Kearny Federal Savings Bank, which has pressed the township to allow a zoning change to expand its Stuyvesant Avenue branch since 2002, went back before the board of adjustment Jan. 23 and was once again denied. With a team of experts representing the bank’s interests also came hordes of residents to adamantly oppose the request.
In 2002 the bank was given approval by the board of adjustment under the strict protest of surrounding homeowners to relocate the facility further back off Valley Brook Avenue and add an additional drive-up teller lane. The plan would have consumed most of an adjacent 13,000 square foot residential property the bank purchased in 1984. Lynette Savino, who lives next door to the vacant lot, filed a lawsuit soon after the approval, but Bergen County Superior Court Judge Daniel Mecca threw it out in January 2004. She then turned to the appellate division in 2005, citing that there had been a conflict of interest in the 2002 approval with then-board member Ronald Garofalo as a relation to the bank’s branch manager Kathleen Giunta. The appellate court reversed the zoning board’s decision on Savino’s claim.
The bank tried again in late 2006 to present similar plans to a nearly new board of adjustment, but the motion was denied.
The application presented last week was somewhat of a different approach of how the bank tried to navigate zoning in the past. This time, it looked to subdivide the oversized residential lot by only taking 26 feet of it. The remaining lot width would be 50 feet, sufficient for a one-family residential home or vacant buffer for Savino and the other adjoining property owners. From there, the bank would move its drive-up lanes and bank further from Valley Brook Avenue. Parking, which now exists to the side and rear of the bank, would be moved to the front facing Valley Brook Avenue while the lanes would be moved to the new subdivision zone line bordering the property between Savino and the bank.
"Last time, the bank was pretty much denied because the bank failed to show that it was beneficial for Lyndhurst and you're going to have to show that," chairman Joe Orlando told Kearny Federal attorney Malcolm McPherson in the middle of testimony.
Engineer Alfred Stewart, representing the bank, said the present configuration with drive-up lanes directly off Valley Brook Avenue poses an issue with cars exiting the bank’s lanes as they directly filter into the parking area. He also noted that visitors to the bank need to cross the drive-up lanes’ traffic to simply enter the institution’s front entrance.
"What happens now is people that use the drive-up lanes have to make a left coming out and that conflicts with those parked on the southwest portion," said Stewart. "Those who park on the southeasterly property line also have to cross over the drive-up lane to enter the bank. It causes a public safety issue."
Giunta was also present at the meeting, testifying on behalf of not only the pedestrian safety, but also the amount of traffic that filters onto the local roadway due to the limited space from Valley Brook to the drive-up lanes.
"A lot of times on Friday, Saturday morning, there are definitely backups, if not onto Valley Brook Avenue, then across the sidewalk," said Giunta. "It depends on the time and conditions of the weather."
Giunta, a longtime employee of the branch and for seven years the branch manager, could only substantiate however that there were "a couple near misses" with vehicles striking pedestrians who walk over the drive-up lanes. She said there had been no incidents where injuries occurred or police reports needed to be filed.
Police Lieutenant Jerome Onnembo also testified to the board that he has regularly passed the bank while on patrol at different days and times and has not once seen vehicles staged on Valley Brook Avenue waiting to get into the drive-up lanes.
By the end of the night however, resident protests outweighed the bank’s argument that the new configuration would have a lesser impact on the surrounding neighborhood than what is there today. The application was once again denied, this time by a six to one vote with board co-chairman John Drzymkowski as the only dissenter.
"After listening to Malcolm [McPherson] and the bank’s planners, I thought it was a rational, reasonable application," said Drzymkowski. "It was much different than their previous application."
Savino and other residents pressed the board, however, that no matter where businesses try to encroach into residential areas of the township, it must be stopped.
"Those of us on the borders must not be subjected to the continuous threats from commercial developers…if the borders collapse, it’s the next residents that become victims and then the next, and no residential neighborhood can ever feel secure," said Savino.
Daniel Ficacci, the brother of Judy Schiavone who lives just a few doors down from the bank’s proposed expansion, read a letter to the board from her solidifying the neighborhood’s sentiments on the repetitive applications.
"The building could be renovated to be just like new and we could live in peace and harmony without having to go through this ridiculous charade every couple years," said Ficacci echoing his sister’s feelings. "What they are trying to do, we can’t live with and shouldn’t be forced to live with. Many of us are planning to stay here through our retirement and we should like to secure in the knowledge that this board of adjustment will uphold their former decision and not allow any further encroachment of the residential area."
