‘Best We Could Do’: Council Takes Deal For 448 Units at Former Sony Site

The Park Ridge/Montvale border bifurcates the former Sony Campus site, which is approved for housing in Montvale. Park Ridge is settling to allow 448 units. / Mike Olohan photo

PARK RIDGE, N.J.—Faced with the prospect of builder’s lawsuits that could add hundreds more market-rate and affordable units in the borough—on the former Sony property and elsewhere—the Borough Council has approved a settlement agreement that permits 448 housing units, including 68 affordable units, on the 30-acre former Sony campus.

At the Nov. 23 council meeting, the vote was 4–2. Councilwoman Kelly Epstein and Councilman Matt Capilli voted against the settlement. Councilmen Robert Metzdorf, Tom Farinaro, Michael Mintz, and John Ferguson voted in favor.

Epstein said she objected to alleged “arm twisting” by Fair Share Housing Center and the court and she charged there had been “unlawful and unprofessional behavior” by the courts and judge.

“Things that are broken need to be fixed and not ignored,” she said.

Capilli said he objected to paying Fair Share’s attorney fees and the impacts that the new development would have on local schools. The councilmen voting in favor cited the settlement as a good deal that avoids a worse situation with high density development should the borough lose its case later in court.

Attorneys stressed over and over again that the borough got the best possible deal it could, and was able to wrest concessions from both the developer, Landmark AR Park Ridge LLC, and Fair Share Housing Center.

Both attorneys noted that housing units required in town could double, or more, if the borough loses at trial, and both said that was more than likely to occur given recent court rulings against the borough.

Special counsel Scott Reynolds said that Superior Court Judge Gregg Padovano’s court order to bar its expert witness, Robert Powell, as well as not allow its prior agreement with Bear’s Nest LLC for 50 affordable units as evidence in its trial, were major blows to their case.

Both Park Ridge attorneys involved in the five-year-plus negotiations advised council members to approve the settlement or anticipate a worse outcome should they vote to go to trial. They said Fair Share Housing Center wanted between 823 and possibly over 1,000 housing units at the Sony site.

“It’s too much to risk,” said Bocchi.

Borough Attorney Anthony Bocchi said that several factors undercut the borough’s case, including special master Frank Bansich’s recommendation of 35 dwelling units per acre at Sony, which Judge Padovano accepted despite the borough’s efforts to disqualify him.

Also, the barring of the borough’s expert witness from testifying, which Reynolds could not explain, and the imminent threat of losing its immunity to builder’s remedy lawsuits, which could add hundreds more housing units throughout town, and thousands more in legal fees and possible court-imposed costs, made the risk of trial a losing proposition, both attorneys said.

Mayor Keith Misciagna said the borough had spent nearly $700,000 over each of the last several years fighting against its intervenors, mostly Hornrock Properties LLC, which recently transferred the Sony property to Landmark AR Park Ridge LLC, another development company.

He said the drain on local finances could not continue and there appeared to be little chance of ultimate victory in the courts according to its attorneys.

“We were able to obtain favorable settlement terms on behalf of the borough,” said Bocchi. He said Landmark AR Park Ridge wanted no setbacks and at least 60 feet building heights, which the borough refused to agree to, and that those would be subject to further negotiation.

In addition, Bocchi said the wood-frame construction agreed to “should result in certain height restrictions” and that the developer also agreed to upgrade utilities and make connections to public utilities at their expense, which they initially opposed.

Moreover, Bocchi said, Landmark had “demanded” a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement and that the developer “capitulated on that position.”

A PILOT agreement generally offers a developer a reduced tax assessment over a 20- or 30-year period. Bocchi also said the borough will not agree to any future PILOT agreement.

Bocchi said Fair Share Housing Center also “capitulated” on demands for much-higher density in affordable housing zones and downtown zoning density. He called it “the best possible agreement” for the borough given the negative alternatives possible by continuing towards a court trial.

He said the settlement protects the borough by limiting development on the Sony site to 50% of what Fair Share was requesting, offers no PILOT or tax break to the developer, and will generate much more tax revenue than the site’s current office use.

Currently, said Borough Administrator Julie Falkenstern, the former Sony site pays $890,000 in annual taxes and she estimated taxes after development would be about $2.6 million.

It was suggested about $1.7 million would be set aside for the school district to accommodate new students, although several residents questioned whether the extra tax revenue would cover the new school costs and other municipal services.

The settlement agrees to pay Fair Share Housing Center $150,000 for legal fees, an amount smaller than initially requested by the low-income housing advocate, said attorneys. The settlement sets the borough’s third round affordable obligation at 225 affordable units.

The borough satisfies the 225-unit, third-round obligation via 15 affordable units at the Park Ridge Transit LLC’s 240-unit mixed-use development on Kinderkamack Road; 51 affordable family rental units at Bear’s Nest/Bergen County United Way site; 28 assisted living units at Atrium; 68 family rental units at Landmark AR Park Ridge Residential Development; and six accessory apartments.

That totals 168 affordable units, plus 67 credits for rental units, which equals 225 units, states the settlement. A couple residents raised questions about the breakdown of unit bedrooms in the 448-unit family rental Landmark Residential Development, and what impacts more bedrooms may have on local school costs and municipal services.

“The bedroom distribution of the affordable units shall be 15% one bedroom units, 35% three bedroom units, with the remaining 50% being two bedroom units. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 5:93-10.2(c), the bedroom mix within the market rate units within the Landmark Residential Development shall be at Landmark’s sole discretion,” reads the settlement.

Several times during the 2.5- hour meeting, Misciagna empathized with callers opposing the settlement, but told them the settlement was the best they could do without further risking more high density development should they lose their immunity to builder’s lawsuits.

“Everybody on this council worked their asses off on this. We spent a lot of money… and people complained about tax increases,” said Misciagna, who ran for mayor opposing a previous affordable housing settlement and vowed to fight high density housing.

He told one resident opposed to the settlement that “one of my biggest fears” is that “the vultures will be circling those properties” — referring to potentially available sites such as the Park Ridge Marriott acreage, should the borough lose its immunity and control over local zoning.

Referring to attorneys’ costs to fight the case, which Misciagna said were $700,000 annually over the last several years, he said there were “a lot of things we’d like to do. This case is bleeding us.”

Misciagna said he would “continue fighting” against future affordable housing mandates.

“At this time, this will be the best outcome for Park Ridge. None of us can be happy about it at this point,” he said.

About a dozen residents called in to question or oppose the settlement. Approximately 30 people were watching at peak viewing time on PKRG-TV, which livestreamed the meeting on YouTube.

Falkenstern mentioned the YouTube livestream about 6:20 p.m. during the meeting but the link was not posted on the meeting agenda.

It was unclear how many people tried to access the meeting via an open phone line, although several callers mentioned difficulties in getting through.