down Old Bear Brook, and we didn’t conceive of them down Bear Brook Road, either,” Township Planner John Madden said. “Our feeling at the staff level is that any retail developer is going to tell us that you need some retail on a public street to draw people in.”
But to lessen the impact to the resident, a wall of landscaping design is included in the requirements, as well as a provision that does not allow for doors and signs for the business to be placed on the Old Bear Brook Road side of the building. The board also included an illustrative list of suggested uses for the retail area, which include bike shops, bike rental facilities, and a bank. However, all drive-thru facilities (including for banks and for fast food) are prohibited.
Traffic consultant Gary Davies told residents during the meeting that the roundabout would be comparable in size to the roundabout at Alexander Road, but that it would carry probably only about 1/3 of the traffic that the Alexander Road bridge does. And Madden said that language from the sign requirements in the redevelopment plan were used in this ordinance.
“If we have to spend all of these meetings and quibble about feet, it says to me it’s too dense,” Scurato said in beginning her conversation with the board’s professionals. “It’s simply too dense. It’s going to look like the internal roads in Windsor Haven,” which she said were too narrow for cars to park on both sides of the street.
Scurato told the board that if she stood on the edge of the grass outside her property, along the road, the retail building would be as close as the distance between the two walls of the council chambers.
And, “even though I appreciate the effort was made to say there would be landscaping, what landscaping is going to grow 38 feet tall?” Scurato asked. She said she was concerned that the 38-foot retail building would block all natural light from her property. “Whatever you put in front of there, I don’t see how that will allow some natural light.”
Scurato also said that she did not understand how placing retail at the entrance of the development to draw patrons in would be consistent with the board’s desire to allow for a retail development that would serve primarily the neighborhood’s residents as well as residents in Project Freedom.
A few years ago when discussions about the project began, Scurato said the mayor and other professionals talked about a possible zoning change for the few houses in the area of Old Bear Brook Road to allow for better resale abilities for their properties, Scurato said.
According to Scurato, the owners of those homes have different desires — some of them want to be rezoned and the others do not. However, Scurato said she personally would like her home to be considered for a rezoning, similar to that of Windsor Haven, to allow uses like doctor’s offices on her property, to make it more appealing to a buyer if she wants to sell in the future. Keeping it zoned specifically for residential would hurt her chances of resale if a retail use would be located across the street.
In response to her comments, Madden said the project was not “too dense” because the 46-acre site would have a total of 175 dwelling units, which is equivalent to four dwelling units per acre — the lowest density in any of the affordable housing/inclusionary zones in the township. He also said that given the setbacks, a retail building would be located at least 150 feet from her home, since the distance from the two property lines is 85 feet. This would not be equivalent to Scurato’s council room wall-to-wall comparison, Madden added.
And, “a 38-foot building is not going to shadow your lawn,” Madden said. In response to her comments about keeping the retail specifically for the use by nearby residents in the neighborhood, There is “no retail center that does not rely on at least some drive-by traffic to support it,” Madden said. However, “there are no destination uses that are going to draw people from great distances.”
Madden also testified that a market expert brought in by the developers told planning officials that a developer would be lucky to get 40,000 square feet of retail into the development, and that most likely, the retail center will see around 20,000.
Madden also explained that the landscaping language in the ordinance, as well as the provision that entrances and signs would not be used on the side of the building facing the resident’s property, was a compromise. He said the township was in a difficult position because there is an inclusionary zone that it needs to build, and at the same time make attractive to developers. On the other hand, the ordinance has to minimize the impact to the homeowners. “I believe we’ve done that,” he said.
Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller said revisiting the rezoning idea for Scurato’s property would be a good one.
Other residents also voiced their concerns. Valerie Servis, of Harris Road, said she was concerned about the development’s ability to flourish in tough economic times.
“Those businesses will catch a lot of the people who want to get a cup of coffee on the way to the train station, but what happens when redevelopment comes along?” she asked. “How’s that all going to be able to survive?”
Madden said development of the Maneely tract would happen before redevelopment comes to fruition because once the ordinance is adopted at the Planning Board and Township Council levels, the next step is simply a site plan. For redevelopment, however, many steps need to happen, including the selection of a redeveloper, funding from state, and more details on the circulation and infrastructure have to be determined.
Servis also said she did not understand why any of the buildings on the Maneely tract needed to be higher than three stories. She said buildings that tall should be reserved for areas near Route 1, not in a residential area like the Maneely tract.
“Collectively, the nine homes that are going to be affected by this have over 200 years in the township,” said Marie Dursin, another Old Bear Brook Road resident. “On one hand, I like the progress, but on the other hand, I worry about the quality of life.”
Holly Kelemen took exception to some professionals’ suggestion that the development would be a good location for a post office branch. She also urged the board to include as much protection as possible, specifically with regard to the proximity of the location of any of the buildings on the Maneely tract to their homes, for homeowners living along Old Bear Brook.
“We’re not looking for the traffic of mail trucks coming in and out of this development,” she said. “For our neighborhood, it’s about the quality of life, not money.”
After the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed, Planning Board member Larry McGill said he was “a little uncomfortable with the fact that a retail building could be built a little more than 200 feet in front of the resident’s house,” referring to Scurato’s property. He suggested an amendment to the ordinance that would specifically state that no retail building be located within 300 feet of a resident’s house. However, Madden argued against this suggestion, saying that a 300-foot line would hinder the retail development on the Bear Brook Road side of the development.
Planning Board member Diane Ciccone suggested including a design directive that would encourage the space in front of Scurato’s house to be used as a plaza, rather than for retail.
Madden said that language could be used to alert developers that “we want this corner treated very sensitively.” Muller suggested adding language that would suggest the corner could be developed into a “corner plaza” or that placement of non-retail buildings could be located at that site.
McGill said he had felt uncomfortable with the original language because it suggested that a retail building will definitely be placed there, and he wanted to “open up the language a bit.”
“I think all of these ideas have come forward, and everyone understands those views,” and the developer will use that in developing the site plans, said board member Simon Pankove.
Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner said the board will still look at the site closely in a manner that is “very sensitive to the concerns of the residents who are impacted. But we are also sensitive to the fact that there are many good things that come out of this project. We have to move forward.”
