Page 12 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • October 16, 2013 Franklin Lakes Developer to sue over affordable housing denial by Frank J. McMahon A developer whose use variance application was denied by the Franklin Lakes Zoning Board of Adjustment has confirmed that he will appeal in Superior Court. Joseph Commorata, a principal of ABJC Investments LLC, confirmed his intent to sue immediately after the board voted unanimously to deny his request to build affordable housing on a 3.2-acre residential lot at 724 Franklin Avenue. During the public hearing, extensive testimony was pro- vided by professional planner Joseph Burgis, who testified in support of the application, and Elizabeth McManus, the borough’s professional planner, and many neighbors of the subject property. Commorata planned to construct two buildings on Franklin Avenue adjacent to Shirley Avenue that would contain 24 multi-family dwelling units, including five low- and moderate-income housing units. He requested a use variance because multi-family housing is not permitted in the A-22.5 residential zone in which the site is located, and he intended to return to the board with specific site plans if that use variance were granted. Robert Kasuba, the attorney for ABJC Investments, pro- vided the board with several documents prior to Burgis’ tes- timony. Those documents included reports from the special master planner who was involved in the borough’s builder’s remedy affordable housing lawsuit in 2001, the housing plan prepared by the borough’s former professional plan- ner, a remediation report, a variety of census data related to housing issues, and a local board of education report regarding a projection of public school enrollment. Burgis told the board those documents provided enough evidence to support the special reasons necessary to grant the use variance. During his testimony, he pointed out that the site could not be easily developed for single-family homes due to its dimensions although, based on its current zoning, four lots could be created on the site. He also said the proposed plan is consistent with a number of the goals in the borough’s master plan, such as retaining the residential character of the site and recognizing the environmental constraints of the property, which has a large area of wetlands. He also said the plan would be consistent with the municipality’s obligation to provide affordable housing within the bor- ough, which he claims would be inherently beneficial to the community. Burgis said the traffic created by the proposed plan would not be a substantial detriment because it would create just 13 vehicle trips during peak traffic hours. He also said the impact of the housing plan on the school system would not be a substantial detriment based on the district’s projec- tion of declining enrollment. “This is a very appropriate site under the inherently ben- eficial use or the affordable housing standard,” the profes- sional planner said. During his testimony, however, several board members offered different opinions on how the site could be devel- oped to avoid the need for a use variance, and Zoning Board Attorney Robert Davies contended that the case law he has reviewed indicated that an inherently beneficial use exists only when an affordable housing project would consist of 100 percent affordable housing units. Kasuba disagreed and provided Davies with copies of a 2011 Haddonfield court decision to support Burgis’ tes- timony. McManus testified that her interpretation of the inher- ently beneficial statute indicated that the proposed use (continued on page 17)