|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 24, 2007 13:18:30 GMT -5
Senior residences planned for Orchard Street
Proposal is result of settlement between Freehold and developer
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
Orchard Street will become home to a new community of age-restricted condominiums if all goes in the applicant's favor at the Oct. 24 meeting of Freehold Borough Planning Board.
Members of the Borough Council in Freehold Borough paved the way for the agerestricted homes when they adopted an ordinance several months ago to rezone Orchard Street from a commercial manufacturing zone to a zone in which age-restricted condominium complexes are a permitted use.
The ordinance states that a condominium complex must contain at least 5 acres and that no more than 30 units are attached in a series. The units cannot exceed three stories in height unless there is underground parking, and then they may extend to four stories. The complex must have two parking spaces for each unit.
Bay Dock Holdings LLC, of Lavallette, will be before the Planning Board seeking site plan approval to construct 30 age-restricted (over 55) condominium units in two four-story buildings with a ground level lobby, a three-story clubhouse and courtyards.
According to the application, the second, third and fourth floors of the buildings will house the condominiums, and the first or ground-level floor will be used as a parking area. Two entrances are proposed to provide access to the first-floor parking areas from Orchard Street.
The buildings will be constructed on 1 acre of the 5-acre parcel, leaving 80 percent as open space.
The applicant originally applied to the Planning Board in August 2004 to build 16 townhouses on the parcel. Plans called for 1,800-square-foot two-story homes with three bedrooms and an attached garage. The applicant said the townhouses would sell for about $300,000.
After several hearings, the plan for the townhouses was denied by one vote. The board found that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence as to why it was necessary to build 16 threebedroom townhouses on the tract.
One board member called the plan too intense for the area, but left open the possibility that the tract might be suitable for a different type of residential proposal.
Bay Dock Holdings sued Freehold Borough in June 2005. According to the lawsuit, the borough's master plan re-examination recommends that the site on Orchard Street be rezoned from commercial manufacturing to a recreational district which permits only not-for-profit recreation uses.
The lawsuit also claimed that the zoning of the property for commercial manufacturing is "not consistent with the available infrastructure, economic market demands as well as surrounding properties."
The two sides worked out a settlement that resulted in the current plan for age-restricted units that will come before the Planning Board next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Oct 24, 2007 13:24:12 GMT -5
Marc, or anyone in the know,
given that there is a history, what issues are before the planning board that weren't worked out previously?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Oct 24, 2007 13:29:20 GMT -5
Why can this not be redeveloped for commercial? We get a better ratable, no worries about additions to our schools, and no block of voters to block school budgets... Ohhh, now I get it!!!
Its a new block of voters! The machines at work!Senior residences planned for Orchard Street Proposal is result of settlement between Freehold and developer BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer Orchard Street will become home to a new community of age-restricted condominiums if all goes in the applicant's favor at the Oct. 24 meeting of Freehold Borough Planning Board. Members of the Borough Council in Freehold Borough paved the way for the agerestricted homes when they adopted an ordinance several months ago to rezone Orchard Street from a commercial manufacturing zone to a zone in which age-restricted condominium complexes are a permitted use. The ordinance states that a condominium complex must contain at least 5 acres and that no more than 30 units are attached in a series. The units cannot exceed three stories in height unless there is underground parking, and then they may extend to four stories. The complex must have two parking spaces for each unit. Bay Dock Holdings LLC, of Lavallette, will be before the Planning Board seeking site plan approval to construct 30 age-restricted (over 55) condominium units in two four-story buildings with a ground level lobby, a three-story clubhouse and courtyards. According to the application, the second, third and fourth floors of the buildings will house the condominiums, and the first or ground-level floor will be used as a parking area. Two entrances are proposed to provide access to the first-floor parking areas from Orchard Street. The buildings will be constructed on 1 acre of the 5-acre parcel, leaving 80 percent as open space. The applicant originally applied to the Planning Board in August 2004 to build 16 townhouses on the parcel. Plans called for 1,800-square-foot two-story homes with three bedrooms and an attached garage. The applicant said the townhouses would sell for about $300,000. After several hearings, the plan for the townhouses was denied by one vote. The board found that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence as to why it was necessary to build 16 threebedroom townhouses on the tract. One board member called the plan too intense for the area, but left open the possibility that the tract might be suitable for a different type of residential proposal. Bay Dock Holdings sued Freehold Borough in June 2005. According to the lawsuit, the borough's master plan re-examination recommends that the site on Orchard Street be rezoned from commercial manufacturing to a recreational district which permits only not-for-profit recreation uses. The lawsuit also claimed that the zoning of the property for commercial manufacturing is "not consistent with the available infrastructure, economic market demands as well as surrounding properties." The two sides worked out a settlement that resulted in the current plan for age-restricted units that will come before the Planning Board next week. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Oct 24, 2007 13:32:23 GMT -5
BTW what happen to the Single Family Homes planned, and is there an ordnance in place that restricts this development to OWNER OCCUPIED ONLY??? This can be done on NEW CONSTRUCTION!
|
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 24, 2007 14:37:31 GMT -5
That's why I posted the reminder, in the first place. Show a real interest and come out, tonight. Forget the World Series. The Yanks, Mets and Phillies are home watching the game, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Oct 24, 2007 14:49:35 GMT -5
The World Series. Oh no! Now I have a decision to make. Come door knocking with me!!! I might not stop after Nov 7th, this Borough is full of sooo many nice people, I'd like to meet them all! Maybe we all need to start door knocking, have a Borough Door Knock Night!!! Get out and meet your Borough! orrr... maybe I'll keep knocking till I get to the estate of Casual Bleeder (I hear that is what he will be for Holloween - Count Casual Bleeder Blaughhhhhh) |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 24, 2007 14:51:42 GMT -5
How do you think Jim Kovacs would feel if he weren't ill and had to attend our meeting, tonight? The guy wears an expensive business suit with his Red Sox cap to our Planning Board meetings!
|
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 25, 2007 8:34:48 GMT -5
Just to update you - the Bay Dock matter has been held and will be revisted at the November 14th meeting.
It was deternmined that the developer's experts made no provisions for fire apparatus access (ladder trucks) to the building's exterior - no service driveways. Board member, Hank Stryker asked for the decision to be held, pending a formal fire official review, followed by possible site modifications.
I'll keep you posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 25, 2007 9:29:51 GMT -5
Site folks: Here is a perfect example of what belongs on this site - if you want it to be taken seriously. Stuff like this can be intelligently discussed and even respectfully criticized. If more time were devoted to this kind of serious and relevent stuff, your site and even our town, through your helpful input, would move in the right direction.
Why not take a pledge to stick with this approach? This will keep us focused on the issues and weed out the inciteful trolls.
Moderators: I challenge you to force all posters to stick to serious topical discussion. Enough of the off topic "dreck" that gives everybody the freedom to "use" or even deliberately "minimize" the site, rather than benefit from its good intent - to discuss and inform on FB related issues.
I would be the first to praise and abide by such a strict policy, which can only lead to better overall discussion.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Oct 25, 2007 9:33:35 GMT -5
Councilman Levine dude:
You want a site that you can control. As soon as it goes in a direction you do not like then debate must be silenced.
The anti-Christian taunting was placed on the site by your son -- now you urge us all to clean up our act.
Hypocrisy thy name is Levine.
Casually Distressed
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Oct 25, 2007 9:38:50 GMT -5
Site folks: Here is a perfect example of what belongs on this site - if you want it to be taken seriously. Stuff like this can be intelligently discussed and even respectfully criticized. If more time were devoted to this kind of serious and relevent stuff, your site and even our town, through your helpful input, would move in the right direction. Why not take a pledge to stick with this approach? This will keep us focused on the issues and weed out the inciteful trolls. ... I would be the first to praise and abide by such a strict policy, which can only lead to better overall discussion. Marc tell us how the talk at home goes. |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 25, 2007 10:12:40 GMT -5
LS - You go first. Hey, your an attorney...and intelligent guy. If you can't see that I am making sense here, I suggest you check your senses. When has it been that common sense wasn't the best policy.
I suppose that political saying that some have used here, fits the present situation - You deserve the kind site that you get.
I'm approaching the Titantic's Lifeboats...enjoy rearranging the deck chairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Oct 25, 2007 10:52:38 GMT -5
LS - You go first. Hey, your an attorney...and intelligent guy. If you can't see that I am making sense here, I suggest you check your senses. When has it been that common sense wasn't the best policy. I suppose that political saying that some have used here, fits the present situation - You deserve the kind site that you get. I'm approaching the Titantic's Lifeboats...enjoy rearranging the deck chairs. An attorney? I'll call my mom and let her know (she'll be so happy). Anway, Marc, I ask that you peruse my last 101 posts. I have not been the source of waht you accuse. I have posted informative pieces, my opinion about local and national issues. You will also find my questions about Reyes, which we disagree on, but I don't believe there are any character assassinations in my posts - and this is something that you repeat and recently posted on another thread. So, please check my last 100 posts (I just checked them out, plus this one equals 101.) Often when I ask a question, I get silly responses - like yesterday when I asked what issues were before the planning board, I was told go and find out. So, although people may not like what I post, I don't find that I have been guilty of posting what you accuse. If so, again, I ask that you show specific examples of character assassinations of you, the mayor and/or council, or whoever. I've asked you to do this before, and you haven't shown me it yet. So, don't lump me into those posters, which, IMO, your son has spiralled down towards even before the "silly season" was upon us. But that is just my opinion. I have praised him in the past, and I won't comment any further on his recent posts. I have already done that. so please review my last 101 posts, and then point out my character assassinations. |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 25, 2007 11:11:48 GMT -5
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought you to be the one that directed me to the site of your law firm. Someone else on this board also confirmed this to me. If I am wrong, my apologies.
Seriously, I have gotten a few calls and emails complaining about your manner towards the Mayor and Council, in particular ...and not just necessarily from those that you've directly written about. I swear this is true. In fact, they have asked me if I know who you are, because they want to call you out on your comments about them and others.
My son is VERY WRONG with those posts. Unacceptable! I said that prior to this post and recommend he be banned. I will also address this, AGAIN, with him when I see him - IN PERSON. He has also been victimized on this site for being Gay. That started the ball rolling! But, his response to those attacks is no excuse - not going on a different offensive.
Remarks in BOTH DIRECTIONS have to stop and that is why this whole board policy needs to change. And, why not JUST discuss the issues? We've already become a little better for making people register to post here. This may be the next LOGICAL step. I write on other, more professional-oriented boards, where the moderators are very strict. In fact, there is a delay in posting until the moderators have approved what is included. Posts are rejected if they do not meet strict criteria. Maybe we don't need to be that heavy handed - but more is needed.
LS- believe me. I am far from being your biggest critic. You'll have to answer to others on that account. And, there are much greater offenders on this site than you. Often, you make alot of sense in your posts - agree or disagree. Its the way you have insulted those that feel hurt that I am referring to. Some are public officials - but, small timers at our level are also your neighbors. We're not even in Karcher or Beck's league, to be quite honest. Disagree with us...vote us in or out...but remember that we live here among the rest of you. The higherlevel folks do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Oct 25, 2007 12:34:57 GMT -5
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought you to be the one that directed me to the site of your law firm. Someone else on this board also confirmed this to me. If I am wrong, my apologies. I vaguely remember posting an attorney's website. I did it as a joke (I thought it appeared to be a joke, oh well), as it was on that story about how to hire immigrants over Americans. Okay, it's a new day. and everyone, including myself, are ready to move onward and upwards. So, as to Bay Dock, the applicatino is pretty far past the point of public imput, right. Not that I have any contentions. Just asking. |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Oct 25, 2007 13:01:55 GMT -5
Duhhhh. Sorry. And you make such a great attorney! I was almost going to recommend you.
Almost everybody... "Ya won't have old PR to kick around anymore." Dick Nixon said that once.
The public was welcome to offer comments, last night. Obviously, the neighbors were invited, by letter, but no one spoke.
Depending on what the Fire Department review requires the developers to change, there may be an opportunity for further public comment, next month. The portions of the matter that were addressed in the court settlement are pretty much a done deal.
On a positive note, they have designed a great looking adult facility for a part of town that can really use some help. There are just these very key issues that must be resolved in the interest of public safety - fire apparatus access.
|
|
