TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—At least two residents of nearby Northgate Townhomes complex, including the condo association president, have written letters to the Zoning Board of Adjustment giving input on the nearly 17,000-square-foot proposed 4 Seasons Marketplace eyed for the Pascack–Washington intersection.
One letter, from Braeburn Drive resident and architect James Case, was forwarded to Pascack Press by another resident. The letter, which we’ve verified as authentic, told zoning officials that the mall would “adversely impact” Northgate homeowners’ quality of life, where the complex’s properties and pool are separated only by their tennis courts and what several believe are inadequate screening and buffering proposed by the applicant.
A Northgate condominium association board member told us that association board president Missy Vallantassis has delivered the ZBA their views. We are waiting for more details.
The bottom line is that dozens of nearby residents, at Northgate and on Meisten Street behind the proposed site, evidently do not want the center to be constructed on the five lots that comprise 660-682 Pascack Road, now occupied by five vacant, dilapidated single-family homes.
The decision, however, lies with ZBA members, likely in early 2023 following testimony from the applicant’s experts.
Northgate bills itself as affordable and conveniently located near the Garden State Parkway and shopping areas. Built in 1985, it consists of some 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.
The area generally is in transition: The Pascack–Washington intersection, long a vexing county bottleneck, is being overhauled under a shared services agreement; the town is in sight of finishing its large emergency services building on Washington Avenue, to suit the volunteer fire department and ambulance corps; and the former Washington Township Tennis and Fitness Club was razed, and in its place, at 620 Pascack Road, is a nearly complete 76,700-square-foot, two-story community for adults requiring assisted living and memory care assistance.
In his letter, Case describes the applicant’s traffic study — planned for review at the third Zoning Board hearing, Dec. 20 — as “hogwash.”
He detailed seven reasons that he believes disqualified the application for a use variance it is requesting. The 2.1-acre property, at 660-682 Pascack Road, requests a zoning change from “AA” single-family residential on half-acre lots to a commercial use.
Case also spoke at the Nov. 15 ZBA hearing, criticizing the proposal and wondering why the applicant, 660 Pascack Realty LLC, did not know what potential tenants may be in line for the mall, including whether a liquor store was possible.
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%).
At the Dec. 20 hearing, applicant architect John Montoro of Montoro Architectural Group of Saddle River will answer questions from the board and public about site screening; and a traffic expert from Dolan & Dean of Somerville will describe its “traffic impact analysis” for the proposed neighborhood retail development.
The traffic study can be found at the Zoning Board website, linked under #18 of the application documents.
What’s not to like?
In addition to criticizing the proposal as adding no benefits to the community, going against guidelines in the township’s 2006 Master Plan Re-examination, Case’s three-page letter spells out perceived harm to surrounding residents.
He quotes from the applicant’s traffic study: “Note that the applicant’s traffic engineer has produced a report with a finding, on page 8 that states: ‘This study therefore demonstrates that the proposed development will not have a negative or perceptible impact on operating conditions at surrounding intersections and that the proposed use can be approved on the site without any negative impacts or undue traffic congestion or blight.”
Case says, “Given the location near a major intersection and the (Parkway Exit 168) interchange, the site is particularly well-suited for the proposed use as a small, neighborhood retail center.”
That, says Case, is “Hogwash! People with only a modicum of common sense do not agree that the introduction of a strip mall, adding hundreds of cars a day to the traffic at this intersection, will not have even a ‘perceptible impact.’ People with common sense do not agree that adding truck deliveries, including tractor trailers, will be ‘without any negative impacts.’”
Case says, “The traffic engineer’s claim that it is a site ‘particularly well-suited’ for a strip mall should be challenged by this Zoning Board and stricken from the record. Traffic engineers are not qualified to recommend whether a site is well suited for a particular use. They are qualified only to comment on traffic engineering.”
Case allows, “Even if this site were well suited for a strip mall, does that mean one should be built there? I’m sure one could argue that this site is well suited for a multitude of ill-advised things, none of which this Township would support. It is adjacent to residences and zoned as residential – that is what it is best suited for.”
He says, “Allowing the subject property to be rezoned for commercial use will impose hardship on the adjacent residential property owners, who did not anticipate that the subject property would ever become a strip mall (the proposed development) when they purchased their homes.”
And he says, “A strip mall imposed adjacent to their backyards will adversely impact the adjacent residences and townhomes in terms of the peaceful enjoyment of their properties and their property values. This could not have been anticipated by the adjacent homeowners given that the subject property is zoned for residential use and the Township’s Master Plan does not call for a change in this zoning.”
Concerned about accidents
Case asserts a likely uptick in traffic accidents should the project be approved.
“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 lane and other enhanced features being installed at the Pascack Road–Washington Avenue intersection, the proposed project will not only add hundreds of cars per day to the traffic, as well as delivery trucks — including tractor trailers, but it will also create bottlenecks with cars entering and exiting the proposed project site and increase the likelihood of accidents, which are already plentiful at that intersection,” Case says.
He adds, We take a step forward with the long-awaited lane improvements, only to take two steps backward if this proposed strip mall project is allowed.”
Traffic study: ‘Negative growth’ in last decade
According to the “traffic impact analysis” submitted in September by Dean & Dolan, “…The addition of background growth and new site-generated traffic will not significantly change Levels of Service at the adjacent intersections. All movements at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Pascack Road are projected to operate at very favorable Levels of Service “C” or better during the evening and Saturday peak hour in both the “No Build” and “Build” condition.
“This comparative analysis conclusively demonstrates that the proposed development will not result in any unfavorable traffic conditions,” reads the study.
The study also notes, “…Since the intersection was last studied by D&D in 2011/2012 as part of an application for CVS, overall traffic has experienced a negative growth rate and has decreased over the past 10 years. As such, the use of a growth rate yields an inherently conservative forecast of future traffic conditions.”
In addition to alleging violations of the township Master Plan — its blueprint for future development and growth — Case alleges that the site is not properly screened from the Northgate complex.
“The proposed development project would need to be reduced in size to create a much wider buffer zone at its north property line. A reduction in building footprint would be required to enable pulling the parking lot further from the northern lot line and require fewer parking spaces (less cars and traffic),” he writes.
Case also charged that the proposed development offered no “givebacks” from the owner/developer to the community “in the form of amenities and design features that would benefit the community and public.”
“No such amenities or public benefits are evident in the proposed project. Instead, it is a commercial imposition designed to maximize the profitability of the site for the benefit of the owner/developer, with no regard for its neighbors, our community or our Township Master Plan,” Case asserts.
We reached out to Zoning Board Chair Said Toro for comment for this story. We didn’t hear back by press time.