TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—The board of directors of the Northgate Condominium Association, 41 Forsgate Court, has written the Zoning Board of Adjustment to itemize its unanimous objection to a proposed retail development at 660-682 Pascack Road — the proposed 4 Seasons Town Square.
Writing Nov. 4, Missy Valantassis, president of the association’s board, advises ZBA chair Said Toro that in their view the proposed development “poses a substantial detriment to the public good in that it will increase traffic at an already stressed intersection, will contribute noise and light pollution to its surrounding neighbors, will add refuse storage and collection, will introduce tractor trailer traffic to supply the proposed commercial retail tenants, and add duplicated retail services to our community.”
Northgate is on the north border of the asked-for development site, a nearly 17,000-square-foot proposed 4 Seasons Marketplace eyed for the Pascack–Washington intersection.
Dozens of nearby residents, at Northgate and on Meisten Street behind the proposed site do not want the center to be constructed on the five lots on 2.1 acres that comprise 660–682 Pascack Road, now occupied by five vacant, dilapidated single-family homes.
(See “Northgate residents say no on strip mall; critic living near site calls supportive traffic study ‘hogwash,’” Michael Olohan, Nov. 28, 2022.)
660 Pascack Realty LLC owns Seasons Catering as well as the properties to be developed at Block 2110, Lots 6–11, from 660-682 Pascack Road. 660 Pascack Realty LLC owners include James Kourgelis (67.3%), George Kourgelis (16.7%), and Carl Carfello (16.7%).
The applicant requests a zoning change from “AA” single-family residential on half-acre lots to a commercial use.
The decision lies with ZBA members, likely in early 2023 following testimony from the applicant’s experts: At the Dec. 20 meeting of the ZBA, applicant architect John Montoro of Montoro Architectural Group of Saddle River will field questions from the board and public about site screening; a traffic expert from Dolan & Dean of Somerville will discuss its traffic impact analysis. (The traffic study can be found at the Zoning Board website, linked under #18 of the application documents.)
Northgate bills itself as affordable and conveniently located near the Garden State Parkway and shopping areas. Built in 1985, it consists of somes 76 units, each of two to three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a garage. NJcondos.net estimates the average unit price at $600,000, with approximate taxes at $11,000.
We obtained the letter by request from Valantassis, who said on Nov. 30, “The Northgate Board and our attorney have all approved” its appearance here. We reached out to ZBA chair Said Toro for comment.
Valantassis told the ZBA that the Northgate association opposes the application on several grounds:
- The Master Plan Reexamination of Aug. 7, 2019 states that the objective is to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment. “The proposed development will add traffic, noise and light pollution. We are concerned that this will not enhance the quality of our environment.”
- The increase in traffic at an already busy intersection near and at Pascack Road and Washington Avenue “will create an unsafe situation. Very concerning is the proposed left turn exit north on Pascack Road from the proposed development, which requires the driver to cross three lanes of traffic.”
- “The distance from the intersection at Pascack Road and Washington Avenue to the one exit north from the proposed development is too close to the intersection (500 feet), and gas station, which also has a left turn onto Pascack Road.”
- “The proposed development will exacerbate a traffic problem that the town and county have been trying to solve for many years. With relief finally in sight with the added lanes and other enhanced features being installed at the Pascack Road and Washington Avenue intersection, the proposed project will not only add hundreds of cars per day to the traffic, but it will also create bottlenecks with cars entering and exiting the proposed project site and increase the likelihood of accidents.”
- The close proximity to the emergency services center on Washington Avenue is also of concern as “The increased traffic will be commingling with their vehicles, EMT, and fire trucks. In addition, we can expect more ambulance activity due to the new assisted living facility next to Seasons.”
- “There is already a retail center in our township about one mile south of the proposed development [Washington Town Center].” The proposed development would create a duplication of store types as well as competition to the already existing stores.”
- “There is no record of a public request to add another commercial zone with a strip mall at the proposed location, and it arguably is not being proposed as a “benefit to the public.”
- The Master Plan Reexamination of Aug. 7, 2019 states that objective 11 is to “preserve open space and limit impervious surface coverage.” The proposed development “maximizes impervious surface coverage by installing large buildings and large paved parking areas.”
Northgate also discusses objective 18 of the Master Plan Reexamination, which states, “Maintain the Township’s existing balanced land use pattern by strictly adhering to the land use designations provided for each zone district in Chapter 245 of the Code of the Township of Washington and the Township Land Use Plan map, which is included in the 2006 Master Plan Reexamination Report.”
“Commercial uses should be limited to the existing Class ‘C’ Retail Business Area,” the plan says. Nevertheless, says Northgate, “The proposed development is in complete defiance of this objective. Commercial uses are specifically called out as not appropriate for this residential zone.”
Compromises sought
Valantassis offers, “If the Zoning Board of Adjustment does reverse course from the Township Master Plan, and after any legal obstacles are cleared, at a minimum the following items are needed:
- “A true buffer be built on the north side of the proposed development by the applicant on the applicant’s property.” Northgate finds a proposed hedgerow “does not meet the criteria of ‘adequate design and screening/buffering from adjacent residential properties” as stated and envisioned in the Master Plan, “especially given the dense and commercial nature of the proposed project.”
- Northgate says “A screening and buffering solution would need to be designed in collaboration with the adjacent residential property owners. A wall and arborvitae would be desirable.”
- The footprint of the two retail buildings on the proposed development be reduced in order to reduce the number of parking spaces, create parking spaces to standard size (180 square feet), and allow for more appropriate space between the west and north sides of the proposed development. “This would ensure a safer parking area and a wider buffer zone between properties.”
- “Ensure that drainage in the proposed development is more than adequate in order that there are no blockages or water buildups that would adversely affect the property of Northgate Condominium Association.”
- Valantassis also asks, “Restaurants have a standard closing time before 11 p.m. Will the possible future restaurants be allowed to have liquor licenses?”
- And Northgate takes issue with the proposal in light of a Burgis Associates Inc. (urban planners based in Westwood) memorandum dated Oct. 14, 2022, under Section C Statutory Criteria: “…an applicant for a use variance must demonstrate that special reasons are satisfied by either showing that the proposed use is one which ‘inherently serves the public good’ or that the proposed use promotes the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for that use.”
Says Valantassis, “The Medici decision provides that in conjunction with the demonstration of the negative criteria, an enhanced quality of proof must be demonstrated to indicate that the grant of the requested use variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We believe it is obvious that the proposed development does not meet the criteria above.”
She says, “It does not inherently serve the public good. Bergen County and the Township of Washington are not in need of an additional commercial retail strip mall. We have plenty of food, banking and shopping available already.”
She adds, “The proposed development is obviously inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Master Plan which states, as mentioned above, the desire to ‘maintain the township’s existing balanced land use pattern by strictly adhering to the land use designations provided for each zone district in Chapter 245 of the Code of the Township of Washington and the Township Land Use Plan map, which is included in the 2006 Master Plan Reexamination Report.”