Montclair Planning Board votes down Lorraine Ave. proposal – NorthJersey.com

A developer has sought to turn this property along Lorraine Avenue, seen Nov. 28, 2016, into retail and office space.(Photo: Mollie Shauger/NorthJersey.com)

A group of residents near Lorraine Avenue finally obtainedthe outcome they had been seeking for months, when the Montclair Planning Board on Monday, March 13, voted5-4against a proposal to turn the former Warner Communications Building into retail and office space.

DeveloperMichael Pavelhas been seeking approval for a mixed-use development at 237-249 Lorraine Ave., near the Upper Montclair Train Stationand Valley Road businesses of Kings supermarketand Williams-Sonoma.

Within the past year, there have been several hearings before the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. The board had earlier approved a plan for a two-floor building consisting of 4,925 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 5,300 square feet of medical office or general office space on the second floor, along with 60 parking spaces.

The developer then amended the plans, increasing the second-floor office space by 3,671 square feet, ora 36 percent increase in building area. The second floor would contain general office suites.

Developer seeks more office space on Montclair's Lorraine Avenue

Montclair board to hear revised plans for Lorraine Avenue

One small development on Lorraine Avenue in Montclair, one giant leap for residents

Several residents who live near the property, mostly along Braemore Road, have voiced their objections to the amended plans, particularly its size and perceived disparity with the surrounding historic district. Theyve also cited safety and traffic concerns.

The municipalHistoric Preservation Commission had labeled the proposed addition to the building as too intrusive in size and scale in the Upper Montclair Historic Business District. The commission also believed the proposed project does not meet the criteria under the HPCs Historic Design Guidelines, particularly in regards to rear additions, as one was proposed with the new building.

On Monday night in the Municipal Building, during the third hearing on the new plans, planning consultant Peter Steck testified and affirmed there was no new variance required. Steck was also asked to weigh in on something that had come up at the last hearing on the application, when it was thought a design waiver might be needed for the project. Board member Martin Schwartz had argued at that hearing that the waiver is required because the application doesnt meet certain municipal design standards.

In my opinion, there is no waiver needed, Steck told the Planning Board.

Steck debated with board members overhow to interpret whether the design standards in play should take into account the historic district as a whole or just buildings in the immediate vicinity of the project. Steck argued for the the latter.

The rug was pulled out from under our feet, and now this structure is going to set a dangerous precedent.

Applicant attorney Neal Zimmerman had previously argued that the applicant complies with the zoning ordinance, and the design guidelines should not supersede that fact. Zimmermanreiterated that belief following the boards decision.

The board cant just say we dont like a project. They have to base a denial in the municipal ordinances, he told The Montclair Times. We dont see a basis in the municipal ordinance for the denial.

Some board members, along with members of the public, have argued that the proposed building is not compatible with the surrounding historic district.

Braemore Road resident Jennifer Haughton on Monday night asked how an office building like the ones on Route 46 will blend with the neighborhood and historic district.

John Padovanoof Braemore Roadwas concerned the project could set a bad precedent.

What would stop the next developer from putting a similar type of building in this neighborhood, and its charm would be eroded even more? asked Padovano.

He noted how the developer and community had previously agreed on a smaller building, one that would fit within the neighborhood, and then it was changed.

The rug was pulled out from under our feet, and now this structure is going to set a dangerous precedent, Padovanosaid.

Braemore Road resident Rob Macfarlane, along with another neighbor, voiced safety concerns with the proposal. Does it make sense to keep adding density to the whole area, and potentially casualties? asked Braemore Road resident Patricia Abad, who feared an increase in traffic accidents.

Resident Yahui Olenik addresses the planning board and consultant Peter Steck, left, during Monday night's planning board meeting.(Photo: Mollie Shauger/NorthJersey.com)

Planning Board Vice Chair Jason DeSalvo pointed out how the previous plans had been praised by the board and neighbors, claiming that theapplicanttried to slide one in with an amended plan.

DeSalvo also believed thecase may have to end up being litigated to determine the HPCs power in similar applications.

We live in a beautiful town thats not meant to look like Route 46, he said.

DeSalvo, along with Schwartz and board members Robin Schlager, Carole Willis and Stephen Rooney, voted against the project.

Board members Anthony Ianuale, Carmel Loughman, Keith Brodock, and board Chair John Wynn supported the application.

Schlager agreed with Padovanos comment about the rug being pulled out from under residents.

These are peoples backyards, not just a commercial use, she said.

Wynn said he wasnt a fan of the buildings design or bulk, but he couldnt ignore Zimmermans legal arguments.

I think the best we can do on this application is to make sure weve got the best-looking building there we can get, and we have the buildings [aesthetic] impact mitigated as much as possible, Wynn said.

He reluctantly motioned to approve the application, saying its what were compelled to do.

Ianuale noted that office space is needed in the town.

Its an existing building thats failing, and I think the applicant is making an attempt to revitalize it, so I think its favorable. In my opinion, it complies in all respects with zoning, he said.

After the board was polled for votes, and it was realized the application wouldn't pass, residents in the audience clapped and cheered, with many thanking the board. The board also thanked the residents for showing up to hearings so often.

Zimmerman said Wednesday no decision had been made on the how the developer would proceed, and whetherhe would appeal the decision.

The Planning Board on Monday alsoapproved an application from Luther Flurry and Jarmila Packardfor a two-lot subdivision at 14-16 Madison Ave.A previous application involved demolishing the former Clover Rest Nursing Homeand subdividingthe property into three lots. The new application retains the former nursing home, which would be renovated, as well as anothersingle-family home in the rear of the property.

Email: gray@northjersey.com

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2mKmQws

Read this article:
Montclair Planning Board votes down Lorraine Ave. proposal - NorthJersey.com