TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—An applicant planner told the Zoning Board of Adjustment Feb. 28 that the five lots at 660-682 Pascack Road are “particularly suitable” to accommodate a neighborhood retail plaza as the primary reason the board should grant a land use variance for the proposed 17,100-square-foot retail center.
However, residents questioned most of his “special reasons” during public comments. Zoning Board Planner Joseph Burgis also questioned a couple of Grygiel’s assertions, although he said some of his special reasons “had merit” and should be considered.
At a fourth hearing on Jan. 24, the board requested a review of the applicant’s traffic study that found “inconsequential” impacts from an anticipated increase of 43 vehicles at peak travel times at the proposed plaza. The review will be done by Boswell Engineering, and was originally expected on Feb. 28. No details were provided for the delay.
Zoning Board Chair Michael DeSena said the study would be presented at the next hearing on March 21.
Applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker requested an advance copy and noted that the study should be made public at least 10 days before the application’s sixth hearing.
Several residents questioned when they would be allowed to offer public comments, instead of asking questions of applicant professionals. Following the completion of experts’ testimony and board and public question periods, and before a final Zoning Board vote, the public is offered an opportunity to voice opinions.
That public comment period may occur at the next meeting, or if extended, a following meeting. Once the board-requested traffic review is presented, and questioned, final comments may be heard or possibly postponed to a future meeting, if the applicant agrees to extend hearings.
Even before Grygiel’s testimony began, applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker warned Zoning Board members that an online petition opposing the project cannot be entered into the record or considered by members since the petition cannot be cross-examined.
Moreover, he said court decisions have excluded such petitions from consideration.
He cautioned Zoning Board members that they are a quasi-judicial board and must remain neutral, noting it had come to his attention that some residents had “attempted” to send petitions, emails, letters, and hold conversations with members about the application.
He said board attorney Gary Giannantonio should instruct them that such violations could result in their removal from the application’s decision.
The property is currently zoned single-family residential, but applicant planner Paul Grygiel said the site was “particularly suited” for a retail plaza, a special reason identified under the Municipal Land Use Law that, if proven, would allow the Zoning Board to grant a use variance.
Grygiel’s testimony explained how he believed the application satisfied the positive and negative criteria that the site must satisfy before a use variance may be granted.
He also said the proposed use was “not inconsistent” with the local Master Plan or its zoning ordinances.
He said the proposed site was particularly suited for a retail plaza due to its location at a busy intersection of two county roads, the site’s visibility from two major crossroads, a newly expanded intersection with improved traffic flow, the volume of traffic, and how current uses at the intersection’s three other corners are commercial uses despite being zoned for single-family homes.
He said the site was “no longer appropriate” for single-family homes. He said the 2.2-acre site gets many pass-by trips from daily traffic, the site size allows for required setbacks and landscaping, and a retail use would not work on a smaller single-family lot.
He said the proposed neighborhood retail plaza, or strip mall, was “even more appropriate” due to county road improvements and new sidewalks being put nearby. He said the appearance of the property would be upgraded, minus the three dilapidated houses that currently mar the corner.
Grygiel said the retail plaza’s positive criteria support its “particular suitability” for that corner. He noted the plaza would not have drive-thrus, no rear parking behind stores, and increase lighting and landscaping there.
The applicant, 660 Pascack Realty LLC, owned mostly by Seasons Catering owners, proposes two retail buildings holding up to 11 retail shops and businesses, including restaurants, on the 2.2-acre site.
Two new retail buildings comprising 17,100 square feet of retail space — one of 14,700 square feet and one of 2,400 square feet — are proposed by the owners of Seasons Catering, a longstanding event and catering hall.
The proposal, tentatively called “4 Seasons Town Square” (also “4 Seasons Marketplace”) would cover approximately three-quarters of the 2.16-acre site north of Seasons. The site contains several dilapidated houses marked as unsafe to enter, plus two homes currently occupied.
Consolidated lots cover Block 2110, Lots 6-11, 660-682 Pascack Road, and are zoned “AA” residential development. The application requests a use variance for the site to convert the lots into an expanded retail development. The proposal provides 108 parking spaces.
In addition to a use variance requested to put a commercial use in a residential zone, the applicant requests two waivers. One waiver is for 9-foot wide by 18-foot deep parking spaces that are less than required (20 feet deep) by code.
Also, a waiver is requested from the front setback to allow front-yard parking. Burgis agreed that the state standard for parking spaces is 9-foot wide by 18-foot deep and said that most retail centers or buildings have front-yard setback variances to allow front-yard parking.
Grygiel said the electric vehicle parking ordinance offered by New Jersey shows a 9-foot wide by 18-foot deep parking space, and supports that standard space as opposed to code.
Responding to Grygiel’s special reasons to approve a use variance, Burgis said his contention that the Municipal Land Use Law encourages the free-flow of traffic may not apply as the intersection improvements were only made after the application.
Also, he said the negative criteria that the project would improve the site might be questioned as the applicant owns the currently rundown homes there.
Whitaker also told Burgis that prior testimony from architect John Montoro stated that building heights would be limited to 30 feet and that all rooftop mechanicals would be hidden from view.
At one point, DeSena asked Whitaker if the developer would be willing to meet with Meisten Street neighbors whose homes back to the proposed plaza, and Northgate, to discuss buffers, screening and landscaping and Whitaker said they would agree to meet. No discussion occurred over possible meeting dates or times.
Whitaker also said he would provide a revised landscaping plan that showed a 28-foot buffer area between the plaza and adjacent Northgate Condominiums. He said by eliminating the parking spaces on the mall’s north side.
Burgis pointed out that the 2019 Master Plan Reexamination Report states it “does not encourage any non-residential uses” for the proposed site, but further states, “it may be amenable in the future” if adequate architectural design, including screening and buffers are included there.
Public questions, comments
Residents from Meisten Street, Northgate Condominiums, and surrounding neighborhoods offered questions and most appeared to oppose the proposed retail development.
Several residents wondered when they might talk about the status of an alleged “Category One” waterway that runs behind the proposed plaza. James Walsh, Burke Street, noted that Grygiel had mentioned the stream but he was told that Grygiel could not address its status.
Walsh pointed out that three houses at the Pascack-Washington intersection were allowed to deteriorate by the owner, James Kourgelis, also a principal in applicant 660 Pascack Realty LLC, and that had that not occurred, the county would have taken those into account when it redesigned the intersection.
Michael Agnello, Meisten Street, urged Grygiel to look at single-family homes that face Pascack Road in Paramus. He said at the Oradell Road-Pascack Road intersection there are brand-new Colonial-style homes with driveways that exit onto Pascack Road.
He questioned why a use variance should be granted if single-family homes work on Pascack Road in a nearby community.
Agnello has previously questioned how a “C1” waterway in his backyard at 667 Meisten Street was no longer a protected waterway under drainage maps submitted by the applicant. He said less than a decade ago it was a protected stream.
(See “Follow the Water on Strip Mall Application,” Michael Olohan, Feb. 27, 2023.)
James Case of Braeburn Drive, Northgate Condominiums, asked Grygiel about what “community-oriented” services might go at the plaza since the applicant attorney had declined to reveal what shops or services may be coming there.
Whitaker told him that contacts were made by a bagel shop and nail salon but that no contracts had been signed yet and he does not know what stores or shops will ultimately go there. Previously, there were residents’ concerns that a liquor store might be sited there.
Case corrected Grygiel’s statement about passing-by traffic based on the Dean & Dolan study. He said that study showed only one-third of daily traffic passing by normally might stop at the mall and two-thirds will come from new visitors coming by car.
Another Northgate resident, Amy Zirly, said she did not want to hear cars moving around at a nearby shopping mall at midnight. She said besides the adjacent tennis courts, the buffer with the proposed mall is near the swimming pool that Northgate residents use regularly during the summer.
She wondered whether the planned buffer would provide adequate privacy. Grygiel said the applicant was hoping to offer “additional screening” to address those concerns.