The Livingston Township Council, at its regular meeting on Monday, November 13,introducedareworked ordinance to adopt the 45 South Livingston Avenue District Redevelopment Plan. The conversation between residents and the Council became heated, at times, including some commotion when the ordinanc e was introduced following more than an hour of public comment.
When comment on the ordinance began, Council member Shawn Klein recused himself, due to a conflict of interest.
The plan, prepared by Beacon Planning and Consulting Services, had been initially introduced in June, but was pulled from the agenda in July, prior to its passage, following strong opposition from residents living near the district. Residents have cited building height and density, traffic and safety concerns, overcrowding schools, and a decline in nearby property values as some of the reasons they oppose the project.
Formerly the site of the Bottle King and other businesses, 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 single-family homes border the property to the east and southeast. The section was designated as an “area in need of redevelopment” by the Township Council in February of 2021.
Though the ordinance had been removed from the agenda for several months, residents have continued to speak out against the proposed development at Council meetings.
An online petition opposing the project has also garnered thousands of signatures.
Passage of the plan would pave the way for what is now, according to the updated ordinance, a 210-unit housing complex, plus retail buildings, to be constructed on the property.
Prior to its introduction, township manager Barry Lewis explained the changes that had been made to the ordinance since it was initially introduced in June. The changes include a reduction of the number of units, from 240 to 210, with a corresponding decrease in off-site affordable housing, as well. As a result of the reduction in units, the back row of parking spaces is gone from the proposal, increasing the rear buffer of the property from ten to 28 feet. This will allow for more tree plantings and the preservation of existing trees. The rear of the building will also be lowered and moved further from the property line; at the back, it will be 30 feet tall with an 80-foot setback.
Public Comment
Residents unanimously commented in opposition to the ordinance, requesting that the project be further scaled down. Residents said that, should the Council pass this ordinance, the governing body would show that it was disconnected from the needs of the community it is supposed to serve. Others mentioned that this type of zoning was inconsistent with the rest of town and sets a bad precedent for projects moving forward.
Several people also wrote in to the meeting, including one person who did so anonymously. Typically, anonymous comments are not read publicly, but Council member Rosy Bagolie said she wished to have it read aloud because she found it “appalling.” The letter decried the development, stating that it would attract undesirable individuals to Livingston, which the writer said is “an uber-rich utopia for those who strive for excellence.” Several people in the audience noted that the letter was disgraceful and did not represent their reasons for opposing the project.
Planning Board member Richard Dinar, a staunch opponent to the size of the project, referenced Livingston’s master plan, stating that that area of South Livingston Avenue is not an appropriate location for such a large apartment complex; it sets a bad precedent for the town, which would become “a serious problem,” he said.
Following Dinar’s comment, Council member Bagolie questioned him about what the Planning Board would and would not have control of in regard to the project, should the Council approve the ordinance. Dinar said that the Planning Board and its Technical Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) – the latter of which is composed of members from all facets of town, from fire and police officials, to town engineers and construction officials – would have little power to affect the project, should the ordinance pass.
Ordinance Introduced
The four members of the Council who were present then voted to introduce the ordinance, which will be read on second hearing during the November 27 meeting.
Bagolie noted that, while residents felt they were not heard on this issue, the Council halted the project in the summer due to their objections. She said that the Council then sat down with the proposed builder of the project, Jonathan Schwartz of the BNE Real Estate Group, to see what could be done, including at a public meeting where residents asked questions.
“I believe the builder listened and did address and fix some of the concerns of the residents,” Bagolie said. She noted that the project was originally proposed as 420 units and is currently 210. She added that it would be a “top revenue generator for Livingston, modernizing the downtown area while bringing pedestrian customers to a whole downtown marketplace.”
Additionally, Bagolie said that the project “doesn’t get more local,” because Schwartz is a resident of Livingston. She said that he had “an impeccable reputation” for building quality projects and retaining them to ensure local control.
“All of these benefits, for me, outweigh any drawbacks,” Bagolie said, noting that the project will continue to be discussed by the Planning Board, should the ordinance pass on November 27. “Growth is inevitable… This is a time for smart development, and I am making a hard choice by voting ‘yes’ to move this forward.”
Mayor Michael Vieira, prior to introducing the ordinance, referenced the town losing past fights to builders, and not wanting the same thing to happen at 45 South Livingston Avenue, which he said would have occurred had the town chosen to fight the project in court.
“If this project does not move forward,” Vieira said, “I can guarantee that in two years, instead of 210 units, you will see 600 units. And that is the truth.”
There was shouting from the audience as the vote occurred, and the Council took a brief recess following introduction of the ordinance. During that time, the majority of residents left the room. Others engaged Council members individually near the dais. Council member Ed Meinhardt told these residents that the project was supported by Livingston business owners. Bagolie, alluding to the fact that this project was being built as a result of Fair Share Housing Center requirements, said that she would be able to work to change such laws in Trenton next year; Bagolie will start her term on the state Assembly in January.
The final hearing for this ordinance will be held during the Monday, November 27, Council meeting.
According to Gordons’Gazetteer, in 1832 the Township of Livingston contained 637 “neat cattle under three years of age,” as well as 166 horses and mules.
