NJ Developers Seek 126 Apartments On Edmond Road

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are considering two controversial proposed regulatory changes that, if approved, would allow a New Jersey firm to proceed with planning for a proposed $9 million, 126-unit rental apartment complex on Edmond Road.

Princewood Properties, LLC, of Princeton, N.J., is seeking P&Z approval to change the zoning designation for a parcel on the west side of Edmond Road from M-2 (Industrial) to B-2 (Business). Princewood also is seeking P&Z approval to allow multiple family housing as a permitted land use in a B-2 zone. Town zoning regulations currently do not allow such apartment complexes in any zone.

If P&Z were to approve those two regulatory changes, Princewood could then proceed with site planning for its envisioned 126-unit rental complex on the site, which lies behind the Shell service station at the intersection of Church Hill Road and Edmond Road. A formal development application would be subject to P&Z’s public hearing process and other controls.

Princewood also would need developmental approvals from the Conservation Commission, serving as the town wetlands agency. The firm further would need an approval from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) for wastewater disposal into the municipal sewer system.

In 2000, Princewood had approached WPCA and P&Z about gaining approvals for the proposed complex, but withdrew its application for regulatory changes from P&Z consideration in July 2000.  

In June 2000, WPCA members had told Princewood they were not willing to provide sewer service for most of the proposed apartment buildings because most of the 27-acre site is outside of the town sewer district. WPCA then pointed out to Princewood that the town has no allotment of sewage treatment capacity for land uses outside the sewer district.

In the past, Princewood has explained to WPCA members that the availability of sewer service would be a key aspect of the project, adding that unless the development firm is allocated sufficient sewage treatment capacity by the WPCA, it probably would not proceed with the project.

The municipal sewer system was designed with current town zoning regulations and zoning designations in mind. WPCA has a developmental framework with which it decides how to allocate the town’s limited remaining sewage treatment capacity at the sewage treatment plant.

Opposition

The Princewood proposal has attracted opposition.

In a letter to P&Z, the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency states its opposition to allowing multifamily housing in a B-2 zone, due to an incompatibility of uses within the zone.

American Wire Corporation of 1 Wire Road, which is adjacent to the Edmond Road site, has stated its opposition to the apartment proposal, as has Michael Burton Builders of Sandy Hook, which owns property near the site.

The Borough Zoning Commission is formally opposing the Princewood proposal.

In a letter to P&Z, the borough zoners state: “The addition of this amount of residential traffic to the area would make one of the borough’s main gateways impossibly dangerous.”

The borough’s eastern boundary is the Housatonic Railroad’s rail line, which lies just west of the development site.

The borough zoners state that the proposed apartment development would worsen traffic congestion and would pose safety concerns due to a lack of sidewalks near the site. The Borough Zoning Commission adds that Princewood has provided insufficient traffic flow information.

After reviewing Princewood’s apartment construction concept, the town’s Economic Development Commission (EDC) decided that the proposal does not constitute local “economic development” and consequently decided not to support it.

Building apartments on the Edmond Road site would reduce the area that is locally reserved for business growth, according to the EDC. The site is better suited for commercial uses than residential uses, it adds.

Noting its proximity to Interstate 84, the EDC also says the area proposed for apartments is too noisy for a residential use and the traffic generated by an apartment complex would compound existing traffic congestion in that area near Exit 10.

Princewood had sought an EDC endorsement for its apartment construction proposal.

 

Public Hearing

 Attorney William Denlinger, representing Princewood at a November 1 P&Z public hearing, said the 27 acres that the firm proposes for rezoning from M-2 to B-2 zoning would abut another area with B-2 zoning.

Mr Denlinger said the 27-acre site is well suited for a rental apartment complex, citing its proximity to I-84. Although the property has been on the real estate market for about 15 years, there has been little interest in its industrial development in light of extensive wetlands on the site, he said.

The multifamily regulations proposed by Princewood would allow up to six apartment units to be constructed on an acre of land, he said, adding that the developer would provide P&Z with a complete traffic study as part of a site development application.

Jeffrey Albert, Princewood’s managing partner, said primary access to the proposed complex would be from Edmond Road, which is a private road. The site is generally flat and contains two streams, he said. The property has a large swath of wetlands, constituting about 28 percent of the site.

Through its proposed regulatory changes, Princewood is seeking to add luxury-grade multifamily rental housing as a permitted use in the area, Mr Albert said. The firm seeks to build a complex containing seven buildings holding 18 apartments each. There would be 88 two-bedroom apartments and 38 one-bedroom units. Some apartments would have garage space beneath the units.

The site’s topography does not lend itself to purely commercial uses, Mr Albert said, adding the developer would use design criteria sensitive to the site’s physical limitations in constructing apartments.

He told P&Z members that apartment renters are a diverse group comprised of older people, younger people, single persons, and divorcees.

 Princewood believes the apartment complex proposal constitutes a form of “economic development,” Mr Albert said, noting an apartment complex would attract a workforce to Newtown and these residents would spend money locally. The proposed complex also would provide a form a housing that is currently not available in Newtown, he said.

According to Princewood, the site represents less than five percent of the industrially zoned land in town. The complex would attract about 220 residents, which is less than one percent of the local population, according to the firm. The firm maintains that its proposal represents a small number of apartments on a small land area that would contain few school-age children, probably about 14.

The firm estimates that it would pay approximately $186,000 annually in taxes, based on the current property taxation schedule.

The proposed development would add about 750 vehicle trips daily to local roads, according to Princewood.

The town’s 1993 Plan of Development and Conservation calls for increased diversity in local housing types, the firm adds.

Mr Albert told P&Z members Princewood would charge monthly rents ranging from $1,100 to $1,600. The three-story structures would be suitable housing for people such as police officers, schoolteachers, clerks, and office workers, he said.

P&Z Response

P&Z member Lilla Dean said the area proposed for apartments is very noisy, citing nearby heavy traffic and the presence of the American Wire factory. She also noted WPCA has made no commitment to provide sewer service to the site.

“I’m just wondering if this thing would fly at all,” she mused, noting that she would not want to live in that area. Ms Dean questioned the traffic statistics provided by Princewood, saying they appear to understate traffic flow.

Mr Denlinger told P&Z members the site is partially located in the municipal sewer district, adding that WPCA needs direction from P&Z in terms allowing such development in the area.

P&Z Chairman Daniel Fogliano asked Mr Denlinger why Princewood does not propose a construction density of two to three apartments per acre, instead of six apartments per acre.

 Mr Denlinger said the site lends itself to providing an alternative local form of housing. “It’s a nice isolated location, that out’s of the way, but close,” he said.

Mr Fogliano asked if Princewood is willing to build only 60 apartments on the site, instead of 126 units.

“It would be difficult,” Mr Albert responded, considering developmental economics.

 “This [apartment proposal] seems to be very distant from where the commission members want to be,” Mr Fogliano said.

“I really see a severe traffic issue here,” especially on Saturday mornings, said P&Z member Robert Taylor.

Mr Albert told P&Z members that if Princewood does not receive P&Z approval to allow apartment complexes in a B-2 zone, it is not interested in pursuing its parallel requested change of zone from M-2 to B-2 for the site.

“This is a good site for this [residential] use,” Mr Albert said.

P&Z members took no action on the two Princewood proposals. P&Z discussion and action on the proposals is expected at an upcoming session.