Residents’ turn to challenge Four Ponds proposal

MIDDLETOWN — After eight months of testimony from the applicant, cross-examination began last week by an attorney retained by Lincroft residents opposing a hotly contested housing development proposed for the former Avaya site.

At the Feb. 1 meeting of the Middletown Township Planning Board, attorney Ron Gasiorowski, of Gasiorowski & Holobinko, in Red Bank, spent nearly an hour questioning the architect for the Four Ponds development.

Ned Gaunt, of Kaplan Gaunt DeSantis, re-asserted that the visual height of each of the 270 townhouse units would be approximately 40 feet.

“In reality, as far as those people who are living in the neighborhood, the true height [of the townhouse units] is approximately 40 feet,” Gasiorowski said to the board.

He also asked Gaunt to approximate the height of the flats in the center of the proposed site plan, which were approximated at 40 feet.

“In the testimony of Mr. [Victor] Furmanec [project planner], there’s a lot of give and take between him and the board with regard to the size of the affordable housing [flats],” Gasiorowski said.

“The word ‘mass’ was used and, in my understanding, mass in that context means a large building of significant size. I think the testimony was that on the existing site there is a large building which makes up the office complex itself.”

When asked, Gaunt also said the height of the current Avaya building was approximately 40 feet, noting that he wasn’t entirely sure of the number.

“The only real structural element on this [current] site is the building itself and it’s about 40 feet high, give or take a few feet,” Gasiorowski reiterated.

But in the proposed site plan, he said, every building had an approximate height of 40 feet.

“There’s no doubt with the fact that all these units are roughly the same size in height. So this whole idea of the affordable housing units being softened [visually] by the surrounding townhouses doesn’t really hold any water at all,” Gasiorowski concluded.

For the residents on neighboring Seagull Lane, all of the buildings would resemble each other, Gasiorowski said.

“One wouldn’t have to worry about standing in their backyard and seeing the affordable housing units, which are perhaps 100 to 150 feet away. They’re going to be looking at the back of these units in their backyard, which are equal in height to the affordable housing [units].”

Gaunt replied that he had taken the physical size of the townhouses into mind when designing them.

“The elements of the townhouses are broken into smaller components, giving it a more residential scale. The roofs on the townhouses are steeper, so the more vertical part of the building is lower and the overall impression is that the buildings are smaller,” Gaunt said.

Gasiorowski offered a self-described “sarcastic” visual metaphor.

“When you look at this visual, doesn’t it look like an aerial view of, perhaps, a parking lot of a Walmart? And, instead of having cars, we have houses parked,” Gasiorowski asked.

Gaunt immediately denied such an image, but the standing-room-only crowd let out triumphant cries of, “Yes!”

Gasiorowski also focused his cross-examination on what he estimated to be 859 potential residents who could live on the property.

“Does it make any sense to anticipate that a 3,000 square-foot building [a proposed clubhouse or recreational center], which is perhaps the size of an average house in this particular area of Middletown, can satisfy the needs of 859 people,” he asked Gaunt.

The architect replied that it was impossible to determine the use of the building.

“I think the needs of people are a variable situation. Some developments don’t have any amenities and some do,” Gaunt said .

But, according to the bylaws expected to govern its use, every resident could use it, Gasiorowski said.

In addition, Gasiorowski intimated that a single tennis court, swimming pool measuring 25 feet by 50 feet and a playground approximately 40 feet by 75 feet would not be big enough for the whole population of the development.

“It’s hard to say whether a particular amenity will serve the entire population. Everyone in the development is not going to use the amenity,” Gaunt replied.

Cross-examination will continue at the Planning Board’s March 7 meeting. The public will have an opportunity to cross-examine project engineer James Kennedy and Furmanec on their testimony from the Jan. 4 meeting.

Gasiorowski will also cross-examine Kennedy, Furmanec and traffic expert John Rea.