Nutley Community Preservation Pa

■ Thunderous Applause as Citizens Tell Town Leaders: Enough is Enough!

(Oct. 18) Scores of concerned Nutley citizens publicly expressed frustration and anger over the Zoning Board of Adjustment's lack of concern about the Township's future at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning boards.

Those standing before the microphone to rebuke the wayward Zoning Board received thunderous applause from the packed hearing room.

The annual report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment--required by NJ State Law -- reveals a staggering 98 percent variance approval rate, an increase from an already high 91 percent approval rate in 2005. Under State of New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, variances should be the exception, not the rule, and the existence of a hardship must be proven. The Zoning Board's tendency to grant almost all requested variances fundamentally renders the work done by the Planning Board null and void.

The Mayor, in response to a taxpayer's question, disclosed that the Township just authorized payment of nearly $7,000 in legal fees -- the cost so far to taxpayers in defense of the Zoning Board's decision to grant numerous variances to a local developer.

■ Remarks by NCPP President Jim Levendusky to the Oct. 18 Joint Meeting of Nutley's Planning and Zoning Boards

Good evening,

I am here this evening to speak on behalf of myself and as a representative of the Nutley Community Preservation Partnership. Before I go on to the comments that I prepared for this evening, I just want to touch on a couple of points that previous speakers mentioned. First, I would think that the purpose of a garage is to keep a car out of sight. So, the issue isn’t simply to provide parking but to prevent a property from looking like a parking lot, or, depending on the condition of the cars, a junkyard.

I would also like to commend Commissioner Evans for his comments and request that the Planning Board review the master plan with an eye toward revitalizing Nutley’s commercial districts. We too are very much in favor of “smart growth.”

A year ago, I came to this very same meeting, and at the time I really didn’t know anyone on the various boards, nor did I know very much about their functions or responsibilities. So, I mainly sat in the audience and listened and learned. Over the past year, I have attended many meetings of the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Board. and the Zoning Board. I’ve also learned quite a bit about New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law, and I would like to share with you some of my observations in the hope that they may be of value to you.

The biggest problem that Nutley appears to have is, in a word, variances, and more specifically, variances granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I have the chart that was distributed at last year’s meeting listing cases heard in 2005. Of all cases that were heard and judged by the Zoning Board, better than 91% had their applications granted. That’s almost like a baseball player getting a home run almost every time at bat. It doesn’t happen in baseball and it shouldn’t be happening here.

I took a quick look at the chart that was handed out for this meeting, and if I am reading it correctly, better than 98% of all cases from 2006 had their variances granted by the Zoning Board.

The Municipal Land Use Law of New Jersey requires applicants to prove hardship and then overcome an additional burden of proof that the relief they seek can only be had from variances to zoning ordinances and that these variances, in total, will not have any significant adverse impact on neighbors. In all the meetings of the Zoning Board that I have attended, very seldom have I heard applicants questioned on the issue of hardship. Residents asking for a variance to build a fence might be lightly questioned, but in those meetings where I have been present, I have never heard a developer asked to provide proof of hardship. This simply is not right.

This tendency by the Zoning Board to grant almost all variances requested of them virtually renders everything done by the Planning Board null and void. It’s as if the Planning Board never existed. It’s as if the Master Plan never existed. It’s as if the Zoning Ordinances never existed.

On behalf of the members of the Nutley Community Preservation Partnership, I want to express our deep disappointment with the performance of the Zoning Board. It is this performance that causes the citizens of our town such deep distress at seeing changes made to the character of Nutley and I call upon all the members of these boards to recognize how their actions deeply impact our town’s quality of life and the quality of life of Nutley residents.

Nutley Community Preservation Partnership


	■ Thunderous Applause as Citizens Tell Town Leaders: Enough is Enough! (Oct. 18) Scores of concerned Nutley citizens publicly expressed frustration and anger over the Zoning Board of Adjustment's lack of concern about the Township's future at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning boards. Those standing before the microphone to rebuke the wayward Zoning Board received thunderous applause from the packed hearing room. The annual report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment--required by NJ State Law -- reveals a staggering 98 percent variance approval rate, an increase from an already high 91 percent approval rate in 2005. Under State of New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, variances should be the exception, not the rule, and the existence of a hardship must be proven. The Zoning Board's tendency to grant almost all requested variances fundamentally renders the work done by the Planning Board null and void. The Mayor, in response to a taxpayer's question, disclosed that the Township just authorized payment of nearly $7,000 in legal fees -- the cost so far to taxpayers in defense of the Zoning Board's decision to grant numerous variances to a local developer. ■ Remarks by NCPP President Jim Levendusky to the Oct. 18 Joint Meeting of Nutley's Planning and Zoning Boards Good evening, I am here this evening to speak on behalf of myself and as a representative of the Nutley Community Preservation Partnership. Before I go on to the comments that I prepared for this evening, I just want to touch on a couple of points that previous speakers mentioned. First, I would think that the purpose of a garage is to keep a car out of sight. So, the issue isn’t simply to provide parking but to prevent a property from looking like a parking lot, or, depending on the condition of the cars, a junkyard. I would also like to commend Commissioner Evans for his comments and request that the Planning Board review the master plan with an eye toward revitalizing Nutley’s commercial districts. We too are very much in favor of “smart growth.” A year ago, I came to this very same meeting, and at the time I really didn’t know anyone on the various boards, nor did I know very much about their functions or responsibilities. So, I mainly sat in the audience and listened and learned. Over the past year, I have attended many meetings of the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Board. and the Zoning Board. I’ve also learned quite a bit about New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law, and I would like to share with you some of my observations in the hope that they may be of value to you. The biggest problem that Nutley appears to have is, in a word, variances, and more specifically, variances granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I have the chart that was distributed at last year’s meeting listing cases heard in 2005. Of all cases that were heard and judged by the Zoning Board, better than 91% had their applications granted. That’s almost like a baseball player getting a home run almost every time at bat. It doesn’t happen in baseball and it shouldn’t be happening here. I took a quick look at the chart that was handed out for this meeting, and if I am reading it correctly, better than 98% of all cases from 2006 had their variances granted by the Zoning Board. The Municipal Land Use Law of New Jersey requires applicants to prove hardship and then overcome an additional burden of proof that the relief they seek can only be had from variances to zoning ordinances and that these variances, in total, will not have any significant adverse impact on neighbors. In all the meetings of the Zoning Board that I have attended, very seldom have I heard applicants questioned on the issue of hardship. Residents asking for a variance to build a fence might be lightly questioned, but in those meetings where I have been present, I have never heard a developer asked to provide proof of hardship. This simply is not right. This tendency by the Zoning Board to grant almost all variances requested of them virtually renders everything done by the Planning Board null and void. It’s as if the Planning Board never existed. It’s as if the Master Plan never existed. It’s as if the Zoning Ordinances never existed. On behalf of the members of the Nutley Community Preservation Partnership, I want to express our deep disappointment with the performance of the Zoning Board. It is this performance that causes the citizens of our town such deep distress at seeing changes made to the character of Nutley and I call upon all the members of these boards to recognize how their actions deeply impact our town’s quality of life and the quality of life of Nutley residents.