Tangled Web Complicating Potential Zoning Changes to Route 17

For nearly 30 years prominent real estate developer Malvern Burroughs has owned a property on the intersection of Paramus Road and Route 17. For just as long, his numerous attempts to develop it have been thwarted by resident concerns, business deals gone awry and now, a tangling web of re-zoning challenges.

While –reclassifying the zoning of the 2.4 acre property from residential that could be a 15,000 square foot retail or office space with 64 parking spaces in a single row and large setbacks from the neighboring property–makes sense in the planning board and village professionals' eyes, concerns and procedural questions from all directions continue to slow the process.

(A previous proposal was the ill-fated Baker Homes plan several years ago, which was pulled amid considerable neighborhood anger.)

Village planning board members and Village Planner Blais Brancheau have individually said the area is more appropriate for commercial zoning than residential– so much so that Brancheau and the planning board had ideas to include the property in the Route 17 Corridor Study, an examination to possibly rezone the entire area from residential to . . . something non-residential.

But one resident, John Egan of 923 Linwood, said a plan to rezone the whole area "just complicates" the process, and expressed concern that there hasn't been a "sufficient" safety study around Route 17 and Paramus Road, and also worried what impact a large rezoning could have on the residents of Paramus Road and Linwood Avenue.

"It's not fair for a residential neighborhood to accept that it's no longer zoned residential," Egan said. He called the possibility "disconcerting" to neighbors and also brought up another tangle, a residential property known simply as "Lot 9".

The property, zoned residential but also housing a dwelling at 225 Paramus Avenue, was feared by Egan to be eaten up by Burroughs or developed on its own, which would create a larger commercial bloc with limited setbacks and an egress onto Paramus Avenue, which he says has caused previous applications to "flounder" in the past.

Egan also pointed to Block 4806, Lot 1 and 2, which is one of the largest vacant tracts in the village but is also environmentally impacted and in a flood hazard area.

"You would zone that for commercial?" he asked.

Brancheau said that he wanted to make "100 percent crystal" that there was no specific zoning proposal, but merely options, issues and considerations. Among the options, the planner said, was a "Transitional" zone could be established to allow for both residential and commercial zoning based on the applicant's preference.

Or, he said, the board could take applications on a case-by-case basis, among several other options.

Tom Wells–the attorney representing Burroughs–said it was their preference to be heard just on the merits of their application alone, which would also require the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) signing off on an entrance/exit just on Route 17. Wells said that seems likely based on dicussions held with the DOT but there was still concern from residents and others that it could be denied and Paramus Road (the only other egress; currently slated to be an unpaved emergency road for the fire department) be the only egress option.

Egan told the planning board to consider the application on a stipulation that it only include the lot with tentative plans for development, to avoid a merging with Lot 9. Wells stated the applicant has no plans to include Lot 9–or any other property–a point Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh noted as well.

Board members were mixed in how to proceed forward to determine if the applicant's property would be judged on its own merits or lumped into a larger corridor-wide ordinance(s).

Pucciarelli stated that he believed the Burroughs application (still in the planning stages) can be judged on its own merits, eliminating it from the larger study plan.

Other members said they'd like to hear more from Wells on how plans should move forward before making concrete decisions as to whether is should be included in a Rt. 17 rezoning ordinance in the future.

Nancy Bigos said she favors looking at applications on the corridor on a case-to-case basis.

"I think it's too precious an area to judge with a blanket right now," the Parks & Recreation official said, remarking more education is needed to examine the various components.

Mayor Keith Killion, who agreed that the applicant's proposal fit from a planning standpoint, said "when projecting out we have problems." He indicated a case-to-case basis might be best, saying each property facing 17 "has unique qualities."

Board member Costantino Suriano questioned what "benefits or lack of benefits" would accompany leaving the area as residential-zoned and a de-facto buffer zone for residents in the area.

The applicants will meet with the planning board again on July 5 but legal notice to neighbors will not be given again, as the meeting will serve as a continuation of an existing zoning change discussion.

After 30 years of waiting and wishing, Wells said time is of the essence.

"There is a real need to develop this property," the lawyer said.