Housing obligation concerns
BY JENNA O'DONNELL Staff Writer

TINTON FALLS - As many as 200 additional units could be added to the borough's COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) obligation by the preliminary Fort Monmouth re-use plan, according to planners at the April 23 Planning Board meeting.

Representatives of the FortMonmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority (FMERPA) and their planners, the San Francisco based EDAW, Inc. attended the Planning Board meeting to present the preliminary redevelopment plan and hear comments and questions from borough Planning Board members, planners and residents.

Borough officials, planners and members of FMERPA discussed concerns that an increased obligation may be generated but not satisfied by the plan.

During the public portion of the meeting, Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande asked planners from EDAW what the projections were as far as additional COAH obligation and generation of school age children resulting from the proposed development.

The current plan, which is still in flux according to planners, calls for about 260 mixed income residential units on 250 acres in Tinton Falls, part of an overall 1,500 units in the three municipalities that encompass the fort. The plan designates 375 units of affordable housing to satisfy COAH, with about 56 of those units to be located within Tinton Falls.

Todd Poole, director of economic planning at EDAW, who was in attendance to discuss market analysis in the area, said that the 375 was based solely on obligation from new housing and does not reflect employment growth, which is the second factor used by COAH to calculate additional affordable housing obligations.

"That was purposely done because we're holding out some hope that… when these three communities lose a lot of jobs and people will be moving … we might be able to capture 15 to 20 percent of those units as affordable," Poole said. "There are a variety of ways to creatively mitigate the numbers."

Andy Bayer and Paul Gleitz, the affordable housing consultants hired by the borough made the point that the fort property could not fit the housing that it would generate and that an additional component would have to be built elsewhere in the borough.

"The nonresidential component is 150, and it can't fit on the Fort," said Gleitz. "It's almost impossible at this point to accommodate all the nonresidential obligations on the Fort."

During the presentation, EDAW Vice President Tim Delorm affirmed that the current infrastructure could not support additional housing in the plan.

"We are trying to balance … dividing a mixed income housing array with job creation with the attraction of new businesses and the addition of lifestyle improvements in terms of retail and other facilities and all of those cumulatively have an impact on the road system," he said. "We are, in effect, at capacity with the planned improvements."

Delorm used the analogy of a lifeboat at capacity to describe development that would overtax the areas already busy roadways and intersections.

"When you put one more person in the lifeboat, it becomes a submarine," he said.

Transportation is a key constraint, according to Delorm, who added that there had been conversations between planners and the NJ Turnpike Authority to possibly reconfigure Interchange 105 and separate Route 18 traffic.

"Some major roads need some degree of widening … and will be 3 to four lanes in nature," Delorm said, showing a plan that highlighted Tinton Ave, Hope Road and Oceanport Ave. as candidates for possible widening.

Joel Davies, chairman of the Planning Board, expressed concern that the three host communities of Fort Monmouth would need to share additional obligations to COAH due to "lack of foresight" outside the communities with regard to planning for affordable housing.

"I don't see communities saying we'll take the burden throughout the county," Davies said. "I know that Tinton Falls has worked very hard over the last 15 years to make sure we do meet our affordable housing obligations."

Davies said that while he liked the idea of the downtown for the borough, planners had to face the economic realities.

"It doesn't take into account the practicalities of real life," Davies said. "The bottom line is these three communities are being given a bill to pay, essentially, whereas the impact both economically and in terms of housing is felt throughout the region.And that's the problem I'm having."

The plan for a town center was one that the borough should have included in its plans 20 years ago, according to Davies.

"I love the setup. This is fantastic," Davies said. "This gives Tinton Falls a downtown, a park, a community center which does not exist in this borough, but to now throw in another 250 homes impacts not only how this area lives and breathes, it significantly impacts, I believe detrimentally, the economic issues dealing with education as well as taxation. It's going to crush these communities going above and beyond this."

Davies added that COAH should not focus on the creation of jobs, but the loss of over 5,000 that Fort Monmouth will take with it in the planned closure of September of 2011.

Mayor Peter Maclearie asked for options as to what could be changed in the plan to minimize the impact of obligations on the borough.

"I'll trade,"Maclearie said. "How do we get down employment and get more units perhaps to meet that obligation? I just want it spelled out so we know what we're getting at the end of the day."

Maclearie requested that planners leave the boroughs some room in the plans.

"Give us the choice," Maclearie said. "What do we have to take out?"

Afewoptions presented by plannerswere to zone the property to allow for additional residential units, such as allowing for additional stories above the retail space in the town center area and zoning some additional acreage for residential development.

Delorm expressed the possibility of spreading the obligation out among the 1,126 acres, butMaclearie thought that he would run into similar problems in Eatontown and Oceanport.

"The 288 number evolved from discussions with mayors and councils … many different factors led us to this particular number," Delorm said.

One certainty, according to Delorm, was that current infrastructure could not support the build up of the fort property.

Another issue that borough Planning Board members expressed some skepticism toward was the projected addition of 54 school age children in the borough within a 20 year time frame.

Davies thought that the number would not even be close to the number of children that would result from the development on the fort lands.

Delorm said that further discussions between FMERPA and borough planners would be necessary to work through the concerns.

FMERPA presented its preliminary reuse plan for Fort Monmouth's 1,126 acres to the public in March and is currently in a comment period before submitting the plan for approval to state and federal officials.

A final plan will be presented in August before it is submitted to the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Urban Development in September.