Last week, Livingston’s Planning Board discussed a redevelopment plan for a portion of South Livingston Avenue near Mt. Pleasant Avenue. The Township Council had referred the plan to the Planning Board, who was tasked – as the Board always is in these instances – with determining if it was consistent with the master plan. It was.On Monday, the redevelopment plan was sent back to the Township Council for a final vote. If passed, the runway would be cleared for developers to construct a 276-unit rental property on the South Livingston Avenue site which formerly occupied Bottle King. Of those 276 units, 15 percent would be for low and moderate income tenants, the state minimum requirement on rental properties.Prior to sending the redevelopment plan back to the Township Council, Planning Board member Richard Dinar expressed several concerns about the proposed property, including height issues and parking density. He also requested that the number of proposed affordable units be increased. All of these, we believe, would be beneficial changes to the project. When these types of plans have been presented to the Planning Board in the past, multiple members have stated that the Board’s role is simply to see if the project is consistent with the master plan, which, in this case, it was, as we already stated.But, the law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(e), certainly leaves it open to interpretation. It reads, in part: “Prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan, or revision or amendment thereto, the Planning Board shall transmit to the governing body, within 45 days after referral, a report containing its recommendation concerning the redevelopment plan. This report shall include an identification of any provisions in the proposed redevelopment plan which are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations concerning these inconsistencies and any other matters as the Board deems appropriate.” Certainly, it could be interpreted that Dinar’s concerns fit within these guidelines.Perhaps the town should look into altering the master plan, which was last updated in 2018. It is certainly due for an overhaul considering all of the changes in town since it was last amended. Alterations focused on these types of redevelopment plans – which have been passed with more frequency in recent years – should certainly factor into what is written. As of now, the majority of Planning Board members feel they must essentially rubber stamp these plans when they are presented to them, as long as ...
