By a vote of 7-1, the South Orange Planning Board tonight approved a project by 320 PC Valley LLC to develop a 22-unit mixed-use, three-floor multifamily building at 320 Valley Street to replace a 125-year-old 2-1/2-story home.
After two hours of testimony, questioning and public input, Planning Board Chair Harold Colton-Max put forth a motion with a long list of conditions aimed at addressing concerns of residents and Planning Board members alike.
The approved resolution included variances for side yard and rear yard setbacks and parking as provided in the application (the developer had asked to provide just 34 parking spaces due to the proximity to train and bus transportation). Other conditions included:
– That there be a bike rack as indicated in the Dec. 11 site plan, and that that bike rack hold a minimum of 8 bikes,
– that there be evergreens placed in a buffer zone between the knee wall and fence in the rear of the property,
– that the rear patio be restricted Monday through Sunday for use no later than 10 p.m., with no amplified music and a limit of no more than 40 people to use the space at any given time,
– that the applicant provide $5,000 to the town for the study and/or implementation of pedestrian safety for the neighborhood with community input,
– that the applicant replace the 45 trees currently on the property with 16 new trees (not including evergreens required for rear yard buffering) as well as 29 replacement trees to be placed according to the township and, if neighbors are so inclined, on some of the adjacent properties,
– that storage of any kind is prohibited on balconies,
– that the use and storage of barbecues on balconies is prohibited,
– that the developer comply with all ordinances with regard to the patio and tenancy,
– that the developer comply with design guidelines,
– that garbage collection be restricted to take place between 8 a.m.-5 p.m., and
– that first floor retail space be used for office only.
Throughout the hearing, residents repeatedly expressed concerns about the potential for noise from the rear patio and the potential for Seton Hall students to take up residency in the building. However, the developer and its representatives said they had no interest in scaling back the project and felt that the proposed design, added restrictions and standing ordinances would be sufficient to keep noise levels and nuisance complaints to a minimum. The developer also noted that the project was aimed at attracting young professionals as tenants — not college students.
Colton-Max noted that the developer had made numerous concessions and had listened to public input through three public meetings.
Residents who spoke said they were concerned that a number of developers in the area had asked for variances regarding parking. Some also wanted to see a more holistic planning approach to development along Valley Street, but Planning Board member and South Orange Trustee Mark Rosner pointed out that it was not fair to put the onus on one project to solve all the issues of Valley Street.
Overall, the exchanges between the developer, the Planning Board members and residents were pointed but nonetheless respectful. As one resident said to representatives of the developer, “I do appreciate that you’ve made an effort to listen to residents.”
Rosner noted that other developers with reduced parking requirements such as Gaslight Commons (which has 1.2 parking spaces per unit) were not experiencing issues with on-street parking and possibly saw an excess of parking spaces within the development. Rosner also conceded that the developer had a point about the property being zoned for commercial use. “What do we want to see built there? If not this, are we opening ourselves to a large commercial project?”
After the 7-1 vote (Vice Chair Michael Miller was the sole objector), Planning Board member Daniel Allen said, “I think we should slow down projects in South Orange. There are too many.”
