TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—The Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 20 memorialized its denial of 660 Pascack LLC’s proposal for a 17,100-square-foot retail plaza — Four Seasons Marketplace — at the busy Pascack Road and Washington Avenue intersection citing “substantial detriment to the public good” as a major reason for its rejection of the proposed shopping mall.
The board voted, 6-0, to memorialize its denial of the proposed mall, a development application opposed by neighbors including Meisten Street and Northgate Condominium residents, plus other residents.
Some critics said the town already has a nearby and larger local shopping plaza, Washington Town Center, less than a mile away. Voting for the denial resolution: John Callandrillo; Les Hanna; Michael LaGratta, Sean Mahoney; Michael Fusco, and chairman Michael DeSena.
On May 16, Hanna voted in favor of the application.
Applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker said he had no comment on the denial resolution as he had not received an electronic copy by 2 p.m. on June 21. Minor changes were made that needed to be included in the resolution, officials said at the meeting.
“Based upon the findings of facts, testimony presented, and documents submitted for review…the application of 660 Pascack Realty LLC is hereby denied for preliminary and final site plan approval and variance relief from the Zoning code,” states Resolution 23-09.
The board also said it “determines that the relief requested by the applicant cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance…the board also determines that the plan does not represent a better planning alternative, with the least impact on the property as a whole.”
Board members read the “resolution of denial” into the record over nearly an hour at the meeting. Copies of the resolution were due to be posted soon, said the board secretary.
The applicant had requested a use variance for the property, repeatedly citing it was “particularly suited” for use as a commercial site, while pointing out properties on three intersection corners were also commercial uses. In addition to its heavily trafficked intersection, the applicant cited the recent county-financed intersection improvements as rationale for siting a retail plaza there.
The applicant, majority owned by Seasons Catering’s James Kourgelis, owns the five lots at 660-682 Pascack Road. Three homes there have lain vacant and deteriorating for a decade, while two homes on the site are currently leased to tenants.
The dilapidated homes were also recently cited as “nuisances” by the code enforcement officer under the property maintenance code.
The resolution recounts key aspects and findings of the five public hearings over six months prior to the 6-1 board decision on May 16 to deny the application. (See “Nope! Zoning Board rejects strip mall by 6-1 vote,” Michael Olohan, May 22, 2023.)
The resolution notes the site lies in an area zoned “AA” restricted to single-family homes. It notes the site includes residential properties on its north side (Northgate Condominiums) and its west side (Meisten Street homes).
The board found that the applicant provided “insufficient evidence” that allowing a change of use to a commercial center would be a better planning alternative than what is permitted in the AA zone.
It said the “use and aesthetics of the property are out of character” with surrounding homes.
The resolution notes the applicant argued throughout the hearings that the site was “particularly suited for commercial use” as the “special reason” that a “D” or use variance should be granted to change the site’s zoning. It states the special reasons proposed by the applicant were “insufficient” for the board to approve a change in use.
Some “special reasons” cited by the applicant were discounted by the board’s planner. These included an argument for “the free flow of traffic” as the intersection improvement plan existed prior to application; the “desirable visual argument” was unconvincing as the applicant allowed its properties on site to deteriorate.
It notes the proposed retail center is “likely to have a substantial detrimental impact” upon other properties in the neighborhood.
Impacts include “adding … traffic to an already busy intersection” and the proposed retail center “would create more noise, air and light pollution, more frequent garbage pickups and deliveries, more foot and vehicle traffic than would be present if the properties were developed as single-family dwellings permitted in the “AA” zone,” said the resolution.
He said the board was unconvinced that the landscape buffer on the site’s west side will be adequate, given applicant engineer testimony that 8–10 feet of retail buildings will be visible for “many years” while the trees being planted grow to screen them.
The resolution states the applicant noted 50-foot buffers between residential and commercial zoned property as standard, and those buffers were not available on the west or north side.
The board determined that the applicant’s proposed commercial use “is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the (township) Master Plan, and Zoning ordinance, and has provided insufficient evidence to justify deviation from the goal(s) of the Master Plan.”