WOODCLIFF LAKE—Attorneys for the borough and 188 Broadway LLP sparred throughout a four-hour first hearing May 25 for a revised application to construct a 53-unit apartment complex at 188 Broadway that includes construction of a new second two-story building on the site.
An original application to construct a 60-unit apartment complex on the site was unanimously rejected by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in July 2019.
The revised application requests a use variance for multifamily housing in an Special Office (SO) zone, plus a variance for interior parking lot landscaping and waivers for grades on walkways and swales. A small portion of the property is zoned R-15, but no development is planned there.
The application will be continued at a special meeting on June 16 at 7:30 p.m. Three to give expert witnesses are expected to testify for the applicant.
“By this Application, the Applicant seeks to: (i) renovate and convert the existing vacant office building into a multi-family dwelling structure to contain 37 residential units (consisting of 33 one-bedroom units and four two-bedroom units); and (ii) construct a new two-story structure on the Property behind the existing building to the East, which will contain 16 residential units (12 one-bedroom units and four two-bedroom units). In total, the Property will contain a total of 53 residential units (45 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units),” said the public notice.
The 188 Broadway site contains a vacant two-story office building with an underground parking garage. The building lies near the busy intersection of Broadway and Woodcliff Avenue, close to the borough’s train station and opposite Woodcliff Lake Reservoir.
From the hearing start, applicant attorney Paul Kaufman and Zoning Board attorney Sal Princiotto disagreed over testimony, questioning, and whether a real estate professional called by the applicant to offer testimony was an expert.
The attorneys spent a good portion of the hearing arguing over witnesses, testimony, and its relevance.
While Princiotto questioned the relevance of the applicant’s first witness, David Bernhaut, of Cushman & Wakefield, Kaufman verbally pushed back against Princiotto’s questioning, accusing Princiotto of preventing him from presenting the applicant’s case.
Kaufman said that Bernhaut would speak about “market conditions” for office space in North Jersey.
“Let him testify. Why don’t we let him testify and hear what he has to say and you can decide whether it’s relevant or not?” said Kaufman to Princiotto.
Princiotto briefly apologized if he offended anyone and Kaufman replied, “Mr. Princiotto, let me present my case without having to explain my case to you in advance, which is what you want me to do. Let me present my case.”
In an opening statement, Kaufman said that the only tenant in the office building when 188 Broadway LLP purchased it was its then owner, WWL Realty Americas LLC, not multiple tenants as was alluded to during the first proposal’s hearing in 2019.
He said he wanted to “clarify the record” as hearings begin on the revised application.
Member Christina Hembree said because Kaufman initially mentioned the building’s prior owner was the building’s only tenant at the time of purchase by 188 Broadway LLP, she wanted to state that that issue was mentioned during the first 2019 proposal and is relevant to the case, including the issue of whether the new owner tried to lease the building as office space.
Kaufman said at the time of purchase the building was fully occupied by WWL, its owner and sole tenant. It became unoccupied when the owner vacated the property following its sale to 188 Broadway LLP.
Kaufman said if required, testimony will be put on record to confirm that later during hearings.
Bernhaut gave an overview of corporations and office buildings that have left and entered the North Jersey market, including the Woodcliff Lake, Park Ridge and Montvale market.
Princiotto characterized Bernhaut as having “very limited” qualifications to be an expert witness and that board members can “accept or reject” Bernhaut’s testimony.
Kaufman objected to Princiotto’s characterization of Bernhaut, emphasizing Bernhaut had 34 years of experience dealing with the office marketplace in this region.
Bernhaut noted the configuration of 188 Broadway’s office building “is very inefficient for multi-tenant use” and said that “very few” tenants can be found to rent such office space.
He said the property is too far from major highways and offers no nearby amenities, such as buildings along Chestnut Ridge Road or the Tice Center.
Similar buildings to 188 Broadway with office space available often go unleased for many months, Bernhaut said, and some for years due to an oversupply of higher-quality office space. He said office buildings such as 188 Broadway are being torn down and repurposed for industrial or residential use.
Under questioning by Chairwoman Robin Malley, Bernhaut said it would be “incredibly expensive” to convert 188 Broadway into smaller spaces of 500–600 square feet for rent, or to convert it for so-called coworking or shared office space, where employees or employers rent a shared office space for part- or full-time use.
Malley said 188 Broadway was “very neglected over the last couple years.”
Resident Ann Marie Verelli wondered whether 188 Broadway could be converted into a medical or healthcare facility. Bernhaut said it was expensive to convert an existing office building to medical use but it could be done. He said corporate clients generally do not want to share space with a medical enterprise.
Bernhaut said whether that should be done comes down “to what is the economic value and return on investments” noting the economic calculation is complex.
He said he found it “really hard to believe” that the highest and best use for the property was as office space, contradicting a statement by Princiotto.
Princiotto had said earlier that he was quoting from an appraisal done on 188 Broadway that stated its highest and best use was office space, asking Bernhaut whether he was aware of that report. Bernhaut said he was not.
Later Princiotto said the appraisal would be submitted into evidence by the borough as it was based on zoning, physical conditions and forecasted economic conditions. Kaufman said he “didn’t realize this was going to be an adversarial proceeding where the board is presenting evidence that it deems relevant to try to counter the application.”
However, Kaufman countered, noting, “I’m going to put on the record right now that I absolutely object to the appraisal report being put in… Under what law do you have the right to start submitting evidence against an application?” he asked.
Princiotto said it was not evidence against the applicant. I think it’s evident what the appraisal was for,” Princiotto said, to Kaufman’s strong objections to including the appraisal as evidence. Kaufman asked whether the appraiser would be available to be cross-examined.
“It’s not evidence, it’s absolutely irrelevant to this proceeding,” Kaufman said. Princiotto replied that based on “what your client understood when they purchased the property” and the appraisal goes to whether there was a hardship after the property’s purchase.
When resident Laura Jeffers asked whether the building could be repurposed. Bernhaut said “any building can be repurposed” but stressed “whether it makes economic sense and where it is” also factor in.
Asked if 188 Broadway was marketable, Bernhaut said it was “certainly not for sale and not for lease” and that better quality office space was for lease. “We’ve seen high vacancy rates getting higher,” said Bernhaut at one point.
When Kaufman said he wanted to call Borough Traffic Engineer Brian Intindola to testify as a witness, and Princiotto objected to allowing it, Kaufman said he would be subpoenaed as a witness.
However, Priciotto said Intindola could be cross-examined when he testifies as a witness for the borough.
Following a brief back and forth, with Kaufman threatening subpoenas on Intindola “and anybody else I want” to testify, Kaufman agreed at about 10 p.m. to call applicant traffic engineer Louis Luglio, of Sam Schwartz Engineering.
Luglio said based on the lower-density 53-unit complex proposed, traffic would be approximately 20% less than he estimated when the proposal included 60 apartment units.
Luglio said the site’s use as apartments, even at non-peak hours would be a “low generator of traffic” but conceded on weekends the apartment complex will generate more vehicle trips than an office use since office buildings are closed on weekends.
Luglio said weekday “peak hour” morning traffic volumes for the 53 apartments would be 19 vehicles, five going in and 14 going out; the evening “peak hour” volume would be 23 vehicles, with 14 going in and nine going out.
He said the Saturday “peak hour” volume would be 29 vehicles, 14 going in and 15 going out.
Several times during the hearing, Kaufman noted that the Bergen County Planning Board had previously given its approval for the 60-unit apartment complex proposed in 2019, stressing that Broadway was a county road and under Bergen County’s jurisdiction.
Princiotto advised residents with questions about regional traffic impacts to contact the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, as local zoners have no jurisdiction over regional traffic impacts.