Self‑storage plan at 811–813 Route 46 paused after long hearing; board continues case to May 7

A proposed 110,973‑square‑foot self‑storage facility at 811–813 Route 46 drew extensive testimony and public comment at the March 5 Clifton Zoning Board meeting, but the board did not decide the case and carried the matter to a future hearing set for May 7, 2025.

Attorney Michael Sullivan introduced planner Kate Keller, who presented a detailed site and planning analysis. Keller described the parcel’s history as a nonconforming commercial site in an RA‑2 (single‑family) zone and argued the location’s adjacency to multiple arterial roads, ramps and nonresidential uses makes the site particularly suitable for a low‑traffic self‑storage use. The applicant seeks a D‑1 use variance and several C variances for parking, loading, and signage.

Nut graf: The applicant says a self‑storage facility is the most appropriate redevelopment for an isolated, highway‑frontage parcel; neighbors and City Green raised concerns about cumulative storage supply, groundwater and stormwater, light and visual impacts, and whether the corridor should remain residential. The board continued the hearing to allow more testimony and for the applicant and objectors to provide additional analyses.

Keller said the building footprint was reduced during the review process and the proposed building will average about two stories with a maximum height of roughly 24.1 feet. She testified parking demand estimates for this type of facility are much lower than for the ordinance’s nearest analog (warehousing/factory): the applicant proposes 22 on‑site parking spaces (23 with an EV credit) while a strict application of the code’s comparable use would require 60; the applicant also proposes two on‑site loading spaces where the code analog suggests 11. Keller and the applicant’s traffic and civil engineers argued the facility’s trip generation is low compared with other commercial uses and that modern ITE guidance supports the lower parking standard.

City Green’s representative (identified in testimony as Cynthia) questioned the need for another storage facility in Clifton and raised environmental justice and groundwater concerns; she and other neighbors asked about existing nearby storage supply, the trade area for customers, potential light impacts from signage, and whether prior soil testing had been completed. Multiple residents and stakeholders asked for additional information on groundwater, soil contamination/abatement risk, sight lines, and proximity of other storage facilities. The applicant’s team said soil testing and NJDEP/stormwater processes are part of the engineering review and that a comprehensive stormwater system and landscape buffer will be provided; the planner noted a roughly 47‑foot separation between the proposed building and the farmed open space to the south.

After an extended public Q&A and board discussion about scheduling, the board set the next hearing date for May 7, 2025 (no further notice). The applicant and the objecting parties were told the board expected follow‑up testimony addressing outstanding items, including soil logs/percolation tests, updated traffic/market analyses, and additional responses to City Green’s environmental questions.

Ending: The project remains pending. The board’s continuation gives the applicant an opportunity to provide the requested technical reports; neighbors will have another opportunity to question the applicant’s experts when the case resumes on May 7, 2025.