Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Orange zoning board denies variance for proposed home at 104 Winding Way
Summary
The West Orange Zoning Board denied an application to build a single‑family house at 104 Winding Way after concluding variances were driven by conditions the applicant knew when buying the lot and because engineering and safety concerns — notably a proposed 20‑ft retaining wall — remained unresolved.
The West Orange Zoning Board voted to deny a developer’s application to build on a steep, undersized lot at 104 Winding Way after concluding the hardships the applicant cited were effectively self‑created and unresolved safety and neighborhood‑character concerns remained.
John Barry, the applicant’s licensed professional planner, told the board the lot’s “hardship … deals with the topography of the land and the dimensions of the lot,” and said steep‑slope deductions and narrow width left the site effectively unbuildable without variance relief. Applicant counsel presented engineering testimony and said retaining walls and other controls would make the site stable for a moderate single‑family home.
Neighbors and several board members disagreed. Resident Anthony Nicatera, sworn as an interested party, urged denial, saying on the record that “approving this lot would violate the neighborhood’s existing lot size, setback, and height rules.” Another neighbor said he had “never had a drop of water in my basement” and raised runoff and rockfall concerns if excavation proceeded.
Board members pressed the applicant’s engineer about plans for what the applicant described as combined retaining walls that could reach about 20 feet where two walls meet. The engineer said most visible walls near the street would be 6–10 feet, that the tallest faces would primarily be internal to the parcel and visible from the future home, and that a four‑foot fence would be provided where a wall exceeded 30 inches. The board nonetheless flagged safety, visual and process concerns tied to the proposed wall height and cumulative variances.
Chairperson Neuer said after reviewing the record and hearing testimony that he could not support the application: “I cannot vote in favor of this application,” he said during deliberations, citing the applicant’s prior knowledge of the lot’s constraints and legal precedents about self‑created hardships. A motion to deny the application passed on a roll call vote; the board directed staff to draft a denial resolution.
The vote followed public testimony noting the site’s steep slopes, prior denials in the record and potential long‑term erosion and drainage effects on downhill properties. Applicant counsel said the owners’ construction background and proposed engineering mitigations addressed those concerns and urged approval; the board found those assurances insufficient in this case.
The board’s denial ends this application for now; staff will prepare the formal resolution documenting the grounds for denial and the record of the hearing.
