Letter to the Editor: 'Green Village Could Have Been Better'

The following is a Letter to the Editor from Pieter Ruiter, the vice president of BoroGreen on behalf of the group.

Vital importance of community involvement may well be the most important outcome of efforts to improve the Green Village proposals that were before Hillsborough's Planning Board at two public hearings in March 2012.

The future of Block 141/Lot 30–the proposed Green Village area–really was determined by things that happened some time ago:

• The creation of the NJ Fair Housing Act in 1985 that led to the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). 
• Hillsborough COAH requirements, in this case dating back to 2008. 
• The court appointed Special Master Elizabeth MacKenzie to ensure compliance and assist Hillsborough, for not providing a timely and comprehensive plan–the “only town in New Jersey” this has happened to. (Chairman Sireci, 3/22/2012).
• The GV zoning plan that was accepted by the court, leading to judgment of repose providing Hillsborough with legal protection against “housing developer wolves” (Committeeman Wagner, 2010).
• Hillsborough’s intent to take advantage of various “exclusions and credits allowed by the Court’s Special Master” (Jennifer Beahm/CME Associates, Hillsborough’s Affordable Housing Consultant) to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 650 to 191.

Many citizens spoke out during the two hearings. Some residents requested pedestrian and bicycle access, not just within Green Village, but connected to the surrounding area. Chairman Sireci negotiated accordingly with the developer to extend the sidewalks to Route 206. Other residents wondered why the affordable housing apartments were so different from the market-rate apartments. Vice-Chair Cohen addressed the cheaper look of the affordable apartments and the developer made a concession to upgrade the façade. One resident mentioned that he bikes to the Kohl’s plaza with his kids and that he would be interested in cycling to the planned Green Village restaurants. Board Member Fenwick requested that bike racks be placed near the retail space. 

Fearing stigmatization and segregation, it was suggested to blend the affordable housing apartments with the market rate apartments. This fell flat, due to somewhat vague "manageability issues,” despite successful implementation elsewhere in NJ.

The idea of underground parking resonated briefly but went nowhere “due to cost.” None of the appeals to reduce the overall footprint, or the parking space required, were championed by the Planning Board. As a result, it seems inevitable that 75 percent of the trees will be removed.

Regretfully, Green Village will only adopt Energy Star standards instead of more beneficial LEED standards, a missed opportunity for the future residents.

Traffic concerns connected with 469 apartments, a hotel and retail space discharging onto an already tight Route 206 were played down. We can only hope the engineers will turn out to be right.

Concern remains that the proposed storm water management and water re-absorption mechanisms will be insufficient and may lead to flood hazards in neighboring developments. 

The board’s final approval was made contingent upon approval by the state’s Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the D&R Commission.

We commend the board and Township Committee for trying to mitigate the impact of our court-mandated obligations. Planning our future in even smarter, more sustainable ways will become a necessity, not a luxury. 

Let us hope Green Village will become a nice place to live. Let us also realize residents can be a source of constructive input to our local government at all levels. Getting involved–and staying involved–is essential for a well functioning society. We’re all in this together.

Pieter Ruiter
Vice-President, BoroGreen