Town Hall was filled to a standing room only capacity on Monday, November 27, as a controversial ordinance was passed, five months after it was first introduced, at the Township Council meeting.
The ordinance was to formally adopt the 45 South Livingston Avenue District Redevelopment Plan. Dozens of residents spoke at length, both in opposition and support of the ordinance, prior to its passage.
When comment on the ordinance began, Council member Shawn Klein recusedhimself for the duration of the meeting, due to a conflict of interest. In a closed executive session prior to the regular meeting, the Council had also discussed Fair Share Housing, specifically the 45 South Livingston Avenue project that was to be voted on that evening.
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. 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 subj ect property to the north, south, and west are commercial uses, while singlefamily 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.
Passage of the plan paves the way for what is now, according to the amended ordinance, a 195-unithousing 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 included a reduction of the number of units, from 240 to 210 (and, eventually, to 195 following a final amendment Monday evening), 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
Prior to its passage, residents commented both against and in favor of the ordinance. Those in opposition to the project wished for it to be further scaled down; they did not, generally, oppose the idea of the project, but rather its size and density. Several people, however, significantly more than at previous meetings, spoke in support of the project. Between written letters and in-person comment, the public discussion went on for several hours.
34 residents sent an identical letter to the Council asking for the proposal to be sent back to the developer for further changes. An additional two letters were sent with minor changes. Several additional letters were also sent in and read aloud during the meeting.
Residents in opposition 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. Others mentioned that this type of zoning was inconsistent with the rest of the town and sets a bad precedent for projects moving forward. A few Mt. Pleasant Middle School students said they felt “betrayed” that the Council was not considering their concerns in regard to the project.
Residents in support of the project cited the ability for young families to afford to live in the town, give older residents a space to downsize within Livingston, modernize the South LivingstonAvenue area, and create a walkable downtown. Supporters also noted that those who have spoken at meetings over the past few months in opposition to the project do not reflect the opinions of the entire town, and that those who support it are simply afraid to speak up and face backlash. These supporters also said that the community should evolve and improve what is a largely vacant space.
Beth Lippman, speaking on behalf of the Business Improvement District board of directors, noted how the project would improve Livingston’s downtown and commercial district, which would improve the town as a whole.
Ken Berger, CEO of Spectrum360, supported the project, stating that the off-site affordable housing aspect of the project would assist people with special needs in securing affordable housing.
Ordinance Passes
Following public comment, Mayor Michael Vieira proposed an amended reduction to 195 units from 210.
All four Council members agreed to that amendment, and then voted to pass the amended ordinance.
Council Comments
After the ordinance passed, several Council members noted that they had been subjected to personal attacks in the lead up to the vote. Specifically, they mentioned that the home address of the developer was shared online, and someone called for people to picket the homes of Council members in protest of the project.
Council member Ed Meinhardt issued the following statement in response to those instances: “I would like to thank all the residents who took time to come to these meetings, or sent letters in. Whether you believe the project should or should not be built, I did listen very closely to both sides. These decisions have and are still the hardest ones to make for me. I am very grateful we live in a country where all of us can express their opinions freely and still go home to be with their family afterwards.
“However, I am not grateful for the keyboard warrior who has the audacity to put the developer’s home address on Facebook, with the square foot of his house and information about his family. Since you are so concerned about the size of his house, have you bothered to do any research on this multi-generational Livingston family? Had you, it would have yielded how generous and philanthropic of a family they are. From Holocaust survivors, to those less fortunate, and to those with special needs as well as many charities here in town, they are one of the most philanthropic families you will ever meet. We are most fortunate to have a Livingston family who wants to build a beautiful project in their hometown.
“I am not grateful for the keyboard warrior who suggested it would be a good idea to protest in front of the Town Council members’ homes. Causing fear to all of our families and extra police overtime in order to make sure we are safe.
“This project has come before us in a variety of sizes and unit counts. We have worked tirelessly over the past five years with the owner and developer, to come up with today’s plan. Today’s plan shows a result of our taking our time, listening to what you, the residents, had to say, having countless meetings and phone calls, and settling on a compromise between all.
“Please, let’s remember: This piece of land could turn into an 80,000-square-foot retail establishment tomorrow, and there would be nothing the Town Council or Planning Board could do to stop this. This would cause much more traffic throughout the entire day, have cars pulling in and parking in the back till 10 or 11 p.m. Lights on all over the place throughout the entire evening. 40 foot trucks coming in the middle of the evening to restock the shelves, and more noise than 195 units will ever cause.
“If this fails this evening, the developer will be in court tomorrow morning filing a builder’s remedy motion with Fair Share Housing, and when – not if – it is awarded, the town will have spent a lot of money on legal fees, and the number of units will go from 195 to 495 or more, and there will be nothing we can do about that.
“As discussed in our conference meeting earlier, we are in constant communication with the Board of Education. Assemblywoman-elect (Rosy) Bagolie and myself are working together with the town manager, school superintendent, and head of SYLS to re-purpose Monmouth Court to the BOE for a full time school for them to use.
“As you can tell, we don’t just sit here every other Monday night, to make uneducated and rash decisions. We all spend countless hours at meetings and on the phone, making decisions we believe are correct for the future of our town. Change is very, very hard. I am very well aware. But without change we are doomed to be stagnant, with no way of advancing. This project has the potential to be transformative to our downtown and spur and support local businesses. This project will greatly add to the walkability of the township. I am confident that there is more to gain as a collective whole than as separate factions.”
Like Meinhardt, Mayor Vieira and Council member Bagolie also said that their families had felt threatened by what had been said online, calling out certain Facebook commenters by name.
“You scared our families,” Vieira said, asking for an apology.
Vieira also mentioned a number of projects that the town unsuccessfully fought in recent years, including ParkVue and the Hillside Club. He stated that working with a developer is the better alternative, since he believed that the courts have shown that they will side with developers over towns.
“This builder worked with the town,” he said, noting that the original proposal was for more than 400 units and five complete stories, before being negotiated down, multiple times, to 195. “This builder could have easily sued and asked for 600 units.”
