Woolwich committee adopts zoning change and PILOT to advance 72‑unit affordable housing project amid residents’ safety concerns

The Woolwich Township Committee on Aug. 4 adopted a zoning amendment and a long‑term tax‑exemption agreement to allow a 72‑unit affordable housing project at the Kings Landing site (Block 16, Lot 5), after more than two hours of public comment focused on traffic safety and site constraints.

Mayor Matthias read Ordinance 2025‑12, which amends the Kings Landing Redevelopment Plan and creates an AH2 affordable‑housing zone designed to satisfy municipal obligations under the New Jersey Fair Housing Act. The committee then read Ordinance 2025‑13, approving a financial agreement and a long‑term exemption with PG Woolwich Urban Renewal, LLC for construction and tax‑exemption terms.

Neighbors who live along Garwin Road and at Route 322 urged the committee to reconsider the site. Multiple residents described repeated crashes at the Garwin Road/Route 322 intersection and said the area is unsafe for children walking to school. One resident, identified in the record as Resident (48 Garwin Road), said the traffic left them feeling like a “hostage in my own home.” Several residents also raised technical concerns including gas lines through the parcel, drainage issues and wetlands.

Park Grove Development LLC representatives and their planners disputed that the site is unsuitable. John Gillespie said the planning board unanimously adopted the township’s Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and found the ordinance consistent with the master plan. Planner Sam Leone and architect Josh Eckert acknowledged constraints — topography, wetlands and a gas line — but said the parcel nevertheless met the state criteria the developer used to site 100%‑affordable units. Committee members questioned visual and height impacts: the ordinance requests a maximum building height of 40 feet (up from 35 in the R‑2 district), and planners noted the grade difference between Kings Highway and Garwin Road could make the structure appear substantially taller from the road.

Committeeman Frederick moved to amend the ordinance to limit the building to 20 feet; the amendment was seconded by Committeewoman Minhas. The roll call on the amendment was Frederick: YES, Minhas: YES, Williams: NO, Nocentino: NO, Matthias: NO — the amendment failed 3–2. On final adoption of Ordinance 2025‑12 the roll call was Frederick: NO, Minhas: NO, Williams: YES, Nocentino: YES, Matthias: YES — the ordinance passed 3–2.

Public commenters also questioned the PILOT arrangement approved under Ordinance 2025‑13, noting that tax revenues from the project would not go to the local school district for up to 30 years under the terms discussed. Resident (10 Wilshire Blvd.) asked whether any PILOT funds would be allocated to the schools; Mayor Matthias said the township could consider such arrangements though none were included in the current ordinance. The committee adopted Ordinance 2025‑13 by a 3–2 roll call (Frederick and Minhas NO; Williams, Nocentino and Matthias YES).

The committee’s vote advances the project to subsequent approvals (planning board/site plan and permitting). Committee members who voted against the ordinances cited traffic safety, concerns about the site’s physical constraints and questions about the state’s affordable‑housing calculations; supporters cited the township’s exposure to potential builder’s‑remedy lawsuits and the need to meet statutory obligations.

What’s next: the ordinances establish zoning and authorize the financial agreement but do not by themselves authorize construction. The project will return to planning and permitting reviews; township staff and agencies will continue to evaluate traffic mitigation measures and school‑district impacts.