TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—After six hearings over seven months, the Township Zoning Board of Adjustment voted, 6-1, on May 16 to reject the Four Seasons Marketplace proposal for a 17,100-square-foot retail shopping plaza at 660 to 682 Pascack Road at Washington Avenue.
The applicant, 660 Pascack Realty LLC, majority owned by Seasons Catering principal James Kourgelis, applied in October 2022 for a use variance on the 2.4-acre site to construct a commercial shopping plaza with two buildings holding up to 11 shops and a restaurant on land zoned for single-family houses.
Voting no were John Callandrillo, Anthony Capasso, Michael LaGratta, Sean Mahoney, Jeff Roberto, and Chairman Michael DeSena. Voting yes was Les Hanna. No board member offered a public comment or explanation following their vote.
On Facebook, opponents were in a buoyant mood after the vote, lauding their perseverance and wondering whether the applicant would appeal.
‘Our client is weighing its options’
Applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker told Pascack Press on May 17 that 660 Pascack Realty LLC believed that it “met our burden of proof under the standards promulgated by the Municipal Land Use Law for the board to grant land use approval for the commercial development we proposed.”
Whitaker said, “We are disappointed with the decision that was summarily made by the Zoning Board. At this juncture, our client is weighing its options as it pertains to the development of this property.” He noted that commercial uses exist on the “other three corners” of the intersection and that the intersection “has the ability to accommodate our client’s proposed use.”
Dilapidated homes remain on site
During the hearings, residents had noted how three of five homes on the site had fallen into disrepair for decades, creating a public safety hazard and eyesore at the busy intersection. A proposal for a CVS store on the site was defeated about a decade ago after community opposition.
After a three-hour hearing where Michael Agnello of Meisten Street was told he could not offer testimony on previously submitted documents that he alleged showed a property value decline due to the proposed mall, he walked out of the hearing.
Much of the hearing focused on testimony from applicant engineer Calisto Bertin, Bertin Engineering, who testified about a larger landscaping buffer — up to 28 feet in places — that would be added along the site’s northern border with Northgate Condominiums.
Moreover, the applicant traffic engineer, Gary Dean, Dean & Dolan, provided a recap of his responses to a Boswell Engineering traffic review letter that also included new traffic counts and “historical” Bergen County traffic data for the intersection.
He said the new counts and projections using historical data did not show any changes in “levels of service” at the intersection.
Boswell’s review of the Dean & Dolan traffic study had cited 15 concerns. Boswell Engineer John Yakimic said that Gary Dean had addressed all of his concerns, and under prodding from applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker, Yakimic said, “From a traffic perspective, the site is well suited for its (proposed) use.”
Yakimic also read into the record a recent oral report that Boswell engineer Kevin Boswell provided to Township Council on the “unnamed tributary” that flows behind the proposed mall site and behind Meisten Street homes.
He said the waterway was unregulated by the state Department of Environmental Protection due to remotely sensed survey data — offered on the DEP website — and used by Boswell that showed the tributary’s drainage area to be less than 50 acres. The May 12, 2023 letter from Boswell to the Zoning Board provides details.
“As a result (of the drainage basin size), the adjacent Musquapsink Brook Tributary is unregulated by the NJDEP and has no environmental effect on the site,” states the Boswell letter.
For more articles on the proposed shopping plaza application’s history, visit our online Pascack Press website and search for them using our Search tool. Moreover, back issues of Pascack Press are archived on issuu.com and can be accessed by clicking on our e-newspaper.
Meanwhile, the unnamed tributary is not listed on a recent drone study done by Boswell Engineering that cites two other “unnamed tributaries” that flow into Musquapsink Brook. (See “Flyby on brook finds action items,” Michael Olohan, May 1, 2023, Pascack Press.) An expanded article on the Musquapsink Brook Condition Assessment report is posted at Pascack Press online.
Approximately 40 documents, including studies, letters, and applicant responses, are posted online under the “Four Seasons Town Square” Zoning Board application, for public inspection. Click on Current Applications on the board website for access.
Public Questions and Comments
Nearly a dozen residents, mostly neighbors from the Northgate Condominium complex north of the site and Meisten Street residents west of the proposed mall, questioned the traffic study, screening and landscaping, public safety, quality of life impacts, and alleged conflicts with the Master Plan.
James Case of Braeburn Drive at Northgate said quality of life would be affected by noise and pollution from a mall and rezoning the land for commercial use was in “direct contradiction” to the township’s updated 2016 Master Plan.
He said the Master Plan recommended to limit commercial uses to Washington Town Center, the township’s large commercial shopping plaza, and noted that the 660-682 Pascack Road site was only for “public uses” as detailed in the plan.
He said “public sentiment is overwhelmingly against this application” adding in his nine years in town he’s “never heard anyone say we don’t have enough shopping malls.”
Whitaker reminded Case that the applicant was not requesting a rezoning but a use variance for the site, noting previously that the corner’s three other properties were now used as commercial uses.
John Ramig of Northgate Road questioned how the township would benefit from a proposed shopping plaza on the corner, noting the only benefits “will go to the applicant.” He said the applicant should have looked at the site for residential use and not commercial, noting the proposed mall “harms surrounding property owners.”
Another resident suggested the Zoning Board should not be voting on “a change of this magnitude” and said that there was “no upside to the town for anything about this.”
Northgate resident Henry Cenicola called the proposed mall use “a complete and utter violation of the intent of the township Master Plan” by “self-invited guests who are coming into our house and asking us for a favor.”
He noted the safety of township residents and families was at stake in the Zoning Board’s decision, adding residents “will have to live with the consequences of decisions made here this evening.”
Deborah Agnello, Meisten Street, said the proposed mall application was “wrong for so many reasons” and asked members how they would vote if a shopping mall was proposed in their backyards.
Nancy Nutile, a 31-year resident including the last 16 years on Meisten Street, said she and her husband opposed a strip mall on the site, noting she often cannot make a left onto Washington Avenue from Meisten due to traffic volume and the mall will bring more traffic.
She said the prospect of a mall there “makes me sick to even think about,” noting potential smells, odors, trash, and overflow parking. She said the site owner “let the properties rot and become eyesores to the neighboring homes doesn’t mean this should go through.”
She said, “If any other resident in town did the same thing, they would have been told no to this whole idea.” She questioned why neighbors do not know what types of businesses will go into the mall and said that Seasons Catering (the principal applicant) “thinks he can do what he wants” including playing loud music outdoors.
She questioned how the township would be able to enforce noise and light limits, “when it’s private property being run by a landlord.”
Amy Szurly, Braeburn Drive, said if the Zoning Board approved the mall, “you’re setting a precedent that I don’t think you want to set.” She said it was “the first step on a slippery slope that opens up the door” for similar future land use changes.