It’s been about 15 months since the Planning Board rejected plans for a five-story high-rise at the Lincoln Statue corner. The redeveloper – Advanced Development Group – filed suit and the matter has wound its way through state Superior Court for the past year.
The matter appears to be heading to a resolution. Attorneys for the two sides had oral arguments in state Superior Court on Feb. 16, according to officials.
Does Middlesex Borough get another high-rise? Will the small, historic park surrounding the statue gets spruced up but perhaps down-sized?
As the two sides have maneuvered legally for the past year, much of it occurred on paper or in conferences with the presiding judge. Briefs filed by the attorneys for each side give a glimpse of the legal arguments being employed. As might be expected, the two sides present widely differing versions of the legal dispute.
The court filings point to the borough’s now-defunct Economic Development Advisory Committee as having a key role several years ago in moving the Advanced proposal along. The EDAC was convened by ex-Mayor Ron DiMura to give input on site plan applications prior to formal proceedings. Although minutes were mandated by the borough’s administrative code, the EDAC never kept them. As a result, there’s no official record of meeting discussions.
While the EDAC was described to taxpayers as an “advisory” group, Advanced has portrayed it as more authoritative. Advanced’s attorney Joseph Paparo asserted that his client worked “collaboratively” with the EDAC on statue issues. At the time, that panel was the “acting redevelopment agency for the borough,” he wrote.
Advanced met with the EDAC in October 2017 to review an initial concept, again in October 2018 after an adjacent parcel was contracted for, and yet again in January 2019. The additional land allowed Advanced to increase the number of proposed residential units to 63. The mixed-use project also comprises 2,500 square feet of retail space. There were talks about the redeveloper acquiring a piece of the borough-owned park at the site to assist with the parking layout. In return, the statue and nearby area would be upgraded.
Later in 2019, Advanced began hearings before the Planning Board, met with Middlesex County officials and attempted to address various concerns raised by town consultants. In October 2019, the board rejected Advanced’s proposal by a 6-2 vote. The following year, the borough merged its separate Planning and Zoning boards into one Joint Land Use Board.
Paparo claimed the Planning Board embarked on an “anti-multi-family development crusade” that “disregarded” the town’s redevelopment plan. He called the denial “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.” The borough’s redevelopment plan, he wrote, “not only encourages and promotes high density, mixed-use development, it specifically identifies the property as an appropriate location for a five-story building.“
Arguing for the borough, attorney William Robertson wrote that Advanced sought an “excessive” number of exceptions to zoning guidelines. “Nothing in the size, shape or topography of the property prevented it from being developed consistently with the criteria contained in the zoning ordinance, the site plan ordinance and the redevelopment plan,” Robertson contended.
The builder and borough have had differing opinions on tandem parking, ingress/egress and traffic. All are technical issues often haggled over by experts. For most Middlesex residents – particularly those who have lived here a while – the most interesting question is what happens to the beloved statue which turns 123 years old in May.
Lincoln Park
One of the “critical components” of the plan is incorporation of the Lincoln Statue Park, wrote Paparo. He noted that the town’s redevelopment plan called for a park upgrade.
The borough-owned statue parcel is 15,000 square feet in size. The fenced-in grass area is 5,747 square feet with the remainder being a gravel parking area. Advanced proposed decorative landscaping, seating and lighting in a 5,300-square-foot park area with the rest conveyed to the redeveloper for parking.
Robertson wrote that while the redevelopment plan “contemplated” upgrade of the statue park, it does not require it. He also criticized the redeveloper’s planned reduction of the park’s size.
“It is difficult to imagine that reduction of a public park by 77% meets the definition of conservation…of any structure or improvement,” wrote Robertson. He further contended that Advanced could have designed the project to fit on existing land without the statue park.
“To claim that it is the borough’s vision that the park be incorporated in the design and function of the park is disingenuous and self-serving,” Robertson added.
Paparo called the board’s contention that the park would be reduced in size by 77% an “erroneous narrative” since not all 15,000 square feet is usable. “Unless people are bringing picnic baskets and spreading baskets on the gravel parking area, the defendant’s calculation is just plain wrong,” he wrote.
Although land area would be removed from the statue park and consolidated into the proposed development, Paparo noted its use would be the same – public parking.
Pundit 