Township To Face Non-Age-Restricted Housing Applicant In First Court Hearing

Lacey Township will be facing their first hearing on Wednesday, July 13 against the applicant of Lacey Town Village, a non-age restricted housing development proposed at Laurel Boulevard and Route 9, Mayor Gary Quinn said.

The Planning Board denied the application on Monday, March 14 due to various unanswered questions and the lack of modifications made to improve the plans, resulting in a court order.

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.

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

The Planning Board brought in John Maczuga, manager of the Planning Division of T&M Associates, to give his two cents. Maczuga questioned the viability and practicality of the project and offered recommendations.

The Planning Board then deemed the project as a “detriment” to Lacey Township forcing the applicant, Lacey Township Building Associates, LLC, to take legal action.

“We’re certainly looking to do what we can to help the applicant… This is unfortunately the road they chose to go,” Quinn said.

“We’re challenging the boards decision because we don’t agree with them. The board did not act in accordance with the Conversion Act,” said Gordon Gemma of Lacey Township Building Associates, LLC.

Despite the board’s denial, the site owner was able to begin development because the site plan and stream encroachment permit, which were approved five years ago when the development was originally approved, remain valid according to the Permit Extension Act, DEP Spokesperson Larry Hajna said.

If the applicant completes the drainage of the property and the site plan is still denied in court, they are responsible for satisfying the requirements of Ocean Soil Conservation, Quinn said. The applicant would have to stabilize and replant the land so it could have natural growth.

One issue was that “Road D,” which would be an extension of Railroad Avenue, was not included in the applicant’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit. A code enforcement officer of the Department of Environmental Protection later confirmed this.