(7/2) The Carroll Valley Borough Planning Commission asked the representative of a proposed development at the board’s July 1 meeting to skip a month of discussions to allow the body to digest the information the proponents have placed on their table for another month.
Planning commission Chairman Edward Kaplin recommended that the continuing review of a development planned on a 107-acre wooded tract in the borough be postponed until the September meeting.
The development is being proposed by Eluma, Inc. on the tract in question, which is bordered by Sanders and Tract roads and butted-up against the borough’s K-section residential area.
Nearly two dozen borough citizens, mostly residents of K-section, attended the planning commission meeting to keep taps on the proposal
The current proposal remains fluid as the development company continues to work on a draft ordinance to present to the borough that would be designed to allow the company to create a flexible housing unit plan that would lead to a multi-phased development.
Changes in the borough ordinance would be necessary in order for the developers to establish a menu of multi-housing types that could be constructed over time on the site, depending on what type the housing market suggests is the most desirable during any given time-frame during the project’s multi-year build-out.
Briefly put, borough Planning Commission Chairman Edward Kaplan previously explained that Eluma is seeking to be able to build homes in several phases over an unspecified period of time, with their design based on prevailing housing demands which might occur during the various periods of construction.
Addressing previous comments of the board, attorney Charles Suhr, representing Eluma, stated that the proposed ordinance presented at the July meeting had been further amended to establish increased set-backs from the K-section, an increase in "green space" from 50 to 6 feet, and apartment building heights increased from 35 feet to 45 feet.
The applicants also noted that 400 to 450 dwelling units were proposed, a figure borough Manager David Hazlett said he had never heard before. "I thought it was 350 (units proposed)," he said.
The general consensus of the board was that it would take time to review the new changes, as well as the issue of the proposed number of dwelling units, and chose to not take any action on the proposed ordinance at the July meeting.
Instead, the board concurred with Kaplin’s recommendation to bump the continuing review to the September meeting.
Read other articles about Fairfield