Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on Old Tappan lot split carried to March 11 after residents raise property-value, wildlife and aesthetics concerns
Summary
Officials carried a hearing on a proposed lot reconfiguration to March 11 after residents pressed the Borough about reduced lot depth, a narrow 4-foot strip, potential wildlife impacts and possible property-value effects; the applicant agreed to revise landscaping and plans and the board invited appraiser or planner testimony at the continued session.
At a Borough of Old Tappan hearing on a proposed subdivision, the board agreed to carry the matter to March 11 after residents raised concerns about lot dimensions, neighborhood aesthetics and possible impacts on wildlife and property values.
The most immediate dispute centered on dimensional compliance. Presenters explained that the design included a 4-foot strip and a roadway they expect the board will want to see as a 50-foot right-of-way; under current orientations the proposal yields lot depths around 94–96 feet compared with a cited 125-foot requirement, a presenter said, producing a nonconforming depth substantially below the standard.
Why it matters: Neighbors said the reduced lot depth and the proposed narrow strip could create a flag-lot condition, raise maintenance questions and set a precedent for similar reconfigurations elsewhere in town.
During public questioning, Frank Bianchi, of 31 Moser Place, told the board he supported neighbors and urged limiting development to a single house on the parcel. “I think really one house on that property, from our perspective, is the way to go,” Bianchi said, and asked whether the subdivision would lower nearby property values. A board member and the professionals replied they were not real estate appraisers; the chair suggested bringing real-estate experts for follow-up testimony: “What you may wanna do is you may wanna speak to some real estate people,” the chair said.
Another resident, identifying himself as Great Longlebardi of 82 Old Grand Road, focused on appearance, asking how a 4-foot strip and a proposed 4-foot fence would conform to the town’s aesthetics. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Longlebardi said; presenters said they would revise the landscaping plan rather than add structures and expected a planner or architect to appear at the next session.
Residents also asked whether the development would harm wildlife on the site; one commenter listed eagles, owls, deer and red fox and asked whether the applicant had assessed impacts. The professionals acknowledged they are not qualified to offer an appraisal of property values and said they could not provide a wildlife-impact valuation in the session; a public commenter urged a wildlife assessment.
Procedural outcome: After questions, a member moved to close the public portion of the hearing; board members signaled their assent and the chair closed public questioning. The board then agreed to carry the hearing to March 11 and said the matter would be continued to that date without further notice. The applicant said it would return with revised plans and a revised landscaping approach.
What happens next: The board requested that the applicant bring revised site and landscaping plans and suggested the public or the applicant could summon real-estate appraisers or a planner/architect to testify at the continued hearing on March 11. No final votes on variances or approvals were recorded at the session.
