Board pressed to vote soon on 200-home plan
Residents speak against plan, which has been in court since 2004
BY MICHAEL ACKER
Staff Writer

SAYREVILLE - More than 50 residents turned out Wednesday for a heated hearing on a plan to build 200 single-family homes on 100 acres off Main Street.

Fulton's Landing Inc. was before the Planning Board to request preliminary major subdivision approval after two years of litigation with the borough over the controversial plan.

The developer sued the borough after the board denied the building application for being incomplete. A trial court and later an appellate court ruled in the board's favor, rejecting the developer's argument that it was entitled to default approval of its application pursuant to the state Municipal Land Use Law.

However, 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.

Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for December, but was postponed to this week because the board was unable to hold a quorum.

Board Chairman Dr. John Misiewicz asked Fulton's Landing engineer Gary C. Dahms, of T&M Associates, to go over the board professional's technical review and describe their remedy for each item.

"That is the normal procedure of our board," Misiewicz said.

Dahms, he said, would go over 37 comments before the applicant's time expired, and the rest of the meeting would be devoted to public comment. More comments would be heard at the board's next meeting.

However, Thomas Karrol, the attorney representing Fulton's Landing, expressed frustration with this procedure, saying that the plans have not changed since 2004 and the technical aspects of the plan have been reviewed exhaustively.

Misiewicz said the developer should have revised the plans in accordance with the recommendations that the board's professionals put in writing in 2004.

Dahms said the developer will update the plan for most of the comments made in the board's report by CME, adding that the remaining items will be taken under advisement.

Karrol said he had a fundamental disagreement with the board on how it was running the meeting Wednesday, saying that the line-by-line review of the engineering report was "not a productive use of time."

Board Attorney James P. Hoebich rebutted, saying that a major project in the center of town such as this must be carefully considered. He added that the number of residents in attendance at the meeting showed the public's interest in hearing testimony on the project as well.

Karrol cited the lawsuit as a reason why the developer did not amend the plan, adding that it meets the borough's requirements.

"Dahms has testified that this application meets all of your ordinances," Karrol said.

Misiewicz then said that the lawsuit had an effect on the board's confidence in the plan.

"Due to the litigation, the board's confidence in this application is not high," Misiewicz said.

Misiewicz challenged Karrol, saying that the attorney claimed in his initial statement that the developer's plan meets the board's technical review standards.

"Yes, that is our opinion," Karrol replied, adding that this is not to be construed as the developer validating the comments or that the line-by-line review was necessary during the meeting.

The engineering details are irrelevant until roadway easements are addressed, Karrol said.

The plan meets the borough's requirements for open space and density, Dahms said. He added that the master plan requires that it get easements from Conrail to cross railroad tracks and from DuPont de Nemours and Co. to go through part of their property. Both parties denied the developer's applications.

Karrol wanted the board to request the easements for the developer, since Conrail and DuPont are more likely to grant the request if it comes from the borough.

"I can't force the board to cooperate," Karrol said. "I can only ask you [to]."

Board Vice Chairman Thomas Tighe suggested that the developer request to go under the Conrail tracks instead of across the tracks. Borough Engineer Jay Cornell said that elevation is feasible for the road to go under without impacting the flow of Conrail's trains.

Misiewicz said that the roadway easements are needed in order to provide easy access to the development for fire and EMS workers. Tighe said the easements are necessary because with the new development, new corridors will be needed to meet the borough's traffic needs.

"Otherwise, [you will] put them through other neighborhoods that already have a burden," Tighe said.

The board also raised concerns with the developer's proposal to use dynamic compaction in regard to uncontrolled fills on the site, which was at one time used for mining operations.

Dahms said the developer will ensure that there is no negative impact to neighboring residents, adding that they will take the board's concerns under consideration.

Cornell asked for clarification on how the developer will deal with material on the site, adding that there are several methods that the developers may go with.

"These options have an impact on how you develop," Cornell said, adding that the board is concerned with the potential use of dynamic compaction because of problems with it at the Townelake development in the past.

"We feel that this is something that the board should know about before you move forward with this application," Cornell said.

Cornell also said that in order for Fulton's Landing to propose basements in the homes, they need a basement collection system.

High water tides on the site are 5 feet below the ground in the area of the developments, Dahms said, adding that they are 6 inches below the ground elsewhere on the site.

Resident Dee DeTullio, of Kimball Drive, voiced concerns over traffic during the public session, saying that it currently takes her up to 20 minutes at peak hours to get out of her development.

"Conrail says no, DuPont says no, I think Main Street says no," Dee DeTullio said, garnering applause from residents.

Joseph DeTullio, Dee's husband, shared his concerns about dynamic compaction with the Suburban, recalling the noise it caused when it was used for the nearby Townelake development. He added that pile drivers would be a similarly loud alternative.

"Also, the field mice," DeTullio said. "That has been their habitat for years. Where are they going to go? Whose backyard?"

Joseph DeTullio also raised concerns about the proposed development's impact on traffic, adding that parking for the nearby bus stop has already brought parking problems to the neighborhood. He disagreed with Dahms' assertion that residents of their proposed development will likely walk to the bus stop.

"They just see dollar signs," DeTullio said of the developer. "They say that they are bringing $20 million into the area, into the community, but for how long will that last? Their sewer pipe is connecting into Main Street's - how old is that? Can it take the pressure?"

Further testimony will be heard at a special meeting of the board Jan. 10. Tighe told the Suburban that if they do not finish at that meeting, an emergency meeting may be called to ensure that the application is handled within the court's timeline.

"We are going to give [the developer] their due," Tighe said. "We are going to give the public their due, and if we need to have another meeting, we will have it."