WOODCLIFF LAKE—Following the borough planner’s finding that a 3-acre-plus site at 188 Broadway met two criteria that qualified it as “an area in need of redevelopment” under state law, the Planning Board voted overwhelmingly Dec. 19 to recommend that the Borough Council designate the property for non-condemnation redevelopment.
The Borough Council will get the Planning Board’s recommendation and make the final determination whether to declare the site for redevelopment. After that, the Council must develop and approve a redevelopment plan.
Based on a memorandum of understanding worked out as part of a court settlement with 188 Broadway LP, the borough has agreed to allow up to 46 residential units, including 37 apartments in a retrofitted front building and nine townhomes to be built in the rear.
Prior applications for the site in 2019 and 2021 — both rejected by the Zoning Board — had requested constructing a 60- and 53-unit apartment complex.
The borough has agreed to rezone the property via a redevelopment plan to allow the housing. The redevelopment plan zoning would only apply to the property.
Earlier this year, the council asked the Planning Board to study whether 188 Broadway fit any of the eight criteria that would define it as a potential area in need of redevelopment.
Planner Liz Leheny told the special Planning Board meeting that based on her study, the property met two criteria that qualify it as “an area in need of redevelopment.” She said a property needs to only meet one criteria to be qualified for redevelopment.
Leheny said it was “a very strong contender” to meet criteria B and D. According to state statute, the criteria are as follows:
B. “The discontinuance of the use of a building or buildings previously used for commercial, retail, shopping malls or plazas, office parks, manufacturing, or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such building or buildings; significant vacancies of such building or buildings for at least two consecutive years; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable.”
D. “Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.”
Residents speak out
Resident Craig Padover said the decision to recommend the property for redevelopment “does seem like we’re kind of bailing him (188 Broadway LP) out.”
Padover raised concerns about the affordable housing tied into the borough’s settlement with 188 Broadway LP, but Chair Robert Friedberg said comments were initially only allowed on Leheny’s report and whether the property qualifies as an area in need of redevelopment.
Leheny told another resident than public comments or suggestions about a future redevelopment plan for 188 Broadway were best sent to the Borough Council. On several occasions, Planning Board members told residents asking questions that their only decision was to make a recommendation on whether the 188 Broadway qualifies for redevelopment.
Planning officials noted that they were not able to discuss other aspects of the borough’s settlement with 188 Broadway LP, which did not directly pertain to the board’s decision. (See “It’s Settled: 46 housing units at 188 Broadway,” Pascack Press, Dec. 12, 2022.)
Ann Marie Borelli suggested that a landowner might decide to buy a piece of property, let it deteriorate, and hope it would be declared an area in need of redevelopment. Friedberg told her that would not be a smart business plan for any property owner.
Leheny told Borelli that the redevelopment plan, yet to be developed by the Borough Council’s consultant, will only apply to the 188 Broadway site. Leheny said that the council makes a “final decision” on whether a property should be declared in need of redevelopment.
Borelli said she had “concerns about the ramifications moving forward” if the 188 Broadway site is declared as in need of redevelopment.
Laura Jeffas questioned why the property could not be marketable as an office building. Previously, Leheny had cited a number of real estate and office market experts’ reports that said the property would require a “significant investment” to make it even marketable.
But, Leheny said, just because it was marketable did not mean it could attract tenants.
“We are not predicting the future use for this property,” Leheny said.
When Jeffas pressed officials on whether the property could be used as an office building, board attorney Brian Eyerman told her that question was “not within our purview.”
When resident Veronica Appelle spoke about the borough’s settlement with 188 Broadway LP, officials reminded her that they only had a yes or no decision to make about recommending the site for redevelopment.
Gwenn Levine asked whether the board could place “general Broadway development” on its January calendar and she was told that that was not what the board did. The Planning Board hears applications and collaborates on updating the Master Plan, officials said.
Told she could only ask questions about the redevelopment study, Levine said, “You’ve already drawn your conclusions so there’s nothing to say there.”