A developer who wished to build a 12-unit condo complex on three lots at 754 Paterson Ave. was denied last week. The condos would have been built on the current site of a scrap metal yard in an area zoned for two-family houses.
S Development, a Lyndhurst development company owned by Fernando Semiao, began testimony on the project at the June 7 zoning meeting. The board did not grant his request at the July 5 meeting. Semiao was requesting a land use variance as well as several bulk variances, including height, density, impervious surface and rear setback.
The project planner, Paul J. DeMassi, argued the site was ill-suited for the two-family houses for which it was zoned.
"After evaluating the options we had… it was clear to us that [two-family houses] would be a rather inappropriate use for the site," said DeMassi. He argued a tall concrete wall on the opposite side of Wall Street would make for an unappealing view from any two-family houses built on the lot.
DeMassi also claimed the condos would be effectively less dense than three two-family houses because condos traditionally attract couples without children. Furthermore, the 24-space parking lot with one way entrances and exits would prevent drivers from backing out onto the street and exacerbating congestion.
Jill Hartmann, the borough planner, said the project was inconsistent with every other building in the neighborhood. She didn’t see how the project was uniquely suited to the site or in any way related to the town’s Master Plan. She also said having the condo’s back wall face Wall Street would put drivers in between a 128 foot long and 38 foot tall wall on one side and a tall concrete wall on the other.
"I haven’t seen or heard anything to address how this is consistent with our master plan," said Hartmann.
The project would have consisted of twelve 1,200 square-foot units arranged somewhat like townhouses, with four units on the first floor and eight units on the upper floors with stairways leading to their entrances. The front of the building would face away from Wall Street, towards a 24-space parking lot with an ingress and egress onto Paterson Avenue.
The project was strongly opposed by a number of nearby Wall and Rose street residents. At least 10 residents were present for last month’s meeting and five attended this month’s. Many objected to the creation of a multi-unit condo bordering two one way streets that are already highly congested.
"My personal opinion is [the development] is too big for the property involved," said Rose Street resident John Stachula at last month’s meeting. "[754 Paterson Ave.] has had a business all these years that’s been a good ratable for the town. I only see this as beneficial to the developer and [the owner of the scrap metal yard,] Mr. Bickoff."
Stachula also argued the condos would attract families with children because of its proximity to McKenzie School, an argument contradicting DeMassi’s previous claim the condo would be less dense than three two-family homes because it would attract childless couples.
Several residents echoed concerns about the safety of building condos on a site many claimed had been used for years as a dumping ground for all sorts of chemicals.
John Scangarella, a long-time resident of Wall Street, said people have used the scrap metal yard for dumping of all sorts for at least the 80 years he’s lived nearby. Lawrence Bongiovanni, a member of the Becton Board of Education and another nearby resident, objected vehemently to what seemed to him like haphazardly assembled evidence indicating the site was environmentally acceptable for residential use.
Board member Al Levy also objected to the environmental evidence provided by the developer, noting the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) report they submitted only applied to a gas tank on the property, not the property itself.
"I’ve lived in East Rutherford for over 20 years and they brought everything there [to that scrap metal yard]," said Levy. "If it’s not contaminated I want to see it in writing."
However, James Guida, the attorney representing the developer, noted the board had already been given a copy of another report by a private company certifying the area was acceptable for residential use. Furthermore, since the applicants were not yet submitting a full planning report, he claimed further environmental testing was not yet required.
"From a land use standpoint, there’s got to be some give and take," said Guida in his closing remarks. Guida argued that the site already contained a non-conforming use; a condo development would be closer to the residential purpose the land is supposed to have and no developer will want to go to all the expense of removing the scrap metal yard just to put up two-family houses.
"Yes, it would be very nice to get rid of a junkyard, but at what cost to the community?" asked Levy in the board’s final discussion. Of the five board members able to vote on the project, all five voted to deny the application.
