Sanzari's New Bridge Inn Seeking Approval to Expand
Sanzari's appears before the Zoning Board seeking variances to demolish two existing houses to construct a parking lot and expand restaurant.
Sanzari's New Bridge Inn has filed preliminary and final site plan approval to construct a parking lot where two dwellings are currently located and expand the restaurant by approximately 600 square feet.
Residents in New Milford and Teaneck have attended a borough zoning board meeting to voice concerns over the expansion plan. The restaurant is located near Riverview Avenue in Teaneck, an area residents say often floods in heavy rains.
"There's overwhelming non-support for this project from the residents,' Teaneck Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin said at Teaneck's council meeting Tuesday.
Although the work will be done in New Milford, Teaneck officials will review the plans to explore formally opposing the work.
Because the existing restaurant and two lots being proposed for parking lot expansion are located in a Residential A zone, Sanzari's is seeking a "D" variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
However, during the hearing last week, the attorney for Sanzari's New Bridge Inn, Carmine Alampi, requested an adjournment so that he can re-notice the public. Alampi informed the board that the original notice failed to acknowledge that the expansion of the restaurant will increase the seating and, therefore, increase the number of required parking spaces.
The hearing on this application has been adjourned to the June 12 meeting of the Zoning Board.
Ulises
4:12 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Great, just what we need another parking lot along the river, adding more runoff to a flood zone. It's so ridiculous, this restaurant floods!!! This is no different than the development of the Suez/United Water property by the high school (btw, both properties are in the same flood plain/zone).
This should be voted down, setting the premise for the vote to develop the Suez/United Water property.
Stop-Over-Development!
SOD!
Lori Barton
8:22 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Exactly right, Ulises. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT of flood plain property. Every time flood plain property is developed, it means even more flooding everywhere else. Haven't we had enough here? It's time for all of us to come together and act as one to prevent this and another flood plain developments.
james
10:04 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Can you explain what will happen any differently then now if a parking lot is put up instead of two houses? I'm not a fan of developement where there is NO developement but this isn't the same. BTW I still don't get why the gung-ho for the Field of Dreams but the kabash on all other developement.
Ulises
11:02 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
James, the developments we oppose are in the town's 100 year flood plain. The homes mentioned in this article have sod in their front, side, and backyards. A paved lot, in this flood plain/zone, has no sod to absorb rain water.
SOD!
james
12:41 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
But the point is that you all said the restaurant still floods. Will it really flood any less when the houses and sod are gone? If I remember correctly no one was opposed to development of the UW property when the Field of Dreams was first proposed to be done on that property. I don't know I just find it a bit hypocritical to oppose development in some areas and not others like where the middle school is located. I have heard from people who live there that they have even worse flooding then before.
Alan Sohn
12:52 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Copied (and lightly revised) from my comment in the Teaneck version of the item:
Even now, the area near the New Bridge Inn floods in anything more than a drizzle, often leaving that entire section of Old New Bridge Road on both sides of the building -- extending towards the Hackensack River and New Bridge Road -- completely impassable due to as much as a foot or more of water. Rain heavier than that has led to dozens of closures of New Bridge Road, the area's primary crossing of the river. I find it hard to believe that adding a larger building and covering significantly larger sections of the area near the current structure with even more impervious surface won't make the flooding problems that much worse than it already is, adding to the chronic flooding for local residents and aggravating the situation on New Bridge Road, which is a traffic disaster under ideal conditions.
Ulises
7:18 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
james,
I'm not a hypocrite about my feelings about the Suez/United Water property by the high school. I've never changed my views, please see for yourself;
http://newmilford-nj.patch.com/articles/what-do-you-think-should-be-done-with-the-united-water-property#video-5477709
As for the field by the middle school, there are no buildings or retail space being developed there and I don't know much about the existing field to make any comments about it. These are apples and oranges you are comparing and calling me a hypocrite about.
According to the US Geological Survey, every acre of permeable (not pave, but sod) land can absorb 27,154 gallons of water in one inch rain storm. According to your logic, we don't need anymore sod in our flood plains.
Stop-Over-Development!
SOD!
james
9:32 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
For the record Ulises I did not name anyone. I was indicating that that land was desired by some to be brought and made into a Field of Dreams. I also wonder why it is apples and oranges when you are concerned about your home and neighborhood flooding but not when it happens to others.
Ulises
11:39 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
james, I'm concerned about the negative impact Suez/United Water has had and continues to have on our town.
Their developer's proposed plan will increase traffic by our high school and senior citizens center. Overcrowd our schools. Strain our police, fire and rescue departments. Cut down our shade trees, increase our air and noise pollution while piping more trash down the river. The trunck traffic on Main Street for this mega Shoprite will damage our non-county roads/infrastructure (80,000 lb daily truck loads exceeds the bridge on Main Street capacity), etc.... Our property taxes will increase because of this development and these are my concerns, james.
I have to be honest with you, I don't know anything about the middle school field, nor any of the flooding that goes on in those neighborhoods. I'd like to know more about those issues and I will, but that's why I truly don't comment about that topic.
james
2:21 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
The more I read the more I agree with not letting the developement go forward Ulises. I do think each of these issues is separate as you said. I hope the middle school community that oppeses the Field of Dream plan can get someone in their community who is as knowledgeable about their situation as you are about the UW developement. I don't agree with the Field of Dreams for a variety of reasons one of which is the additional flooding and quality of small town life for those who live there. That seems to be the objection from many for the UW developement but yet they do not see it with the middle school Field of Dreams deveilopement. A little bit hypocritical in my opinion.
Lori Barton
8:08 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
If the field of dreams was located at the United Water location it would not increase the impervious coverings. Therefore, no additional flooding would occur. I am adamantly opposed to ANY flood plain land being covered by impervious coverings. Additional parking and building coverage at Sanzari's will lessen the ability of the area to absorb rainwater: more flooding in that area and along other coastal areas. The middle school property is already a field.
james
12:19 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
There would be no parking or equipment buildings for the Field of Dreams? Aren't those impervious coverings? Would the Field of Dreams not flood just like the property does now? I am still not understanding why the Field of Dreams that was proposed on that property is okay with those who want a Field of Dreams despite it being a flood zone. Outiside of the "we want a new place for our kids to play" I don't see a reason for the Field of Dreams.