PARK RIDGE and WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J.—Pascack Valley officials tell Pascack Press that they are conducting vacant land analyses and adjustments and starting to complete affordable housing fair share plans — required by June 30 — to meet the next deadline in the state’s fourth round of affordable housing obligations.
However, whether that deadline can be met by most Pascack Valley towns remains an open question, with some towns requesting extensions and some openly questioning how the state can keep to the deadlines it established when it amended the Fair Housing Act last year due to delays in agreeing on each town’s affordable obligations.
In March 2024, the Legislature passed, and Gov. Phil Murphy signed, an amendment to New Jersey’s 1985 affordable housing law, which created a new system to calculate and impose affordable housing obligations on most of the state’s 564 towns.
The state’s first affordable housing law, the Fair Housing Act, was passed in 1985 and required nearly all of New Jersey’s towns to zone for and create the opportunity for affordable housing in their communities.
The law was based on court decisions in 1975 and 1983, known informally as the Mount Laurel Doctrine that required urban and suburban towns to zone for and allow their “fair share” of affordable units.
Mount Laurel derived from a 1975 court decision in Mount Laurel, N.J., which required the township to allow low-income residential housing for African Americans to be built in an area not zoned for such housing. Proponents marked the doctrine’s 50th anniversary year, claiming successes for social justice.
Two of Pascack Valley’s hardest hit towns for the fourth round, Park Ridge and Woodcliff Lake, are both taking different approaches to meeting the next deadline. In October 2024, the state Department of Community Affairs calculated and posted non-binding affordable obligation numbers for every affected town in the state.
For the fourth round of affordable housing, Park Ridge was calculated to need to rehabilitate 137 “present need” affordable units that already exist in town as well as construct 138 “prospective need” or future affordable units.
Woodcliff Lake was calculated to need 423 “prospective need” units to be constructed over Mount Laurel’s fourth round of obligations (July 2025 through June 2035). That was the highest number of affordable units calculated to be built in Pascack Valley.
Park Ridge’s challenges
Recently, Park Ridge Mayor Keith Misciagna told us that the borough had asked for an extension to submit their Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (HEFSP). He said he believed the timeline established for submitting the HEFSP by June 30, plus other state DCA deadlines, were “untenable deadlines” established in the program.
He said he was told “close to 100 municipalities” also filed for extensions on the June 30 deadline to submit an HEFSP. On April 23, Misciagna told us the borough did not yet know its final numbers on present need or prospective need obligations. He emailed, “As of today, we have not heard back from the trial court, there has been no final decision yet.”
Misciagna said their obligation number was likely to go down but that the whole process was taking more time than the state’s deadlines accounted for. He said the fact that it was late April and a final decision on their obligation number was not in hand was not good.
“On April 9, our Affordable Housing attorney Michael J. Edwards, Esq., from Surenian, Edwards, Buzak & Nolan LLC, filed a motion seeking a 90-day grace period until September 30, 2025. It is my understanding that close to 100 municipalities in total did the same,” he said.
Misciagna said the borough adopted a resolution in January establishing a Round 4 affordable obligation for Park Ridge that agreed to 137 present need units and 119 prospective need units.
However, the resolution reserves all “rights and remedies” to potentially lower those numbers, including a vacant land adjustment, and at least four more possible adjustment measures, including the outcome of Montvale’s 27-town lawsuit against the fourth round based on state constitutional and legal challenges.
However, he said, “There was an objection to the Borough’s estimated obligation (119 units) filed by the New Jersey Builders Association, which did not result in settlement and proceeded to a ‘session’ before the [Dispute Resolution] Program, the status of which is currently pending.”
Misciagna added, “The next step in the process is for the Borough to adopt a Housing Element and Fair Share Plan by June 30, 2025. This deadline is objectively untenable, which is why the Borough filed a motion requesting an extension of 90 days until September 30, 2025.”
He also told us, “Our Affordable Housing Planner and Affordable Housing Attorney along with staff, are working on compiling information for our vacant land adjustment to determine our realistic development potential (RDP). Until that is officially completed, I will not be able to comment prematurely on what the Borough has determined our final realistic development potential; it has not been concluded yet.”
Asked about “present need” numbers being lowered, he said, “Unfortunately, I’m not able to discuss that in detail at this time, as we’re still in the early stages of the process. Everything is currently confidential and deliberate in nature. We expect the final number to be one we can live with and one based on facts and not arbitrary.”
We asked Misciagna if he had any comments for residents concerned about the affordable housing fourth round so far. He did not hesitate to express the need for more time to get the final numbers right.
“Your elected officials (and hired professionals) are working diligently to develop a plan that is proper and one that we all could live with. This is a very complex issue that must be addressed thoroughly. I believe if the court grants the 90-day extension to submit the Housing Element and Fair Share Plans, all the municipalities would be better served by getting sufficient time to file their HEFSP and related documents responsibly,” said Misciagna.
The mayor added, “Comprehensive land use planning takes time, and a significant amount of effort goes into issuing public hearing notices that are necessary to adopt housing plans. Land use planning isn’t something that can or should be rushed. Between community outreach, legal compliance, and thoughtful consideration of infrastructure and environmental limitations, giving towns more time could lead to stronger, more defensible plans.”
Misciagna dinged the DCA’s role in the process:
“The DCA also developed its land capacity factor based on available land data and did not conduct parcel-by-parcel reviews of each identified property used in their calculations. The use of generalized land capacity factors without detailed site-specific analysis (like parcel-by-parcel review) can lead to overestimates of what land is realistically available for housing. Especially if those estimates include lands that are environmentally constrained or otherwise undevelopable and properties with deed restrictions,” he said.
Woodcliff Lake’s status
Woodcliff Lake received the highest affordable obligation of any Pascack Valley town: 423 units.
However, through the efforts of the affordable housing committee, composed of DMR Architects, councilor Joshua Stern, councilwoman Nicole Marsh, and Mayor Carlos Rendo, that number was reduced significantly.
Stern told us, “We reached agreement with Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC) on our prospective need prior to the last meeting. That number was 360, which was down from the DCA recommended number of 423.”
He said, “We are in the process of finalizing the Vacant Land Adjustment (VLA) and our Realistic Development Potential (RDP) number, for inclusion in our HEFSP. That number will be substantially less. Our interpretation of the (affordable) statute is that we have to zone for 25% of the prospective need, or 90 affordable units, which will be further reduced with bonus credits and other reductions,” said Stern, who has kept councilors updated on the process.
Although Woodcliff Lake did not file for an extension to submit an HEFSP, Stern said, officials there hope to reduce their obligation number lower even after adjustments for a vacant land analysis.
He said further bonus credits should help to reduce the RDP number (or actual number of units to be built over the 2025–2035 Fourth Round) may come from affordable units being close to public transportation, and converting commercial space to residential. He said the RDP number and how it was calculated will be spelled out in the HEFSP submitted by June 30.
Stern said “invariably” some affordable credits will come from the potential redevelopment sites at the former BMW headquarters and former Hilton Hotel campus. Other credit will likely come from development at the 240 Broadway site. He explained, “All of these elements will be outlined in the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to be submitted by the (June 30) deadline.”
Stern had told Pascack Press that affordable units at future inclusionary developments — such as the former Hilton Hotel and portion of BMW property — should satisfy Fourth Round obligations. “If you don’t meet the Fourth Round, you could lose your ability to control [local] zoning and that can have disastrous consequences,” he told us.
With a June 30 deadline looming, Stern said the HEFSP will likely be presented at a combined Land Use Board–Borough Council meeting in June.
“We will have our borough planner and affordable housing attorney there and will be presenting the plan and answering any questions from residents. There’s a lot that goes into the HEFSP so it won’t be ready before June, particularly with the tight timeframe the state has given us. I think by law the plan would need to be noticed a minimum of 10 days before the planning board meeting, although if we can disclose sooner we will,” Stern said.