Zoners will take 2nd look
at Habitat plan for homes
Applicant due back
in near future to discuss
Institute Street project
By clare marie celano
Staff Writer

The Freehold Borough Zoning Board of Adjustment will reconsider an application presented by the Freehold Chapter of Habitat for Humanity which failed to gain approval for want of a fifth affirmative vote on June 25.

After hearing from the attorney representing Habitat, board members on July 22 agreed to take another look at a plan to build a subdivision on Institute Street.

Administrators of the local Habitat chapter are seeking zoning board ap-proval of a use variance that will allow them to build 10 homes on Institute Street. Attorney Kenneth L. Pape, of Old Bridge, originally presented the application to the board on May 28.

Habitat for Humanity builds and/or renovates homes and sells them to needy working families that might not otherwise be able to afford a home. The families participate in the construction of their home and future Habitat projects.

The application for development on property that Habitat purchased from the Nestlé corporation calls for 10 homes to be built on a 1.6-acre parcel with frontage on Institute Street. The property is about 265 feet wide and 260 feet deep and just under 70,000 square feet.

According to the zoning board attorney, Vincent Halleran Jr., of Freehold, the use variance required five affirmative votes. On a roll call of zoning board members present at the June 25 meeting, four panel members voted to grant the variance and two board members voted against the plan. Halleran said that equated to a denial of the Habitat application.

Voting in favor of granting the variance were Chairman Gene Mulroy and board members William Madigan, Kevin Mulligan and Jean Holtz. Voting against granting the variance were board members Anne Mackolin and Catherine Buchalski. One member of the board was absent from the meeting. One alternate was absent, and one member of the panel recused herself.

The July 22 meeting brought Pape back to the board to request that the panel reconsider Habitat’s application.

"Habitat has spent time reviewing what they presented here the last time," Pape said. "We have tried to make this application more palatable in the hopes of reaching the end goal, which is approval from this board. We request that you will entertain the idea to reconsider this application."

Pape said if he was given a chance to reopen the application, he would bring additional facts to the board members that would give them the foundation they needed to rehear the case and see the "full plethora of information" that he was prepared to display.

He reiterated facts he said were presented in a July 3 letter to the board. He said he wanted to present the changes that he felt were significant, on behalf of Habitat. He also added that, as he had indicated in the letter, "a reconfiguration of the lots and the modification of the construction schedule are material changes to the application which Habitat is prepared to address before the board."

Pape added that since the letter was sent, he received a total of two grants from Monmouth County totaling $100,000, to provide funding for infrastructure for the project which will have a substantial impact on Habitat’s ability to complete the project in a timely fashion.

One of the changes Pape brought to the board was an alternate design that orients four homes toward Institute Street and six homes toward a cul-de-sac as a viable alternative. Included as a possibility, according to the attorney, was increasing the "free market lots" to four rather than the two planned. He added that Habitat was prepared to lose one lot, bringing the total number of homes to be built in the subdivision to nine rather than the original planned 10.

"Our financial considerations have changed," Pape explained. "With the loss of one lot and the extra funding, we request that you give us an opportunity to present these new facts to the board."

Mulligan said Habitat’s representatives had already addressed the board’s concerns, therefore, he said, "the board should consider rehearing the application.

"We take things on a case-by-case basis," Mulroy said. "In this instance, 66 percent of the panel supported this project before. I think we ought to reconsider this."

On a roll call of board members, Mulroy, Madigan, Mulligan, Buchalski and the Rev. Andre Maguire, an alternate member who was not present at the June 25 meeting, voted in favor of reconsidering the application.

Mulroy told Pape to provide notice to Institute Street residents in preparation for the next public hearing on the Habitat project. No date was set for the reconsideration of the application.

The Habitat application was a matter of concern to some residents on Institute Street, who showed up at the May 28 and June 25 meetings to voice concern that the proposed subdivision would affect their neighborhood in a negative way. They worried that the project would change the look of their block by putting "cookie cutter" homes on a street with older homes, increase traffic, take away an open field and devalue their homes.

Representatives of Habitat had previously agreed to design facades such as bay windows and different frontages that would give individual character to the homes.

When Pape returned to present his changes to the board on June 25, he told residents who had come to hear the application being presented that "Habitat heard their concerns and listened."

He said the applicant would now allow for the two corner lots on Institute Street to be sold as market value properties rather than be developed by Habitat. He said these homes would differ in size and design and would depict the diversity in design that residents said were lacking in the Habitat homes.

At the June 25 meeting, Mackolin said her concern was for the comfort and the livability of the people currently residing in the neighborhood. She worried that residents would be in the midst of construction for an undue lengthy period of time. Mackolin also told Pape the Habitat proposal was a "dramatic" change in the face of the neighborhood and that the street was now like a "sleepy lane."

"On this street a subdivision would definitely have an impact," Mackolin said.

Mulroy acknowledged there were some issues related to the construction process, but supported the overall goal of building homes for needy working families.