Board of Adjustment Denies Domus Augusta LLC's Site Plan for New 959 Bloomfield Avenue Office Building, 4-3

Glen Ridge's Board of Adjustment spent much of its July 8, 2021 meeting on a contested preliminary and final site plan application from Domus Augusta, LLC to build a new two-story commercial building at 959 Bloomfield Avenue, replacing an existing gravel parking lot. Attorney Robert Gaccione represented the applicant, whose principal, Bart De Gregorio, testified the project would let his business move its billing department -- six employees working 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. -- from its current office across the street. Architect Paul Sionas of Sionas Architecture described the proposed building: a ground floor with four interior tandem parking spaces plus three paved exterior spaces, second-floor office space, and a flat roof with rooftop HVAC equipment screened by a parapet wall.

The application required a D-3 conditional use variance, since Glen Ridge's R-5 zone requires commercial buildings to sit at least 30 feet from side or rear property lines, while Domus Augusta proposed 5- and 8-foot side setbacks and a 20-foot rear setback; it also sought bulk variances for pre-existing lot area, width, and depth, and a design waiver to allow 9-by-18-foot parking spaces instead of the required 9-by-20-foot. Chair Mahoney noted the borough's Historic Preservation Commission had reviewed the design and split 3-3 (four votes are needed to approve), and that the applicant revised the plans afterward -- adding windows on the south elevation, plus lighting and landscaping -- without returning to HPC for a follow-up review. Board members, including Ms. Berger and Vice Chair Bergmanson, pressed on parking operations, noise from the rooftop HVAC unit, why extra parking beyond the required ratio was being built, and whether the applicant had used "Autoturn" software to verify vehicles could actually maneuver the lot; Sionas said they had not.

During public comment, neighbor Ms. Chao of 58 Glenridge Avenue objected to the nonresidential use encroaching near her privacy and the backyard setback; Ms. Buckner-Caraballo raised concerns about the ADA parking space's turning radius and lighting; and Ms. Elstin raised concerns about lighting and landscaping. Board engineer Paul Ferriero also flagged concerns with the parking layout and operations. After a recess, the applicant considered adjourning to return to HPC but was told the board could act without further HPC review, and chose to proceed. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the application subject to five conditions, including compliance with parts of the engineer's report, county planning board approval, a parapet wall, and removing two trees in favor of lower-growing shrubs -- but the board voted 4-3 to deny it, with Johnson, Scott, and Krien in favor of approval and Mahoney, Bergmanson, Berger, and Sprong voting to deny.