At its Monday, July 24 meeting, the Livingston Township Council discussed a redevelopment plan for a portion of South Livingston Avenue.
The Council held a public hearing for – and ultimately tabled – an ordinance adopting the 45 South Livingston Avenue district redevelopment plan, as prepared by Beacon Planning and Consulting Services. Council member Shawn Klein recused himself from the vote, and Council member Rosy Bagolie was absent for the meeting.
The redevelopment area is located along the eastern side of South Livingston Avenue between East Mt. Pleasant Avenue to the north and Arden Road to the south.
The parcel is situated within a commercial area; surrounding the subject property to the north, south, and west are commercial uses, while singlefamily homes border the property to the east and southeast. If passed in its current state, the ordinance would clear the way for developers to construct a 276-unit rental property on the South Livingston Avenue site, which formerly housed Bottle King, among other businesses. Of those 276 units, 15 percent would be for low and moderate income tenants, the state minimum requirement on rental properties.
In August of 2018, the Council directed the Planning Board to conduct a redevelopment investigation of the area. The Board submitted a report in October of 2020 and the area was designated as an “area in need of redevelopment” by the Township Council in February of 2021.Apublic hearing was held that month, featuring hours of testimony from nearby residents, who were uniformly upset with the proposed plans for the area. Officials in town, including a traffic consultant, reviewed the project over the past few years, and the ordinance was first introduced during the June 26 Council meeting last month. Its second reading, which included a public hearing, was held Monday evening.
The redevelopment plan was deemed consistent with the town’s master plan by the Planning Board. However, prior to sending the redevelopment plan back to the Council, Board member Richard Dinar expressed several concerns about the proposed property. He requested that the Council consider reducing the density, reconsider the height of any proposed building, and consider the effects on traffic in the area.
Several residents – nearly all from Arden Road, Audobon Road, Sherbrooke Parkway, and other streets close to the proposed project – spoke passionately in opposition to the ordinance for two hours. In all, 28 residents spoke in person and nine sent in messages that were read into the record. These residents cited many of the same issues.Among them were traffic concerns, including the narrowness and insufficient number of South Livingston Avenue’s lanes, as well as already existing congestion in the area. Safety concerns included the potential for first responders to arrive in emergency situations in a timely manner due to traffic, and nearby streets being used as cut throughs, resulting in cars speeding through residential roadways. Residents also complained that the redevelopment plan called for higher density compared to other proposed buildings in town, as well as concerns of a decline in both property values and quality of life for residents who live near the area. Many were also concerned with increasing the school population, which is already supplementing its buildings with classroom trailers.
Ultimately, the Council voted to table the ordinance, and will re-notice it when the next hearing is scheduled. If there are substantive changes made to the ordinance, it would have to be reintroduced as a new ordinance, which also would require another notice of hearing.
“Tonight, I was going into this planning to approve it, because (that area of town) is an eyesore,” Mayor Michael Vieira said upon deciding to table it. “I’m not sure what I’m going to do in the long run, but I do need a couple questions answered before I can approve this… but clearly something can be done to improve this.”
Township manager Barry Lewis agreed that, while residents had legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed, something needed to be done with the property, and redevelopment of it is consistent with the goals of the 2018 master plan. He added that “the township was cognizant of the fact that these owners did not put the proverbial gun to our head” with the project, as there would be no three bedroom units, which he said are the units most likely to bring more schoolaged children into town.
Lewis said that he would take the concerns posed by residents and work with the Council and others in town on addressing them. Specifically, he said he would revisit talks with the Board of Education about the school population, and look into the traffic studies done, including whether or not less busy roadways during COVID may have affected the results. He added that further discussion of traffic would ultimately be discussed by the Planning Board, should this proceed, but that the initial traffic study for the area was completed pre-COVID.
