‘4 Seasons’ strip mall applicant appeals ZBA’s 6–1 rejection

BY MICHAEL OLOHAN OF PASCACK PRESS

Townshipofwashington

The attorney for the proposed Four Seasons Marketplace, which the Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected on May 16 after six hearings, has appealed in Superior Court.

Following the ZBAʼs 6-1 decision, shooting down a proposed 17,100-square-foot retail shopping plaza at Washington Avenue and Pascack Road, applicant 660 Pascack Realty LLC said it was weighing its options.

Following the memorialization of the ZBA denial June 20 and publication, the applicant had 45 days to appeal. It now has done so, coming out fighting to reverse the ZBAʼs decision on allegations that the rejection was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”

The proposed site, also called Block 2110, lots 6–11, comprises 2.46 acres, occupied by five houses, three of which are vacant and dilapidated.

Neighbors of the proposed project rejoiced on the ZBA handing down its decision, and said perseverence had paid off.

(See “Nope! Zoning Board

Rejects Strip Mall By 6-1 Vote, Michael Olohan, May 22, 2023, Pascack Press.)

We reached out to applicant attorney Bruce Whitaker and ZBA attorney Gary Giannantonio for comment for this story.

The civil complaint in lieu of prerogative writ, filed Aug. 4, alleges four counts:

“The actions and decisions of the Townshipʼs Zoning Board of Adjustment relative to plaintiffʼs request for variance relief together with preliminary and final site plan approval and soil movement approval were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and therefore should be declared invalid and should be set aside and reversed,” reads the first of four counts filed by Bruce Whitaker, of McDonnell & Whitaker, Ramsey.

The complaint alleges the boardʼs denial “was contrary to the sufficient proof provided by the plaintiffʼs expert witnesses to justify the use variances and related bulk variances and waiver requests.”

The second count charges the boardʼs procedure in denying the application “is contrary to the proper procedures to be employed by a zoning board of adjustment for rendering a decision.”

The third count charges that the memorializing resolution that was adopted “is not based upon the proofs provided. The resolution adopted is not based upon the record that was established by the plaintiff.”

The fourth count alleges that the “board membersʼactions and the resolution itself contradicts the proofs that were admitted which were not contradicted by any of the Boardʼs professionals. The boardʼs decision lacks any foundation or basis for a denial, and con- stitutes an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable action.”

The complaint is backed by 28 pages of attachments, including the memorializing resolution approved on June 20. That resolution is on the ZBAʼs website.

Editorʼs note: The Township Council took this matter up in closed session on Aug. 14. According to a former councilman commenting on a town public affairs Facebook group, “Although the agenda is silent on it, the liti- gation, including docket and parties, should be disclosed on the closed session resolution. I inquired during a break and [town] attorney [Kenneth] Poller confirmed the party involved.”

Commenters said “The question becomes how much money is the town council willing to spend in order to defend the denial,” and “Seasons and their Realty company need to cool their jets, and our town must listen to its people who pay taxes and support this town.”