Roseland board recommends special use and approves variances for 14-unit condominium development on Pendle Street with conditions

The Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 8 sent a favorable recommendation to the Town of Roseland for a special use to permit multifamily condominiums at 220 Pendle Street and approved related variances for reduced setbacks and a three-story building height, contingent on commitments and staff conditions.

Area Plan Commission staff presented the proposal for Pinnacle Investments LLC, describing a proposed 1.12-acre vacant parcel to be developed with 14 condominium units in multiple buildings and a gated entrance. Staff recommended a favorable recommendation for the special use — which the town council must approve — and recommended approval of three variances relating to front and rear setbacks and building height, subject to conditions. Staff also noted a proposed written commitment from the developer to repave the applicable right of way along Pendle Street as part of the project.

The proposal drew questions about internal roadway width, drive aisles and fire access. The developer and the project team said they would work with the town and fire department on maneuvering aisles; the fire department indicated a 24-foot minimum interior aisle is required for emergency access. The petitioner said the project is intended to produce owner-occupied condominiums, not student housing, and that units will generally include garages.

Neighbors and one property owner adjacent to the site raised concerns about parking spillover, the visual effect of a gated community, and the number of cars generated by multiple-bedroom units. Anthony Ruhly of 209 East Pendle Street said he was especially concerned about the first building’s 10-foot setback from the front. Roseland Town Council President Mike (surname not stated in transcript) attended and told the board the town has generally supported the project and that the developer had agreed to repave Pendle Street.

The board voted separately on the special use and the variances. The board approved the special use recommendation by a 5–1 vote and later approved the variances by a majority vote, adopting staff’s recommendations while noting that the third staff condition (which tied approval to an exact site plan) should not be imposed because the interior drive aisle likely needs revision to satisfy fire-department requirements. The board and petitioner agreed the developer will revise the site plan if required to meet the 24-foot emergency aisle standard and return to the BZA if revisions require different variances.

Staff emphasized that approval of the special use will still require town council action. The board’s action sends a favorable recommendation to the town council, and the variances were approved subject to staff conditions 1 and 2 (not the third, site-plan-tied condition) so the developer can work with the town and fire department to finalize plans.

If the council approves the special use and the developer meets engineering requirements, the developer will be responsible for the agreed road improvements and for revising the site plan as needed to meet fire access and applicable code requirements.