Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant trims Route 17 development; board presses on trash placement, parking and stormwater
Summary
At a Feb. 12 Paramus Board of Adjustment hearing, 750 Paramus LLC & One Ridgewood LLC described revisions to a Route 17 site plan, reducing building area by about 15,000 sq. ft., and agreed to move trash containers after neighbors raised concerns; no final vote was recorded during the session.
On Feb. 12, 2026, the Borough of Paramus Board of Adjustment heard an amended preliminary and final site plan from 750 Paramus LLC and One Ridgewood LLC for 750 Route 17 North. Attorney Jason Tuvel told the board the applicant returned to the board after failing to purchase a nearby DOT property and had revised the proposal, reducing the building from 81,962 square feet to 73,962 square feet and eliminating a basement.
Mikayla Maguire, the applicant’s engineer, said operations would not change: customers would have access to units from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., office hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the site would employ two to three people at a time. She said the building would sit about 37 feet from the curb line, that the applicant added 12 parking spaces, and that the loading zone remains in the previously approved location.
Board members and members of the public focused on buffering and site impacts. Chairman Locicero asked whether the trash containers were located close to neighboring homes; after discussion, Tuvel said, "the Applicant would move them." A public commenter, Richard C. of 66 Oliver Road, pressed the applicant on landscaping; the applicants’ engineer responded that they would provide trees (a screening figure was discussed as "15 vs 20 on each side").
Architect Larry Appel described the exterior as unchanged in style and loading configuration and said parapets (about 3–4 feet, 5 feet at the front entry) would conceal rooftop mechanicals. Planner Trina Marchella, representing Stonefield Engineering for the applicant, testified that the benefits of the revisions "outweigh the detriments." The board’s engineer asked whether the applicant had an opportunity to pave or otherwise clean up the site; the transcript records the question but no conclusive cleanup commitment was recorded.
Board members also asked about stormwater and illumination for signage; those subjects were discussed but the transcript does not record final conditions or an approval vote for Docket No. 7241 during the Feb. 12 meeting. The hearing record shows the application received detailed technical review and public input; no formal action on the application is recorded in the meeting minutes provided.
