Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Parking Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies retail expansion at 61 Lakeview after parking, use ambiguity prompt split vote
Summary
The Zoning Board voted to deny an application to use the rear of 61 Lakeview as retail while keeping an existing physical‑therapy practice in the front after members said the combined uses and parking shortfall raise concerns; denial passed in a 6–1 roll call.
The Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment on Jan. 22 denied an application by MAJR Holdings LLC to convert the vacant rear portion of 61 Lakeview into retail space while retaining a physical therapy tenant in the building’s front half, citing parking shortages and uncertainty about the intensity of a proposed retail use.
Architect Michael Capo described the project as reusing the existing footprint: the front half of the building would remain occupied by a physical therapy practice; the back half, now vacant, would be fitted for retail. The applicant stated there is interest from a business‑to‑business type retail tenant but no executed lease. Site plans show 11 parking spaces (including one handicap space); the combined code requirement for the two uses was calculated at about 26 spaces, creating a significant shortfall.
Board discussion focused on the uncertainty of the proposed retail use and the parking deficit. The applicant and owner said the physical therapy practice operates only three days a week by appointment, which they said reduces peak parking demand; the applicant argued that, on days the therapy office is closed, retail parking needs would be met by the existing spaces. Some board members found that explanation insufficient given a retail tenant could later select hours or operations that increase demand.
Commissioner O'Connor initially moved to approve subject to facade cleaning and plantings; that motion failed to attract a second. Vice Chair Molnar then moved to deny the application; Commissioner Ramos (recorded in the proceedings as the second) seconded. The motion to deny passed on roll call with six votes in favor and one opposed (Commissioner O'Connor voted no). Several board members said the denial reflected the combination of an unspecified retail tenant and the pronounced parking shortfall.
The board advised the applicant that a more narrowly defined retail use, a parking plan tied to specific tenant operations, or a consolidated single permitted use could be resubmitted for future consideration.
