Public Outcry Halts Housing Development Plans

The Middletown Planning Board voted unanimously on Wednesday evening to
disapprove a housing development proposal of 342 units on 68 acres in Lincroft.

The decision came after a tidal wave of public protests of overcrowding and traffic problems. The final four and a half hour meeting continued until 11:15 p.m. on Wednesday June 20, but the four hours and 33 minutes were nothing compared to fact that the initial hearing took place over a year ago.

Board member Thomas C. Hall was the first to announce his decision. “All I know is that this particular plan gives me grave concerns,” he said, after explaining that he originally was going to suggest that the Board reconvene at a later date “just to vote.” However, the testimony from the opposition that night caused Hall to change his mind.

As the other board members agreed with Hall, the room broke out in enthusiastic applause. Although the final hearing was not as well attended as earlier ones, it was still hard to find a seat between the many Middletown and Lincroft residents, some of whom were wearing t-shirts protesting the 342 housing units.

Four Ponds Center Associates were behind the proposal, which included 274
townhouses and 68 “flats”— apartments that would have complied with township’s affordable housing requirement— constructed on the former Avaya commercial campus at 307 Middletown-Lincroft Road. The project was first brought before the Planning Board on May 4, 2011, but was very quickly met with disapproval from local residents.

The opposition was led by community groups Lincroft Village Green Association and SONIC, which hired Red Bank attorney Ron Gasiorowski to represent them. During the final hearing, Gasiorowski brought forward three professional witnesses— all of whom stated that the Four Ponds application would create many problems both for surrounding residents and those in the development itself.

“There’s going to be an impact to some degree to the people living in the area
and their daily life,” said real estate appraiser Jon P. Brody, who also said that the development would decrease the value of the homes surrounding it, in some cases as much as 30 to 40 percent.

Another issue was increased traffic congestion. Alexander Litwornia, a civil engineer specializing in traffic coordination and planning, testified that several of the streets in the proposed development were not wide enough to allow sufficient parking and large vehicles like school buses and garbage trucks to get through. This was in addition to the overabundance of traffic that would occur at nearby intersections.

“It has to be modified,” Litwornia said. “It’s unsafe.”

Licensed development planner David Zimmerman added to the opposition’s
standpoint by saying that the overall design of the project was inconvenient. He
focused on the pool and clubhouse that were included in the proposal, and said
they were too far away for any residents to easily walk to. “In my opinion, what
you require in your recreation ordinance is not satisfied in this proposal,” said
Zimmerman, who also commented on the lack of open spaces.

The strongest arguments nevertheless came from the local residents themselves, who had to be reminded more than once by the Board to keep quiet during the testimony. When they were allowed to speak their opinions at the end, several residents emphasized how they had moved to the area to get away from overcrowded places like Staten Island, Brooklyn, Hoboken and Queens.

Attorney Rick Brodsky represented Four Ponds, urging the Board throughout the hearing to consider Middletown’s requirements for affordable housing and the ramifications that will arise if such housing is not built. Brodsky also mentioned the fact that the owner of the now-vacant property is running out of options. At an earlier hearing, planning and engineering professionals testified that the proposal fully complied with the township’s zoning requirements. For example, 5.5 units are allowed per acre, a half more than what the plans called for.

“Affordable housing is a good thing,” Gasiorowski said during his closing
statement. “But this plan is bad.”

After making their decision, the Board agreed to have an official resolution written by August 1.