WOODCLIFF LAKE—The Zoning Board of Adjustment is set to meet on Tuesday, June 22 over whether to approve a revised 53-unit rental apartment complex at 188 Broadway. The session picks up where a contentious 3-hour-plus hearing June 16 left off.
At that session, the applicant’s and board’s attorneys clashed over what testimony would be allowed to be considered. It ended past 10:30 p.m. with five residents raising hands on the Zoom platform to question applicant planner Joseph Burgis. Those questions will come first on June 22.
The hearing will be the third public forum on the revised 53-unit application, which includes eight affordable units. In 2019, the Zoning Board unanimously rejected a proposed 60-unit apartment complex at 188 Broadway following eight hearings.
Applicant 188 Broadway LLP’s attorney, Paul Kaufman, and Zoning Board Attorney Salvatore Princiotto argued over what testimony was permitted, what board members should consider in reviewing the revised application, qualifications of experts to offer specific testimony, and how much and often Princiotto should be interrupting the applicant’s expert witnesses.
Offering applicant testimony were Richard LaBarbiera, an engineer and applicant principal; Matthew Clark, an engineer; and Planner Joseph Burgis. Burgis said there were at least six “special reasons” under the local Master Plan and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan to approve the 53-unit apartment complex.
He said one “special reason” mentioned in both the local Master Plan and state plan was that the proposed multifamily development was located near a train station, which he noted was also mentioned by the borough’s planner, Richard Preiss, at the 2019 hearings.
That comment irked Princiotto, who said that Burgis needed to cite specifics and not just make general references to previous unrelated testimony.
“I can object and I can object to these general comments that Mr. Preiss agreed to in his testimony without any reference to the record, and they’re general comments, and I object to it,” said Princiotto.
“Let him finish his testimony, please … you’re not an adversary here. You’re supposed to give legal guidance to the board,” Kaufman told Princiotto.
Kaufman said Princiotto’s role was not as an adversary “and to question and interrupt the witness and prevent him from testifying because you don’t understand what he is saying.”
When Princiotto continued, Kaufman interrupted: “Are you going to prevent me from putting on my case? … Let’s put that on the record too. You’ve already objected to the way I want to call (my) witnesses.”
Chair Robin Malley interjected: “Mr. Kaufman, this is the way we run our meetings. This is the way I want it run, okay?”
Later, Princiotto and Burgis debated whether it was better to update the local Master Plan — a comprehensive update is ongoing by Phillips Preiss, Grygiel, Leheny, Hughes LLC — or plan by granting variances. Burgis said an applicant is “always entitled to make an application and the Zoning Board is obligated to hear it.”
He said that Princiotto “cannot be suggesting” that all applications be put on hold for an extended period of time, possibly a year, while the borough updates its Master Plan.
Burgis also said that because the borough currently has a 430-plus unit “unmet need” of affordable housing, they should not pass up an opportunity to provide affordable units despite having an approved affordable settlement.
He said that Fair Share Housing Center staff were probably monitoring municipal zoning and planning activity between now and 2025 to see what development towns were permitting.