Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents Renaissance Harrison plans; board hears infrastructure and school‑impact concerns
Summary
Developers for the Renaissance Harrison site updated the board on a previously granted planning‑board approval and reported study of whether some units could be marketed as 55+; architects said 33 villas may work for active‑adult marketing but apartment quads are unsuitable; residents and an infrastructure expert raised concerns about wastewater and local capacity.
The developer team for Renaissance Harrison (the former Renaissance Hotel site at 80 West Red Oak Lane) returned to the board to ratify the planning board’s unanimous approval and to present analyses considering partial conversion of the project to age‑restricted (55+) units.
Seth Mandelbaum, attorney for the applicant, summarized prior planning‑board work and introduced Jeremy Sutherland of Perkins Eastman and developer Leonard Glickman. Sutherland said his review found that the interconnected apartment quads are not well suited to be marketed as active‑adult buildings because of shared garages and common spaces, but that the 33 villas on the east side—because of walking loops and separation—have potential to function as age‑restricted units.
Public commenters questioned infrastructure capacity and school impacts. Charles Beckett, a wastewater expert with decades of experience, said system upgrades across the county are expensive and urged closer scrutiny of the town’s sewer and stormwater infrastructure. Developer representatives said the planning board’s environmental review addressed infrastructure, that applicants are making off‑site improvements (sewer relining, culvert replacement, road widening) and that the applicant has committed funds and mitigation conditions.
Leonard Glickman said the project represents a long‑term investment and cited a developer commitment of $200 million toward redevelopment. Board members asked technical questions about unit mix and impacts on schools; developers declined to present final marketing decisions but said they would report back with further analysis.
