Glen Rock Mall Rejected By Planning Board 3-2

GLEN ROCK, NJ — After proposed site plans were reviewed and amended numerous times, nearly a year in the works, a new mixed-used development at 175 Rock Road in Glen Rock was still rejected 3-2 by the Glen Rock Planning Board on Friday, with the opposition citing traffic and safety concerns.

Glen Rock Mall and Apartments, the applicant for the proposed development, wants to build 69 residential units within three buildings and "35,615 square feet of interior gross commercial area," and sought a "minor" variance to permit the parking stall size of 10 feet by 20 feet to reduce to 9 feet by 18 feet, the applicant's lawyer Stephen Sinisi said at the hearing. Smaller stall dimensions would require less paving and allow for more spaces, he added.

But despite a four-hour long meeting, in which planning board members heard from Sinisi's expert witnesses to allay concerns of safety, Mayor Kristine Morieko, Police Chief Dean Ackermann and Ed Morley, all members, still voted 'no.' In favor of the motion were chair Scott King and Sue Tryforos.

"As a cop, you go with your gut instinct," Ackermann said, "and my gut instinct is that this will be a public safety nightmare."

The motion voted on included all conditions specified by the planning board during the course of all reviews; that is, for example, reinstallation of a crosswalk set to be removed by the county that King said the board would draft an advisory opinion for. Another condition was to eliminate glare for floodlights on one of the apartment buildings that would "obviously would be horrible" for residents there, Morley said.

Still, even with Sinisi's expert testimonies and the application conditions, three board members, and two local residents, expressed anxiety about the proposed development, specifically in regard to traffic generation.

Although the applicant's traffic engineer Hal Simoff insisted that the site would not create additional traffic, questions were raised about how he had reached the conclusion, and "common sense" would dictate that there would, in fact, be more traffic, Glen Rock resident Gabriel Bullaro said.

Another Glen Rock resident, Ben Meyer, the second of only two members of the public who spoke at the hearing, questioned the validity of the methodology used in the traffic study, and said the conclusion that traffic would be lower after the project is completed is "paradoxical" and "needs review."

Bullaro and Mayor Morieko also expressed concern about the site having only one point of egress and one point of ingress, and with the removal of the crosswalk that goes from the train station parking lot sidewalk to the proposed site, "the project would be a disaster the way it is," Bullaro said.

"In my opinion, the (approval) criteria for the development were not met," Morieko said. She added that though the site might serve to revitalize downtown Glen Rock, she does not agree with Sinisi and his experts that it would not cause a "substantial detriment to the public good."

It also, Morieko noted, offers only a minimal set-aside of affordable housing units, at 14, as required by the municipality's fair share plan.

Sinisi said in his closing arguments that he thinks the development is supported by "substantial, credible evidence," and that the board has every justification to find in favor of the applicant. He added that the planning board did not have one expert to rebut the testimonies of his experts.

"I have had the privilege of presenting several different housing projects throughout the state, and I consider this among the finest," Sinisi said. He nodded affirmatively, when King said he assumed the board would hear from the applicant again in the future.

"Oh, you will," Sinisi said.