From the AC Press: Vote on housing project delayed

While I was blogging about the Merchants Assn. event on Sunday, I saw this article written by EdVan Embden
Its well-written. Wish I could have been able to show like I did in February. Here is the article........................

11:45 p.m. update: Major revisions cause Millville Planning Board to delay vote on housing project again
MILLVILLE — Another Planning Board meeting, another delayed decision for a housing development proposed for the city’s north side. Armed with a revised proposal and plenty of professionals, Matzel and Mumford presented the plan for its 532-unit housing development to the board Monday evening and addressed the numerous city-raised issues that previously threatened to sidetrack the plan. However, the proposal included so many changes, Board Solicitor Rich Daniels said, that a second public hearing is required. With a commission chamber full of residents waiting patiently to speak, the developers and their team answered questions late into the night. After the residents spoke, the meeting concluded with board members giving their opinions and deciding to take a deeper look at the information. David Fisher, vice president of Matzel and Mumford, presented a number of changes that have been considered since the proposal for 532 units was first delayed in February, and then delayed several times after that. A primary concern of the city’s has been the potential for increased traffic on already burdened roadways and intersections near the development. The development, tentatively called Avondale at Union Lake, is bordered by Union Lake and Delsea Drive, specifically Union Lake Shopping Center. To address this problem, Fisher said, the proposal now includes a straight access road that travels the length of the development and could, potentially, be linked to a Route 55 off-ramp. It is estimated that the development would put 2,000 more cars on Millville’s roads. A point of consternation for the board is a slice of land and the inevitable delay of any plans concerning the Department of Transportation. The land between Route 55 and the proposed development is owned by a total of three entities, including the state. And while representatives with Matzel and Mumford talked about positive meetings with the state and with other developers, they could not include the off-ramp in their plan. Board member George Mitchell brought up the issue early in the meeting as an attorney for Matzel and Mumford repeatedly referred to the off-ramp and the land between the highway and the development. “We don’t know if we’re going to get it,” Mitchell said of the land. “We don’t know if the state is going to approve it. We don’t know who’s going to pay for it, and it shouldn’t be part of the discussion. You have no control over whether it gets built, so you shouldn’t tout it.” More issues from the board came in the way of concerns over traffic studies done on roads and intersections slated for upgrades, but those upgrades have not been made, yet, and there is no timetable for their completion. Traffic engineer David Shropshire reported that there would be no change in the levels of service for nearby intersections, but admitted that if the intersection was already failing — intersections are graded on a lettered scale and end at F — that it could, presumably, be worse off. The board also wondered why the traffic study was done while considering not-yet-done improvements. Attorney Frank Wisniewski, however, said to do so was an acceptable and correct solution. “We’re basing this on existing approvals and guarantees,” Wisniewski said. “We have every right to base our report on that.” Matzel and Mumford’s history with the city includes a board-denied proposal for 700 single-family homes on the same site in 2006. It also includes a lawsuit by the developer against the city for what it called unlawful practices. That was later resolved. A majority of residents’ complaints centered on the increased traffic problems, as well as the possibility of a school being built near the site and the environmental concerns and impact on nearby Union lake. It is possible that a final decision will be made at the next Planning Board meeting 7:30 p.m. Oct. 14.