Amid much public concern, the West Windsor Planning Board held off voting on two of the four ordinances that would rezone various properties around the township. The other two were approved and now go to Council for public hearings. The other two will be discussed further on Wednesday, March 12.##M:[more]##
That was after more than 125 concerned residents gathered in the Grover Middle School auditorium for the January 23 hearing on the four ordinances that together would affect more than 5,”000 township residents.
The rationale for the proposed changes was presented by planning board attorney Gerald Muller: Because of a township-wide rezoning in the 1990s, about 80 percent of residential lots in the township became nonconforming with township code. The 2002 Master Plan calls for zoning changes to be reflective of actual “lotting” patterns.
One ordinance extended the E, or Educational District, to allow some lots owned by the Mercer County Community College and Mercer County Votech to become part of the district. The second ordinance expands the existing R-2 single-family residential zone to include six lots along Village Road West near the intersection with Quakerbridge Road to make those lots conforming. Current zoning is 1 and 2/3 acres, and they would become 2 acre-lots. Only one of those lots would be nonconforming under the ordinance. The board voted to send these two ordinances to council, which must adopt them to make them law.
The remaining two ordinances drew two hours of public comment, a majority of which was in opposition to the ordinances as proposed. Township Planner John Madden said the township received between 200 and 300 calls before the meeting from concerned residents.
One of those ordinances would rezone the R-20 zone, located in the center of the community. This would affect 3,”040 residential lots, many of which are currently a half-acre each. Currently, the area is zoned for 1 2/3 acre lots, and the rezoning would change it to half-acre zoning to make them conforming, officials said.
The minimum lot area would be 20,”000 square feet, and the permitted floor-area ratios on these properties will rise from 13 percent to 17 percent. The maximum improvement coverage (or the amount of impervious coverage a property is allowed) will increase from 17 to 18 percent. Currently, the minimum lot frontage would go from 85 feet to 75 feet, and the minimum lot width would go from 75 feet to 100 feet.
“Lots of residents questioned whether it’s possible someone could buy two lots, take down the houses and re-subdivide and create three lots,” Madden said. “So one of the policy issues that this board has to weigh if it wants to prevent that possibility from happening is to increase the lot width to 125 feet.”
The ordinance also proposed that the rear yard setback in that zone be set back 30 feet, increased from the current 20 feet. However, residents raised concerns about accessory uses, like swimming pools, that would also have to be setback 30 feet because township ordinance requires the accessory use be setback at the same setback as the principle use.
Another proposal that had residents concerned, he said, was to decrease the side-yard setback from 20 feet to 15. One of the biggest issues, however, was the increase in the maximum floor area ratio from 13 to 17 percent, as residents were concerned about the impact of a neighbor building a huge addition to his or her house. He said the reason for the proposal was that the median floor-area-ratio in the zone was 17 percent, and a lot of requests to the zoning board are for increases to 17 percent. A 20,”000 square-lot with a 13 percent floor-area-ratio would allow for a house of 2,”600 square feet, he said. Moving that up to 17 percent would allow for a 3,”400-square foot house, which equate to an additional 800 square feet of floor area. For a two-story house, that would be about four rooms, two downstairs and two upstairs.
He said the board would have to make a decision about leaving the floor-area-ratio as is, increasing it to 17 percent, or by even allowing it to simply go up to 15 percent. Or, “Should we just cap the size of homes that can be built at 3,”800 square feet?” he suggested.
Madden said with some of the 3,”200 square foot lots that are scattered throughout the R-20 zone could possibly see a maximum of 5,”000-square foot house under the 17 percent floor-area-ratio increase. “That’s why I propose that maybe in this R-20 zone, we cap the size of houses at 3,”800 square feet,” he said.
If the R-20 rezoning goes through, 99.14 percent of the lots in the zone would be conforming. Only nine of the 3,”040 would meet the minimum lot area requirements under current zoning. Officials said the changes would also ease the case load of variance requests going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and ease the expenses of residents who have to come before the board and have to pay fees and suffer delays.
The last ordinance would rezone the R-32 zone, to make it 3/4 acre zoning, which will affect 2,”029 township lots. The zoning on the lots is currently for 1 2/3 acre zoning, but the lots are typically all 3/4 acres in size. With this ordinance, the floor-area ratio would increase from 13 to 15 percent, meaning a person can have an addition of about 640 square feet. The maximum improvement coverage will change from 17 to 20 percent.
During public comment, most residents did voice the concerns Madden mentioned in his explanation for the rezoning. Some said they liked the idea that residents must go before the zoning board to build additions on their properties, and that the ordinance would take away the “protection” from having their neighbors build intrusively.
“I frankly don’t see it’s such a big problem,” said one Sherbrooke Estates resident in reference to sending residents before the zoning board. Being able to “come to the zoning board is a good way for neighbors to have input” on the process, she said. “It’s not a nuisance to the people living in the neighborhood,” that the building would affect, she added.
South Mill Road resident Joseph Cirafici said he didn’t understand why the zoning just couldn’t go back to the way it was. “I certainly don’t want my neighbor’s window 15 feet from mine,” he said.
Others said they didn’t see a need for the zoning conformity. Said Old Trenton Road resident Edward Panasowich: “If you want to conform, let’s keep it conforming” to the way it currently is.
Several people supported the ordinances. One resident said from his experience as a realtor, allowing the lots to be conforming and allowing residents to have the potential for improvements increases property value. Another said he knows of some residents who have waited for the ordinances to come along and would “appreciate being compliant in the house they’ve been in.”
