Plan for 207 homes goes back to board Judge rules no default approval for developer on Fulton’s Landing BY MICHAEL ACKER Staff Writer The clock is ticking for Sayreville to hear a developer’s plan for 200 single-family homes proposed on 100 acres of vacant land off Main Street. The developer, Fulton’s Landing Inc., sued the borough after the Planning Board denied the building application for being incomplete. The builder argued that it was entitled to default approval of the preliminary major subdivision application pursuant to the state Municipal Land Use Law, but a trial court ruled in the board’s favor. Fulton’s Landing then appealed the decision, and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the ruling, but deemed the developer’s application to be complete with the exception of the roadway easements. The decision in effect sent the application back to the board, as opposed to giving it default approval. Planning Board Chairman Dr. John Misciewicz told the Suburban that while the administrative part of the application was complete, the board felt the plan was incomplete due to engineering concerns. Fulton’s Landing did not obtain roadway easements on adjacent property owned by DuPont de Nemours and Co. The roadway easements were required to link existing connector roads from Main Street to roadways that would run across Fulton’s Landing property. The Appellate Court gave the board 95 days to hear the development plans and consider the completeness of the application, or risk defaulting on the approval. The board was originally scheduled to hear the application on Dec. 6, but the hearing was postponed to Jan. 3 because there were not enough board members for a quorum on the original date. The property, which is owned by Lorraine M. Mocco, was once used for mining operations. The developer’s plan calls for 207 single-family homes on 99.5 acres of the total 157-acre property off Main Street in the PD-7 zone, which is a residential zone. Board Engineer Jay Cornell said the plans call for road extensions on Highland Drive and White Oaks Drive from the adjacent White Oaks and Park Village developments to Fulton’s Landing. This extension requires that the roads go through property owned by DuPont and requires that company’s permission, Cornell added. The project also calls for the construction of an extension of Lakeview Drive across the railroad tracks to Main Street, Cornell said. The plan meets the zone’s requirement for open space, according to Cornell. The revised plans, which the board received in November 2004, addressed some of the outstanding issues brought up by board professionals in the technical review, but numerous issues remained, Cornell said. He added that CME Associates issued another report in 2004, and no revised plans have been provided since. CME’s technical engineering review called for the removal of excavated materials in uncontrolled fill areas throughout the site. It also recommends that the buildings be supported on piles and that the developer not use dynamic compaction to consolidate materials due to potential impact on the surrounding residential development. “Towne Lake had problems with dynamic compaction,” Cornell said. “Some residents were finding cracks in the foundation and sheet rock walls, so the potential is there.” The engineering review also states that poor soil conditions may impede the developer’s ability to construct basements for the proposed homes. The applicant indicated that the basements will be provided with groundwater management systems due to high seasonal groundwater elevation, according to the review. Cornell said the board may need to meet on the application more than once. “There are a lot of engineering issues to be addressed,” he said, “so I don’t know if they can handle that in one meeting.” Misciewicz agreed, saying it is important that the board give this application adequate time and consideration. “Because of the application’s uniqueness, we might need to take two meetings to give the board time,” Misciewicz said. “My concern is that, number one, they meet all technical requirements of the development. Number two, the issues about fire, EMS and the safety of residents need to be addressed, because of the difficulty of getting in and out of the development without those roads.” Attorney Marc D’Angiolillo, a member of the Morristown-based legal firm Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, which is representing the borough, said in a press release that “By seeking default approval of the application on technical grounds through litigation, the developer attempted to make an ‘end run’ around the Planning Board.” He noted that the court did not force the board to approve the application with the condition that the builder acquire the roadway easements. “The subdivision of a property that size, over 100 acres, will significantly impact the health, welfare and future development of the entire community,” D’Angiolillo said. “Given the legitimate dispute regarding the developer’s obligation to obtain the roadway easements, default approval of the application would have been far too harsh of a remedy.”