No Vote On Stevens Zoning Appeal

City Council neither approved nor reversed variances that were previously approved by the Zoning Board, to allow Stevens Institute of Technology to build a garage on its campus.  

City Council got together to listen to the appeal for five "D" variances on the building ordinance Wednesday night. It was a "de novo" hearing, which means that the matter should be listened to as if no decision had been reached yet, even though the Zoning Board already approved the variances.  The Fund for a Better Waterfront wants to appeal the decision, because they don't think the current plans are "harmonious" with the Hoboken waterfront. 

One of the Fund's main arguments is that the garage would obstruct foot traffic to the waterfront from Fifth Street.

The variances—including the five D variances, a total of 18—would allow no retail or professional use along the northern façade of the garage, and would allow more than one building to be built on the lot, according to Charles Liebling, one of Stevens' attorneys. The variances would also allow Stevens to hire a private company to manage the garage, and charge hourly and daily rates.   

The non-commercial parking garage—which will be part of a building for academic use—would be available for Stevens students, but also for Hoboken residents and visitors.

Although members of the Fund for a Better Waterfront are not against a garage in general, attorney Michael Garofalo said, they are against the amount of ordinances needed to build it under the current proposal. 

"No matter what this council does, it will never create the perfect ordinance," said Sixth Ward Councilman Nino Giacchi, who is an attorney himself. 

Second Ward Councilwoman Beth Mason and Third Ward Councilman Michael Russo were absent. 

The plan to build a garage on the Stevens campus was first proposed in 2004. Then, 24 variances were needed in order to approve the plan, said Garofalo. In 2009 a new plan was drafted, for which 18 variances were needed.

The main concern Council members expressed was the influence the new garage would have on parking and traffic congestion in town. 

"Traffic is absolutely a negative criteria," said Fourth Ward Councilman Michael Lenz. And although Liebling argued earlier in the evening that the garage would not increase traffic because people don't take trips to a garage, Lenz disagreed.

But, he added, "our goal here is not to stop the project, but to get exactly what everybody expects." 

What is likely to happen now, is that the Council will affirm the Zoning Board's decision to allow the garage to be built, but with new conditions. Since these conditions had not been drafted yet, Council couldn't vote on the matter on Wednesday night.   

Kates said he will draft conditions and get those to the applicant for further discussion. 

"I think we're at a stay," Kates said Wednesday night. Adding, that because there had been no conditions drafted yet, having the Council vote on the appeal "wouldn't be fair."