Politics & Government

Planning Board Gives Lacey Town Village Extension

Planning Board has yet to decide on non-age-restricted housing

The Planning Board once again asked Lacey Town Village to return during next month’s meeting after the applicant did not make any modifications to its plan for a non-age restricted housing development.

The Lacey Town Village was originally approved as age-restricted housing in 2005. The applicant re-approached the Planning Board with modified plans because legislation (S2577 1R) passed by Gov. Jon Corzine in July 2009 allowed developers to challenge towns over the age-restricted status of pending developments.

The law, proposed to stimulate the housing market, applied to developments that were approved but had yet to begin construction or sales.

Find out what's happening in Laceywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The applicant’s plans for the market-rate housing have not changed from the age-restricted plans.

With 84 units (67 market rate units and 17 affordable units), some with the potential for three bedrooms, the development has 44 parking spaces planned. No on-street parking is allowed, because the development’s network of streets is 24 feet wide. The development would have a 1,503 square foot community center with a capacity of 139 people and 10 parking spaces.

Find out what's happening in Laceywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“They’re trying to fit a size 12 in a size 10 here,” Mayor Gary Quinn said.

The board had previously requested changes be made to the location of the tot lot and that more parking be provided.

Attorney Rick Brodsky said that Engineer Scott Turner investigated moving the Tot Lot but could not find a better place for it. Additional parking had not been included either.

McSweeney said 20 school-age children per year would be expected to live in the 84 units, according to a Rutgers University study. This statistic does not include pre-school children.

“Now what you’ve done is divided a tot lot for a real small segment of the population whereas there are school-age children and other people who could use other recreation,” Board Attorney Joseph Coronato said.

Jim Letellier of Lacey said that Corzine’s Conversion Act is need-based and age-restricted housing is not needed in Lacey Township as Ocean County has the highest growing senior citizen rate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2009, the state’s average is 13.5 percent senior citizens compared to Ocean County’s 21.1 percent.

“Our plan and our request for the conversion isn’t based on any census figures or public numbers, it is based upon the provision of the Conversion Act as set forth by the New Jersey legislature,” Planner Dan McSweeny said.

Letellier also added that most workforce residents of Lacey including teachers and fire fighters would not qualify for low-income housing. According to the State of New Jersey’s Department of Education, the average salary for a teacher in the Lacey Township School District is $52,848.

Lacey Resident Regina Discenza showed concern for the increase of children, which may increase taxes. According to the State of New Jersey Department of Education, currently, the total cost per pupil in Lacey Township is $12,884.

“My concern is the cost to educate 20 children. I think this is going to be a tremendous drain on the community and I want to go on record to objecting bringing two more children into Lacey,” Discenza said.

The lack of parking also remained a problem throughout the meeting.

“We all know people have stuff, whether they have kids or they don’t, they all have stuff and you need storage,” Lorraine Sansone of Lacey Township said.

The units do not have basements and there are no provisions for sheds. Sansone said most likely, the residents would use the garages for storage, which McSweeney said should be used for parking.

The primary areas for parking include resident’s driveways and garages. There are 44 scattered parking spaces throughout the development. McSweeney is only estimating two cars per home.

“It’s great to say the parking is out there but that’s not, I don’t believe, what the governor had in mind when he passed this law, that you can just take and shove all the stuff into one area,” Quinn said. “We’ve asked the question, wouldn’t it be a better situation if the plan was modified somehow, which the law allows for, to make it more consistent to unrestricted-ages living in that development.”

Attorney Rick Brodsky confirmed that the applicant does not intend to make changes to the plan.

Lacey resident Laurie Way believes that the townhouses will not sell in this economic climate. Quinn confirmed that about eight percent of the homes in Lacey are foreclosures and Way said that homes in Lacey are selling for less than $290,000, which is cheaper than the townhouses.

According to McSweeney, the market rate units are expected to sell at $290,000 while the affordable units would be listed at approximately $108,000. Once the development is approved, the anticipated design year is 2013.

Although Brodsky said that it is not the intention of the applicant to let those homes remain on the market.

“I hear a lot of pros and cons, for and against it, but there are no other condos in town…we really don’t have this any place else in town. They’re townhouses. It’s something that we’re currently lacking in this town,” Lacey resident Tim O’Connor said. “In this market, this economy, for the next couple of years, this is what people are going to be buying.”

The Planning Board also previously asked that the applicant to provide a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) approval for a road they plan to build, which would be an extension of Railroad Avenue.

The applicant’s representatives believe “Road D” is included in the permit but Quinn said the road is not included within the CAFRA approval. If this is the case, that property may still be owned by Lacey Township and the applicant would need to submit a Property Owners Certification before getting a CAFRA permit.

The Planning Board asked the applicant to return on March 15 so the Board’s Planner could cross-examine the applicant’s planner and traffic engineer. The Board also asked the applicant to modify the parking and get the CAFRA approval.

If the applicant does not agree to an extension, they may take Lacey Township to court but Quinn believes they will be back.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here