Nutley Community Preservation Pa

(Continued from front page)

Some History

The decision comes after much discussion over density and the number of homes to be built on the site and amongst complaints from neighbors. The developer appealed the finding and was granted a re-vote in November after it was revealed that transcripts of previous meetings had gone missing. The developer's attorney, John Gizzo, appealed the original ruling, arguing that without transcripts, several Planning Board members who had not attended every meeting on the matter, but who were to vote on the final ruling of the development, could not have been informed enough to vote on the case. The board agreed, and decided on a revote, approving the plan on November 28.

Variances approved included two lots being short in depth by up to eight feet (according to the site plan) and a shortage of rear-yard setback. Clover Street is zoned for lots measuring 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep, with rear-yard setbacks

(the distance a home can be built from the property line) of 30 feet minimum. The lot in question was short by five feet (meaning that, potentially, the house built there could wind up being five feet closer to its neighbor's property than should be allowed by law).

At a previous hearing, the developer agreed to downsize the project from seven homes to six. The parcel, one of the last large, wooded pieces of land remaining in Nutley, suffered the destruction of all its mature trees last year when the developer cleared the lot.

In a survey conducted by an area resident, the majority of area residents oppose the development. Township commissioners rejected the idea of creating a “pocket park” on the site, citing a variety of reasons, including concerns about funding and ongoing maintenance. An area resident and NCPP member had contacted several county and state officials regarding raising funds to preserve the area as open space, but learned that such a request had to originate with township officials in order to be considered. Officials reportedly refused to initiate such a request.

A neighborhood group has formed to appeal the ruling and its variances from code. To read a letter from one of the members of this group, follow the "Forum" link at the top of this Web page.

Nutley Community Preservation Partnership


	Update... Update... Update... Update... Update... Update... (Continued from front page) Some History The decision comes after much discussion over density and the number of homes to be built on the site and amongst complaints from neighbors. The developer appealed the finding and was granted a re-vote in November after it was revealed that transcripts of previous meetings had gone missing. The developer's attorney, John Gizzo, appealed the original ruling, arguing that without transcripts, several Planning Board members who had not attended every meeting on the matter, but who were to vote on the final ruling of the development, could not have been informed enough to vote on the case. The board agreed, and decided on a revote, approving the plan on November 28. Variances approved included two lots being short in depth by up to eight feet (according to the site plan) and a shortage of rear-yard setback. Clover Street is zoned for lots measuring 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep, with rear-yard setbacks (the distance a home can be built from the property line) of 30 feet minimum. The lot in question was short by five feet (meaning that, potentially, the house built there could wind up being five feet closer to its neighbor's property than should be allowed by law). At a previous hearing, the developer agreed to downsize the project from seven homes to six. The parcel, one of the last large, wooded pieces of land remaining in Nutley, suffered the destruction of all its mature trees last year when the developer cleared the lot. In a survey conducted by an area resident, the majority of area residents oppose the development. Township commissioners rejected the idea of creating a “pocket park” on the site, citing a variety of reasons, including concerns about funding and ongoing maintenance. An area resident and NCPP member had contacted several county and state officials regarding raising funds to preserve the area as open space, but learned that such a request had to originate with township officials in order to be considered. Officials reportedly refused to initiate such a request. A neighborhood group has formed to appeal the ruling and its variances from code. To read a letter from one of the members of this group, follow the "Forum" link at the top of this Web page.

Nutley Community Preservation Partnership