Lawsuit Seeks to Void Approvals for 141 Brunswick Street in Jersey City

9
141 143 Brunswick Street Jersey City
141-143 Brunswick Street, Jersey City. Photo via Google Maps/Street View.

A local neighborhood group is fighting back against what they view as overdevelopment in their community, officially taking legal action that hopes to overturn an approved project.

Back in October, Jersey City’s zoning board signed off on a 30-unit development at 141 Brunswick Street. Replacing a vacant funeral home, the five-story project comes courtesy of Englewood-based EP Brunswick JC Group LLC and would include 15 parking spaces.

The property is located within an R-5 Low-Rise Residential Mixed-Use Zone, which was enacted in 2017 to replace more restrictive R-1 zoning. The move was made in part due to an influx of development applications requesting variances in the neighborhood.

The R-5 requirements set maximum building height at four stories, cap lot coverage at 80%, and completely prohibit parking on properties along Brunswick Street. The zoning board’s approval of 141 Brunswick Street granted the developer five variances, which led the Village Neighborhood Association (VNA) to file a complaint in Hudson County Court on January 28, seeking to overturn the decision.

141 143 Brunswick Street Jersey City Development
Proposed development. Rendering via Village Neighborhood Association’s Facebook page.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the board’s award of a d-6 height variance, a d-5 density variance, variances for building and lot coverage, and another one for parking. The case says that N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) requires the applicant to establish “special reasons” to justify the additional density and floor height 141 Brunswick received and argues that the developer has “failed to meet their burden of proof.”

Another issue challenged in the legal filing revolves around 141 Brunswick’s footprint, consisting of 97.3% building and lot coverages, but R-5 zoning caps maximum building coverage at 70% and maximum lot coverage at 80%. “Neither the applicant nor the Zoning Board made a ‘showing’ as to why the variances required for the proposed structure would not substantially impair the zone plan and the zoning ordinance,” the complaint argues.

The association, who did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit, is looking to void the approvals and claim the board was “arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable” when they granted them in the first place. Their court filings are consistent with positions they took in a letter that VNA’s Board of Directors wrote to developers last year, writing that the association “vehemently believes that no variances should be granted in the R-5 zone except in the rarest of cases where exceptional hardship, or exceptional community benefit, can be proven.”

“In addition, given the perceived precedent-setting nature of development in our City, we believe that a strict adherence to the current zoning is required in all but the most extraordinary cases,” the letter concluded.

The ownership group behind 141 Brunswick Street has not responded to our request for comment on the litigation. A trial date has yet to be set for the proceedings.

Related coverage:

--

Have something to add to this story? Email [email protected].

Click here to sign up for Jersey Dig's free emails and news alerts. Stay up-to-date by following Jersey Digs on Twitter and Instagram, and liking us on Facebook.

9 COMMENTS

  1. So a new, smart looking modern building of the same size is replacing some dumpy ass old buildings. I don’t see the problem. Plant some trees and I’m ok with this.

    • These “smart looking modern buildings” are replacing history and are typically tearing down buildings that can be restored and are historic to the neighborhood. You think the monstrosities of 99 Hudson ADD value to the neighborhood? Please. Go to any old city in Europe. They preserve their architecture and heritage. This is why people go to Europe to see these beautiful cities.

      • Please, stop with the Euro-centric BS. The French tore down an Art Nouveau wrought iron marketplace to build the ugliest shopping mall known to mankind- Chatlet- Les Halles. It’s an abomination. Ditto for the Tour Montparnasse, La Defense, and many others. The suburbs outside of Paris make Newark look posh. Some things are worth restoring for historic purposes, but the two dumpy ass Brunswick St buildings have little significance, aesthetic or otherwise. If you own them you can do what you want. Btw Guy de Maupassant called the Eiffel Tower “barbaric, ghastly, and monstrous.”

        • With all due respect, THERE ARE MORE CITIES OUTSIDE OF SHITTY PARIS.

          In any case, morons will be morons. So called “gentrification” is going to be the end of us all.

          Have Dandy ol’ day chum.

  2. Why on earth would they completely prohibit parking in buildings along Brunswick in R-5? That is just plain idiotic! People do have cars and they will look for parking on the street if it’s not in their building, and this just sets up everyone complaining again about no parking on the streets.

  3. Read the article, and know the zone folks. The developers could have received as of right approval for a building with ZERO parking. They didn’t and decided to use their allowable square footage for both commercial and parking. In return they asked for a half floor, and received it from the zoning board. What’s the problem?? Would everyone prefer a building wlrh no parking? Because thats where this is going to go!!

    • Eddie, I agree, it’s simply foolish to try to set a building up there with no parking… a street like that where there is ALREADY limited to no parking should never prohibit parking in this building, especially since it appears to be comfortably housed and even hidden from the street.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here