Zoning Board Rejects Office Building Plan

Despite a major revision aimed at addressing concerns of neighbors, a plan for a small office building on Garden Lane at Street Road was unanimously rejected Thursday by the township Zoning Hearing Board.

Project attorney Tom Hecker explained that his client, Zafar Chugtai, had changed the proposal after neighbors complained at a hearing last month. The amended plan called for a split-level building, rather than a single-story structure, with the lower side facing neighbors' home. The newly proposed structure looked more like a house than the previous version.

To address neighbors' worries about increasing traffic in their neighborhood, project engineer John Leapson said the developer is willing to have all exiting traffic be restricted to right turns toward Street Road.

None of that satisfied neighbor Pamela Carroll.

“I admit it's a beautiful building … (but) it would be the biggest building in the neighborhood on the smallest lot,” she told the board.

Carroll, speaking on behalf of several residents in attendance, said the group also has a “huge concern” that the development would worsen stormwater management problems.

“This 50-year-old oak tree we're going to kiss goodbye, which soaks up water,” she said while showing the board one of several photos.

Board attorney Ray McHugh explained to the residents that stormwater management would be addressed by the Township Council during the land development process.

“They seem to be reacting to your concerns,” he added.

The zoning of the parcel was previously changed to a designation that allows professional office buildings. But the developer was seeking several variances to allow for the 3,600-square-foot building on the irregularly shaped lot at 2953 Garden Lane, also known as Castle Drive.

“We've accepted that the township screwed us and rezoned it,” said Carroll.

But Hecker had a different take, saying there's a reason the township has approved such zoning changes.

“Nobody wants to live in a residence along Street Road,” he said.

He added that his client really can't make the building smaller.

“If you cut this down … you might as well throw this design out, slap some siding on the existing building and … hope that someone doesn't rent it for a tattoo parlor. It requires a little bit of cooperation to make something nice happen,” he said, obviously frustrated.

The plan called for the demolition of the dilapidated structure on the property.

Board member Joanne Redding said she was worried about the different businesses in such a building generating too much traffic. Other than that, board members generally spoke very quietly among themselves before rejecting the plan.

After the decision, Hecker said the rejected proposal marked the fifth change that had been made. And he said there might be a sixth version brought back to the board, “perhaps not at nice” as the one that had just gotten a thumbs down.