Board denies plan for 207 homes ... again Builder expected to again take legal action against town BY MICHAEL ACKER Staff Writer Dozens of Sayreville residents listen last week as Fulton's Landing attorney Thomas Carroll addresses the Planning Board at Borough Hall. Sayreville residents applauded the Planning Board last week as it voted against a developer's plan to build 207 single-family homes on 100 acres off Main Street. More than 50 residents attended two hearings Jan. 3 and 10 at Borough Hall on the plan known as Fulton's Landing. The hearings came after two years of litigation between the developer and the borough over the application in question. Thomas F. Carroll, attorney for Fulton's Landing Inc., expressed surprise at the board's decision last week, telling the board that he never explicitly rested on his client's behalf, before the nine-member board unanimously voted to deny the application. He said the developer would still like to address the concerns that the board has raised by revising the plan. "Frankly, I am stunned," Carroll told the board. Carroll told the Suburban that the board's action last week was unlawful. "We will have to file a lawsuit," Carroll said. "The board refused to allow us to make the changes they asked for." Board member Frank Bella said at the meeting that he was voting against the application because it does not address soil issues, and the developer's traffic study was outdated. He also made mention of past litigation from this developer. Fulton's Landing sued the board after it first denied the application more than two years ago. The board concluded at the time that the application was incomplete and could not move forward. The developer sued, contending that it was entitled to default approval, but a Superior Court judge rejected the argument. Fulton's Landing appealed that decision, and though an Appellate Division judge upheld the earlier ruling, it also sent the matter back to the Planning Board, saying the application was complete with the exception of roadway easements. Bella said the developer was wrong to file suit against the borough two years ago. "To litigate and then go to the board is not the appropriate way to go," Bella said. Planning Board Chairman Dr. John Misiewicz said he voted to deny the application for a number of reasons. "Going through [Board Engineer Jay Cornell's] technical report, I counted roughly 300 violations," Misiewicz said. "I have a very low confidence level in this application." Carroll told the board that Fulton's Landing would agree to request a roadway easement from Conrail by using a tunnel rather than crossing the railroad tracks as the developer originally sought to do. He said the borough should assist the developer with the acquisition of easements . Conrail denied the developer's request to cross the tracks with the easement, just as DuPont de Nemours & Co. denied the request to cross its property. The easements are required as part of the borough's master plan to allow emergency vehicles easy access to proposed development and to ease traffic on already congested neighboring roads. Fulton's Landing engineer Gary C. Dahms told the board that the developer will revise the plans to meet the board professionals' 20-plus pages of comments, which were written in 2004. Board members had expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of revised plans at this point in the procedure. The board also said that the developer's traffic report, which calls for a traffic signal to be installed at Main Street and Kimball Drive East, was outdated, having been done in December 2002. Carroll rebutted, saying that a new report would result in the same conclusion that the developer's professionals reached years ago. Before beginning the public portion of the meeting, Misiewicz said that the board has specific factors it cannot consider in the application process. "Traffic reasons are not a reason to decline an application," Misiewicz said. "If streets are backed up bumper to bumper, the application [still] has to be approved. Traffic is not an issue. Also [a] property owner has the right to develop his property." Several residents spoke in opposition to the plan. Among them was Rashmi Patel, who raised concerns about the development's eventual impact on Sayreville schools. The school district pays approximately $8,700 to educate each child, according to board member Michael Macagnone, who is also the president of the Board of Education. Patel said the million dollars in projected property tax revenue from the development would not be enough to counter the cost it will bring to the school district. "What is the sense of keeping something that we are going to have debt on," Patel said. "We are merely calculating what is going to happen to us." Edward Strek, a borough resident for 66 years, raised concerns about water running off the property. He added that he does not approve of piling or dynamic compaction, both of which the developer was considering in the plan. "This application should not be accepted," Strek said. "It is not complete." Misiewicz did not get any official confirmation that the developer is again filing suit. He said he was concerned that the plan does not take into account that the soil needs to be strong enough to support the houses and the infrastructure proposed there. "They have had these engineering issues since 2004 and were not going to comply," Misiewicz said. "They tried to get default approval with all of these outstanding issues and the court rejected that twice."