Morristown zoning board: Turtle Road, Take Two

Engineering consultant David Wisotsky consults a map, next to Doug Henshaw, lawyer for the Turtle Road Commons project. Photo by Kevin Coughlin.
Engineering consultant David Wisotsky consults a map, next to Doug Henshaw, lawyer for the Turtle Road Commons project. Photo by Kevin Coughlin.
3

Last month, developers gave residents a sneak preview of their apartment plans for Turtle Road, in hopes of averting another knock-down, drag-out fight like the one that kayoed a proposed daycare center a year ago.

Nice try.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Morristown zoning board saw condo owners from the Village at Convent Station and Convent Mews pepper an engineer and traffic planner with questions that seemed to portend another extended approval process for the Silverman Group.

That company, which fell short trying to win approvals for a Rainbow Academy daycare center, now wants to build Turtle Road Commons, a 46-unit apartment building, on the same 1.44-acre vacant parking lot.  Thirty-four of the apartments would have one bedroom; the remaining dozen would have two bedrooms.

Engineering consultant David Wisotsky consults a map, next to Doug Henshaw, lawyer for the Turtle Road Commons project. Photo by Kevin Coughlin.
Engineering consultant David Wisotsky consults a map, next to Doug Henshaw, lawyer for the Turtle Road Commons project. Photo by Kevin Coughlin.

Zoning variances are needed to exceed, by 10 feet, a 35-foot height restriction for the residential zone.

Variances also are being sought for smaller-than-required parking stalls, fewer of them (66 instead of 80.5 as mandated for a project of this size), and impervious lot coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed.

Traffic concerns doomed the daycare center.  Apartments will generate far fewer vehicle trips, testified traffic expert Gary Dean.

Rainbow Academy was anticipated to generate 112 trips during the peak morning hour and 123 trips in the peak evening hour, he said.

For Turtle Road Commons, he estimated numbers of 24 and 29 for the corresponding periods, based on two days of observations last December.

“This is by far the least intensive traffic use,” Dean said of the apartment plan.

But residents and board members requested traffic estimates for the busy intersection of Turtle Road and Madison Avenue.  Dean may provide those at the next hearing, scheduled for June 3, 2015.

Parking was more contentious.  Residents expressed concerns that 66 spaces will be insufficient for 48 units, causing apartment dwellers to park at the neighboring condos. Sixty of the spaces would sit beneath the three-story building.

Leases will limit tenants to one space per apartment, with an option to lease a second space, said Douglas Henshaw, attorney for the applicant.

An adjoining office parking lot, also owned by the Silverman Group, will be available for use by guests of tenants, Henshaw said. But if maintenance staff notice tenants trying to park a second car in that office lot, “it’s an eviction issue,” the lawyer said.

Board President Cary Lloyd voiced doubts that a lease would stop tenants from attempting to park in the adjacent office lot.

Rendering of proposed Turtle Road Commons apartment complex. Turtle Road runs along the top; Village Drive is on the bottom. Photo by Kevin Coughlin
Rendering of proposed Turtle Road Commons apartment complex. Turtle Road runs along the top; Village Drive is on the bottom. Photo by Kevin Coughlin

“People accept one parking space when they chose to live here. It’s a choice,” asserted Henshaw.

Things got testy when a resident questioned how a developer could restrict parking. Board Attorney David Brady cut short the question, defending a landlord’s right to establish parking rules.

When resident Stan Slovin said he would balk at such limits if he were a prospective tenant, Henshaw shot back: “My suggestion would be you find another apartment someplace else.”

Growing numbers of young apartment dwellers “are eschewing cars,” according to Dean, the traffic expert. “They don’t want to drive ’em, they don’t want to own ’em, they don’t want to park ’em.”

 

 

 

3 COMMENTS

  1. Smaller than required parking spaces don’t work for pick up trucks or large SUVs. Do all luxury apartment renters own subcompact cars? Not in my experience.

  2. Apartment dwellers who are “eschewing cars” do not move into something on the edge of town; they buy near the station in Morristown, South Orange or Jersey City. The idea that 48 apartments will generate only 24 rush hour trips does not seem rational to me.

  3. Growing numbers of young apartment dwellers “are eschewing cars,”? Except, of course when something unusual comes up like the need to purchase food, liquor, medications including prescriptions or visit a doctor, dentist, dry cleaner, restaurant, clothing store, friends, church or synagog, movie theatre, hairdresser, nail salon, bank, post office, pick kids up from after school activities… This is not NYC yet with subways, busses and taxies roaming the streets.
    Trouble with the height restriction, smaller parking spaces so people can fight over who dinged who’s door, fewer than mandated parking stalls which will mean no place for visitors to park and a lot of arguing particularly when snow is plowed into some of the parking spaces… They are asking for a lot of ‘privilege’ and changes to the guidelines that were put in place for good reasons.

LEAVE A REPLY