Planners deny conversion of age-restricted housing

Planners deny conversion of age-restricted housing
Board cites impact on schools from Rose Glen application
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
After months of lengthy testimony, the Tinton Falls Planning Board has ruled against an application that would convert an approved age-restricted development to non-age-restricted housing.

The board at its June 9 meeting voted 9-0 against the application by Caruso Building to convert the Rose Glen development. Board member and Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera said the impact of the conversion would be too detrimental on the borough.

“I don’t see the overall benefits in approving this application,” he said. “I believe this will be a detriment to the public good, this will increase taxes, this will increase services, and this will also increase the supply for housing where the demand … just does not exist.”

The proposed housing development, which would be located between Shafto Road and West Park Avenue and Tormee Drive, was originally approved as an agerestricted development in 2007, but Caruso Building did not go forward with plans.

The developer was able to seek a conversion to market-rate units after Senate bill S-2577 was signed into law last spring. The bill permits the conversion of age-restricted housing to non-age-restricted housing under certain circumstances, and the developer petitioned the Planning Board to approve such a conversion.

The board began hearing testimony by Kenneth Pape, attorney for Caruso, at the March 3 meeting.

The original approved application included 270 single-family units and 34 affordable income units, totaling 1,148 bedrooms.

The conversion application called for 1,110 bedrooms in 243 single-family units and 61 affordable units.

In response to a query from a member of the audience, Special Planning Board Attorney Thomas Hirsch explained the process for an appeal.

“[If] either the applicant or some other party was dissatisfied with the board’s decision, they would file an appeal with Monmouth County,” he said. “It is done in a summary manner; there [are] no other witnesses allowed or testimony presented, and the court has to determine if the board’s action was unreasonable.

“If someone is dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, they have the right to take it up to the appellate court.”

Before the vote, Tinton Falls Planner Paul Gleitz, of Heyer, Gruel and Associates, said that if the conversion were approved, the cost would outweigh the potential revenues.

“Because it is school-age children generated, it is anticipated that there will be more school costs than revenues,” he said. “Agerestricted development, you would see a surplus, and a portion of that would be to the school.”

According to a report furnished by Gleitz, if the development were converted, the borough would operate at a $588,000 tax deficit annually and the school district would be hit with a $3.8 million annual deficit.

However, if the development remains age-restricted, Gleitz predicted that it would result in a $1.3 million tax surplus, $20,000 to the borough and $1.3 million to the school district.

The applicant has previously used 0.26 children per unit as a multiplier to determine the number of school-age children that would result from the non-age-restricted housing, estimating that 79 school-age children would live in the development.

But Gleitz used 1.04 as his multiplier, which would result in 275 pupils living in the housing.

Councilman Gary Baldwin cited the impact the conversion would have on the zone before voting against the application.

“Simply because the Legislature made this conversion possible doesn’t negate the impact on our master plan,” he said. “The master plan encourages development of plans with office and light industrial in the IOP [Industrial Office Park] zone.

“An age-restricted community was intended for that zone, so the original application I thought was excellent. Market-rate housing does not meet this land-use objective.”

Baldwin said the application does not achieve most of the borough’s stated goals.

“Our plan was to strengthen the tax base and encourage private investment consistent with the community’s needs, and I do not believe this application meets that objective,” he said. “The cost of servicing residential units tends to exceed the revenue such units produce.

“There was some economic gain from the first application and a significant economic loss if the conversion gets approved.”

Planning Board member Gordon Brown said the original application was approved for a reason that the conversion does not satisfy.

“That land was originally designated IOP, and we did allow the age-restricted [housing] based on a representation that there was a solid market for that type of development and based on an understanding that there would not be an impact on the school system,” he said.

Before the vote took place, Pape, of Heilbrunn, Pape & Goldstein, argued that in the last year, a lot has been learned about the conversions.

“The statute is about to have its first birthday — it’s almost 1 year old,” he said. “When we filed the application, it was new and somewhat untried, and as we’ve been here with you through the winter and the spring, the applications around the state from the conversions have been many.

“The complexity really began because it was new and different from the municipal land-use acts.”

Pape also said that he expects the number of bedrooms to decrease as the units are sold.

“We actually have less bedrooms than the original project,” he said. “The way that the project was originally approved, we increased the number of affordable units without increasing the total number of units.

“We have a total of six models, three of them are three bedroom and three of them are four bedroom. Unless every single buyer that comes into the community buys a four bedroom, the number of bedrooms is going to go down again because half the opportunities are smaller than four bedrooms.

“I don’t know how many people are going to buy each of the units, but it’s a fair and accurate statement to say there could be any number of three bedrooms.”

Hirsh admitted that certain language in the statute makes the board’s job harder.

“The question was what did the Legislature intend when it stated this use must now be deemed permitted but then added the language that the board would have to consider if it was not a permitted use, ‘will it have a substantial negative impact on the zone plan’ or ‘will it have a substantial detriment to the public good,’ ” he said. “They don’t go together in any of the case law we have.”

He also said that the statute fails to address the fact that every conversion may be a different situation.

“The trouble I think municipalities have is the fact that not all adult communities are the same,” he said. “You could have a development of nothing but two-bedroom units, there could be 50 of them, 20 of them or 500 of them.

“The impact on the town is not going to be the same for every conversion,” he added. “There can be so many sizes, shapes of agerestricted communities.”

Hirsh said the language in the statute means that the board could consider the impact on the schools.

“A court might someday say you absolutely cannot consider the impact on the school system, but I believe the way the statute was amended, that it has somewhat of a broader sense to it,” he said.

Former Councilman Paul Ford said during the public comment portion that the conversion would destroy the quality of life in the borough.

“You add children, it is going to be devastating,” he said. “Really, it is going to ruin our whole quality of life in Tinton Falls with increased traffic and higher taxes.”
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.