 |
By A. Thornton Bishop, Chairman, Planning BoardThe Sunday Sun, April 28, 1946 |
 |
PART 8
Teaneck Plans For the Future (Continued)
The problem was then approached through a study of the Building Code in an effort to improve the construction of multiple dwellings of four stories and over with increased provisions against fire. Strengthening of the Code on multiple-family dwellings introduced a form of light steel reinforcing in a concrete slab for floor construction that was highly recommended by progressive builders and architects at that time. Advancing the unit cost on a cubical foot basis over methods of construction offering less protection against fire, the effect of the regulation was to encourage the building of three-story "garden type apartments."
Garden Apartment Suitable
Garden apartments adapted themselves harmoniously to the residential character of Teaneck. They do not vary so greatly in height with the private homes nearby, and they are suitable for an architectural treatment in harmony with one-family houses. Though by regulation they are limited to a fifty percent coverage of the land, many are planned to occupy a smaller area, and the trend in multiple-family housing is toward an average occupancy of thirty percent. No building in a row or group can be built to exceed forty-five feet in height or contain dwellings for more than six families, and no part of any building can be erected within twenty-five feet of any part of any other building in the row or group, nor within twelve and one-half feet of any boundary line of the lot on which it is erected. These provisions assure an unusual protection for the adjoining property-owner against an encroachment that could be deemed detrimental to his property and investment.
The original zoning of many cities allowed too great density and set apart too great areas for business and industry. Teaneck was not alone in its miscalculation. Usually this happened because there was not time for careful discrimination. All zoning was problematical in the early days and there was a distinct tendency for the authorities to be unnecessarily liberal. There is today a general desire on the part of city councils, and still more on the part of planning boards, to review and amend the zoning maps. Few cases on this subject have found their way into court. Ten years ago, an Oregon court strongly approved this tightening up process which had been favored by the planning commission.
Little Business on Teaneck Road
It may be noted that throughout the growth of the Township, business has failed to establish itself along Teaneck Road and other frontages zoned for it. Assessments on business zoned property is about $15 a front foot higher than on residential Class "A" properties, which places a tax burden on land owners gambling on the eventual use of their land. If the frontages are not properly zoned for the best interests, not only of the Township, but for the owners themselves, an unwarranted hardship is being imposed all around, It becomes increasingly evident that the time may be imminent when a further study of the zoning situation will be advisable.
Spot Zoning Not Approved
Petitions from taxpayers asking the Township Council to change the zoning on specific parcels emphasizes the need for a thorough review of the present Zoning Map. Singling out individual parcels for change in classification is viewed with disfavor by the courts. It is known as "Spot Zoning" and is referred to as "singling out of one lot for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character."
Zoning should not ordinarily be used to force a change to a status not existing. It is useful in stabilizing districts, and an ordinance will be arbitrary if it tries to force an unreasonable or inappropriate use of the property.
Zoning Should Be Flexible
Zoning should not be inflexible. It should be regarded as a means by which values of property, and neighborhoods, may be sustained, and not as an objective in itself. It may be advisable to change the zoning in certain instances to meet the challenge of changing conditions. For instance, the rising cost of building today creates one of the troublesome problems for planners. One family homes which once established the character of many communities can no longer be built for the price that prevailed when the communities were developed. Comparable prices allow only dwellings having relatively less value. Assessing on a standard basis, as required by law, the town officials find that new buildings cannot produce the same tax revenue for the town as can the older dwellings which were built larger.
Consideration of these factors imposes on the planning boards the need for making a decision that will be in the best interests of the community as a whole. Changes in the zoning to permit more substantial housing, perhaps of a two-story multiple dwelling type, residential in character, may prove paradoxically to be a way in which the architectural character (which is, after all, the basis of the most discerning criticism), can be sustained in a community of homes where their characteristics can not be reproduced at present day prices.
Weakness of Present Act
One of the weaknesses in the present Zoning Act is the lack of control it exercises over structures which do not conform with a zoning ordinance. These structures, existing before the passage of the ordinance, are made immune to its provisions. They continue as a blight in a district where the ordinance was introduced to stabilize realty values, and that the fact no similar use may be constructed in the district tends to give the existing "non-conforming use" a monopoly.
The New Jersey Federation of Official Planning Boards urged upon the State Legislature the passing of legislation, or if necessary an amendment to the constitution, permitting its municipalities to place a reasonable time limit on the life of a non-conforming use. In Boston, and some other cities, a specific date has been fixed by which time non-conforming uses must be terminated. In Boston, it is April 1, 1961. When such power is granted to a municipality it will aid in the stabilizing of a zoned area.
Parks Planned Along Railroad
Like Route 4, the right of way along the West Shore Railroad serves as the front yard of Teaneck. Everyone who passes by receives the impression by which the whole Township attains its character. It has been the intention of the Township Council and the Planning Board to establish a border of parks along both sides of the railroad from the Teaneck Station to the Bergenfield line, and the combined efforts of these two bodies have been eminently successful. More than seventy percent of the property bordering the right of way is now owned by the Township; Parts have already been developed into parks, and the remaining portions have been marked for such development when funds are available.
In the Master Plan, the Planning Board laid the foundation for a Park system in Teaneck, suggesting eleven parks (nine containing playgrounds), four children's Playgrounds, two long park strips, and nine small plots in the shape of circles, triangles, or planting strips. This program was increased by the Advisory Board on Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation in a report presented to the Township Council in January 1940. The system has been further expanded by lands acquired for park purposes since that time. These parks offer the soundest guarantee that the character of Teaneck will remain residential for many years to come with increased land values underwriting the investment of every home-owner.
Need For Parking Areas Studied
The need for auto parking adjacent to the business districts heads the list of problems calling for immediate study by the Planning Board. The rehabilitation of certain business areas, and the revitalizing of depreciated properties call for surveys and research. The development of the land bordering on the Hackensack River and the Overpeck Creek must await the solution of the sewage problems which are now in the hands of the Bergen-Hackensack Sanitary Sewer District Authority, created by the Freeholders pursuant to an act of the Legislature passed on April 3, 1945.
Cooperation between the County Planning Board and the Planning Board of Bergen municipalities was demonstrated in a meeting a few month ago when a discussion was held concerning the future development of the Hackensack River waterfront. When this area is finally improved, Teaneck will enjoy an enviable position, flanked by a river made suitable for boating and swimming.
