By ANDREA ALEXANDER
KEYPORT BUREAU

MIDDLETOWN -- As officials continue to explore options to stop the proposed "town center" project, Assemblyman Joseph Azzolina, whose family wants to develop the property, exploded at a Planning Board meeting and accused officials of "criminal" behavior and acting on personal vendettas.

His son, Joseph Azzolina Jr., and his nephew, Philip Scaduto, a former Board of Education president, are principals in the Mountain Hill Group, which is seeking to build a $150 million town center on 137 acres off Route 35 between Kings Highway East and Kanes Lane.

The town center plan calls for a mix of stores, offices, apartments, single-family homes, a supermarket, a skating rink and other uses.

The Planning Board voted unanimously last night to accept the recommendation of a special consultant that 85 acres of the town center property, currently designated as a "planned development zone" -- which would allow for a town center -- do not qualify as a redevelopment area.

A redevelopment area designation would have allowed the Township Committee to rezone the area with a simple majority vote, compared with the two-thirds majority vote required in all other decisions.

If the township's planning consultant, Annemarie C. Uebbing, had recommended designating the property for redevelopment, she would have presented the township with alternate recommendations for the site that could have derailed the town center plan.

"They finally got it right," said Mountain Hill attorney Gary Fox after the vote. He called the report a "waste of time and money."

Mayor Rosemarie Peters said after the meeting last night that officials will consider another alternative to the town center: rezoning the property for "active adult" housing. The Planning Board in January adopted a new master plan that recommended the change in zoning for such a complex.

'Vendetta' alleged

"This is absolutely a vendetta against the Azzolinas, the Scadutos and me," said Azzolina Sr., R-Monmouth, during his outburst at the meeting.

"It is criminal what the board has done," he said, adding that Planning Board chairwoman Judith Stanley Coleman is "the leader of the whole thing."

Azzolina attacked Peters and Deputy Mayor Joan Smith, who both sit on the Planning Board and are both seeking re-election to the Township Committee in November.

"This is going to cost you the election," he said, addressing Peters. "I am totally disgusted with the governing body of this town. Joan Smith, I am disgusted with you. I hope you don't get elected again."

Azzolina had been opposed to the planned development designation when it was first zoned that way 10 years ago, but he had been swayed by officials. Azzolina has been critical lately of township efforts to change the designation again, after his family came forward with a plan.

"It is obvious he is very angry, and he feels we are not giving his development the approval he would like," Peters said.

"It is really about the land use being proposed," she said. "Members of all boards have concerns about the intensity. Any concerns being expressed are about the land use being proposed and the impact on this area. I wish he didn't feel it is a personal thing, because it isn't."

Court case looming

Last month, the Board of Adjustment decided that it could not vote on three variances sought by the developer because the board would be essentially rezoning the property -- an authority it does not have.

The developers said they plan to challenge that decision in court.

The builder sought the variances because the zoning allows for such a project only on the 85-acre "planned development" zone. The remaining 52 acres are zoned for a mix of manufacturing and retail.

In March, the Planning Board hired the North Brunswick-based firm Heyer, Gruel and Associates to determine whether the planned development zone could qualify as a redevelopment area.

According to the regulations, unimproved land that has not been developed for 10 years before the adoption of a resolution ordering a study qualifies as a redevelopment area.

Substandard, unsanitary or dilapidated buildings or abandoned commercial or industrial sites are also considered appropriate for redevelopment.

Uebbing concluded that the property does not qualify for redevelopment because most of the area is assessed as farmland, and preserving farmland is listed as a priority in the township master plan.

"Its classification as farmland would not allow it to be qualified as underutilized," according to her report.