The Fair Lawn Zoning Board met last night and with a vote of 4 in favor to 3 against, denied the use variance for the assisted living facility for the Vanderbeck property. A super-majority of 5 yes votes was required for approval. Thank you all for your interest in historic preservation and the environment. The citizens prevailed on this one, but just by one vote. Every
meeting, every facebook post, and every conversation was important in
outlining the "substantial detriments" needed to overcome the request
for an "inherently beneficial use." (This is the legal standard that
the Board was required to consider.) One of the lessons here is that
our voices can be heard, but we have to work hard to make them heard.
Best regards, Peggy
Peggy W. Norris
Fair Lawn Zoning Board Meeting April 30 to hear the
application of Barrister Land Development Corp. for a use variance for the
Vanderbeck property in Fair Lawn.
1. Developer
presented "simulations" of the placement of the building in an actual
photograph taken from the park on the north side of the river. Photos and an explanation of how they were
created were presented.
2. . Discussion by the Board of conditions to be
attached to an approval, which included those outlines in an engineer's
report/developer's report and added by the Board and Board's lawyer.
3. The Board's
planner summarized the developer's argument for beneficial use and gave her
opinion that the beneficial use was not overcome by substantial detriments. She was open for questions, most of which
came from the public. There were long
discussions of beneficial use and the legal burden of finding substantial
detriment. The Chair abruptly cut off
public questioning.
4. Developer's lawyer
gave his final summation, which was a very well-reasoned argument for approval
based on the law. The process does not provide an opportunity
for the public to provide a well-reasoned argument for denial based on
substantial detrimental impact and the law.
Discussion by Board members (some of these comments were made during the
voting.)
Richard Seibel: He grew up in Fair Lawn and clearly has an attachment to the
land and concerned about the size of the project. However, he stated that he was undecided.
Y. P.: Although she saw negative impacts, she felt that the ability
to keep aging family members in place and provide internship possibilities for
students were over-riding.
James Lowenstein: He
gave a well-reasoned and thorough statement of the case and concluded that the
burden of legal proof had been met.
Todd Newman, Chair:
On balance met the legal proofs and "quite nice."
Kevin Puzio: No
comments.
Samuel Racenstein: Traffic, Safety, and Quality of life
concerns
Avi Naveh: Comments not recorded.
Several zoning board members were absent, including 2 who
were not eligible to vote on the application.
5. Lowenstein made
the motion to approve the variance with the conditions set forth by the Board.
6. Vote:
Richard Seibel: N
Y. P.: Y
James Lowenstein: Y
Todd Newman, Chair: Y
Kevin Puzio: N
Samuel Racenstein: N
Avi Naveh: Y
There had been no announcement beforehand that the granting of the use
variance required a super-majority, that is, 5 yes votes. So, it took me by surprise to hear the chair
announce that a super-majority of 5 votes was required, so the variance was
denied. The developer can come back with a
"substantially different plan." (I guess that the developer also has
the option to sue.)
In this account, some things may be out of order. There is no up-to-date list of Zoning Board members, so I only have Y. P.'s initials (I couldn't read her card). Meeting went to almost 11:30.
