Planning Board to hear townhome application Resident's appeal contended board did not have jurisdiction BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer SOUTH BRUNSWICK - After much debate, the Zoning Board decided that an appeal brought forth by resident Jeanette Roed could be legitimately heard. However, after much more debate, it was decided that the appeal should be denied anyway. At its July 6 meeting, the Zoning Board decided to stick with the recommendation made by Assistant Planner Brian Bidlack to have an application for 84 townhomes - or multifamily units, depending on who is asked - be heard before the Planning Board. Despite some unusual architectural aspects in the design of the structures, Bidlack determined that K. Hovnanian Central Acquisitions' application was still a permitted use for the zone in question and should be before the Planning Board. Roed argued that because of the unusual nature of these structures, the application needed to be heard before the Zoning Board. The applicant referred to the structures as stacked townhomes, which differ from regular townhomes in that, instead of being partitioned vertically, with different units sharing a common wall, they are partitioned horizontally, sharing a common ceiling or floor, depending on which level someone lives in. However, the township's land use ordinance defines a townhome as one with a vertical partition, and so disagreement over whether they were townhomes was in dispute. If they were not townhomes, they would be considered multifamily homes, which, in the zone where they would be built, are given a 0 percent allowance. Several members of the board were confused over why it would even mention a type of structure in a zoning ordinance if the maximum number of them allowed were 0 percent. Bidlack said that this just means that in order to build a multifamily home, the applicant would need to seek relief from the Planning Board. Roed disagreed. "We, as homeowners, felt that the 0 percent use was established as a protection ... for the very purpose of not introducing new structures. ... If the developer introduced traditional townhomes, we would have welcomed them with open arms," said Roed. Roed's and other residents' opposition to the application comes from their feeling that the structures are too dense and that they would not "fit with the community." Timing deemed appropriate The attorney for the firm, Meryl Guncher, appealed the decision to hear the appeal filed by Roed, contending that the time period she was permitted to file it had already passed. She also said that regardless of whether the application calls for townhomes or multifamily units, both are approved for the zone that they intend to build upon. "We'd very much like to have this resolved and move ahead with our application before the Planning Board, which is what we feel is the proper board," said Guncher. "It's not a case of forum shopping." Guncher pointed out that there is a 20-day appeal period for applications. She said there is an exception for people who didn't know about the application, but asserted that Roed had known about it since February, when notice was mailed to everyone in the area. Roed said that the notice didn't give her the true scope of the project, which she gained in April at the public hearing. She said that after that meeting she had to engage in research to learn the implications of the application. She also said that since the application is not complete, as not all of their expert witnesses have testified yet, the deadline hadn't even begun. Zoning Board Attorney Benjamin Bucca weighed in on the issue and said that the board is allowed to extend the period of time in which an appeal might be filed and also allows the board to interpret the land use ordinance anytime. When the board voted, they unanimously decided that the appeal had been filed in a timely manner and that it could consider whether Bidlack had made the right choice. "This is a procedural issue. ... It appears to me that the applicant, while perhaps not moving as fast as she could have, did act properly here, so I shall vote yes," said board member Harvey Levine. Appeal defeated The vote on whether the application belonged within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, however, did not go as well for Roed. While she pointed out that multifamily homes are permitted in the zoning of the area, it is not allowed in the subdivision site plan part of the ordinance, as it is at 0 percent. Bucca, however, advised the board that when two parts are in conflict to give the zoning part more weight. The applicant would also still need relief from the Planning Board in order to build a multifamily home anyway. The vote was split 3-3. In the event of a tie, the appeal is considered defeated. "This design squarely fits in with what the Planning Board does. ... There is a reason why there are two boards," said board Chairman Marty Hammer. "I know it's in a permitted zone and I feel comfortable with the Planning Board looking at this, but with the design, I just don't think with conscience I can vote yes," said board member Kevin Bifulco. Roed said that with the application going before the Planning Board, she will try to convince the body not to grant the relief needed to build the townhomes.