The Alternative Press

NEW PROVIDENCE, NJ – Faced with concerns Tuesday that two of the four buildings in the proposed Riverbend housing development would need height variances, the applicant sought a continuance of its planning board presentation.

The board has held five sessions to hear the application for a four-building, 22-unit project at Marion Avenue and South Street.

The application will be heard again on April 3. At that time, the board will be presented with revised architectural and engineering drawings to address the building height issues and other changed to the proposal, said Bartholomew Sheehan Jr., the attorney for the applicant.

The project includes four units of affordable housing and is subject to a developer’s agreement that dates 1988, when the project was first proposed.

Sheehan has said the existence of the affordable units in the development means “the application is an inherently beneficial use,” which means that the variances needed for approval are to be viewed at the level of design issues and not major impediments to approval.

The concern about the height of buildings three and four are related to the grading necessary to level the lot, and their perceived height from neighboring properties.

The borough required these housing units to be no more than 30 feet tall, and while the project’s architect previously testified that the buildings were 27 feet tall, because of the need to level the property, some areas would be raised above current grade more than others, affecting the final height of the building.

Building four, for example, was measured at about 1.5 feet too tall, while building three was just a half-inch too tall.

Rather than haggle over how the building could be brought into compliance, Sheehan sought the continuance.

The other issues discussed Tuesday was a variation of the plans to address parking, ease of access to the driveways and drainage on the project site and on Lot 18, a property that will remain inside the U-shaped Riverbend project.

Lot 18 is at a lower grade than Riverbend, and creating a stormwater management plan off the site has been the subject of numerous hearings.

Engineer Thomas Murphy presented the board with two options to address the sticky issues.

First, he proposed to move a parking space from building four to the common parking area, and reconfigure a second parking space to an angled space. The suggestion was made to address safety concerns raised by board member Nadine Geoffroy.

Murphy also said that as part of the construction, the applicant would, with the permission of the owner of Lot 18, grade a small area of that lot near a wall that would be constructed along Riverbend’s western driveway, to allow for better drainage to an underground pipe that would be installed to carry away stormwater, and end the current ponding that occurs in that section of the lot.

Lot 18 owner Joseph Carrasco said he would allow the developer to grade his lot to address the ponding and drainage issues.

A second plan offered by Murphy – to narrow the western driveway to 18 feet from the existing 24 feet, and make it a one-way exit, and to relocate the wall and buffering shrubs along the line with Lot 18 – raised more concerns that it solved.

The board questioned the safety of the driveway, whether drivers would try to enter the site through the one-way exit, and how that would affect the drainage of Lot 18 and the Riverbend site.

Board member Armand Gallucio asked if it was necessary to build 22 units. He said that if the site included just 20 units, it might not be necessary to locate building four as it is now proposed. Building four is set apart from the other buildings due to the shape of the property and the existence of stream encroachment zones and a stream that limits the placement of structures on the South Street side of the property.

Sheehan said the 22 unit total was determined in 1988 as part of the negotiation that resulted in the builder’s agreement. To build fewer units, he said, would reduce the economic benefit of the project.