Council seeks planning study on 188 Broadway redevelop status

188 Broadway, Woodcliff Lake, via Google Maps.

WOODCLIFF LAKE—Twice in the past several years the prominent address of 188 Broadway has been in the news as an applicant’s plans for 60 apartments — and then 53 apartments — were rejected by a unanimous borough Zoning Board.

However, the Borough Council approved a resolution on May 16 to request the Planning Board determine whether the 188 Broadway site may qualify as an area in need of redevelopment — a request it made as part of negotiations between the 188 Broadway developer and borough following a legal appeal of the two prior decisions that put a stop to proposed multifamily housing on the site.

A half-dozen residents expressed concern about the move to consider 188 Broadway an area in need of redevelopment, fearing that it may yet lead to overdevelopment, high-density housing, and a loss of local control over the site. 

Also, concerns were voiced about the redevelopment process and why a long-vacant and decrepit gas station also on Broadway was not first targeted for a redevelopment area, as recommended in the newly updated borough Master Plan.

However, Councilman Richard Schnoll said the purpose of ongoing negotiations with the developer, 188 Broadway LLP, which sued following two previous rejections of multifamily housing plans, was to satisfy the needs of the borough regarding lower density housing on the site and a need to beautify the area. 

He later said the Master Plan Committee, which recently updated the local long-term planning blueprint, does not want overdevelopment of the Broadway Corridor. Schnoll was a committee member.

The developer, 188 Broadway LLP, was rejected in summer 2019 after multiple hearings on a proposal to construct a 60-unit apartment complex at 188 Broadway.  Again in July 2021, the developer’s proposal to construct a 53-unit multifamily apartment complex on the site was rejected, citing the legal principle of res judicata, a Latin phrase meaning “the thing has been judged,” referring to the earlier, similar application to construct 60 units on the site.

“The Borough Council hereby directs the Woodcliff Lake Planning Board to conduct the necessary investigation and to hold a public hearing to determine whether the study area defined hereinabove qualifies for designation as an area in need of redevelopment under the criteria and pursuant to the public hearing process,” states the resolution.

The lot contains one vacant office building and associated parking.

Residents question need for redevelopment

At the May 16 session, Alex Couto said the new Master Plan recommended considering an area in need of redevelopment designation for the long-vacant gas station site on Broadway, not 188 Broadway. He questioned why the area was even being looked at for redevelopment.

Borough Attorney John Schettino said the mayor and council have been negotiating to get a “significant reduction” in the prior number of units proposed for the site. 

He said concerns were raised in negotiations if that area might be a candidate for an area in need of redevelopment, and so council is making “a show of good faith” by starting the process to possibly designate the site for redevelopment. 

Schettino said the council “was fully aware of the residents’ concerns about density on the site” and any future legal settlement would take that into account.  Rendo confirmed that the borough was “working towards a significant reduction” in density at 188 Broadway.

Gwenn Levine said the redevelopment criteria was “so extreme” that she doubted that 188 Broadway would qualify under criteria such as “substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, obsolete” and lacking in space, air and light “such as to be unwholesome for living and working conditions.”

Schettino said a licensed planner will provide “a detailed report” to the Planning Board to determine whether the site meets any of the criteria for redevelopment, and it “can meet any of the criteria because it does not need to meet all of the criteria.” 

He said the site only has to meet one of the criteria to qualify for redevelopment. 

Schettino noted a public hearing must be held by the Planning Board on the report and then a board recommendation comes back to council for a final decision. 

He said the study was being undertaken as part of the settlement negotiations on the 188 Broadway site. He said the council makes the final decision on whether to designate the site.

Schettino said if the 188 Broadway site is declared an area in need of redevelopment, then the council will determine what structure or building will go there.  

However, that development will also be reviewed by the Planning Board, and then back to council to make a final decision. Both the board and council will hold public hearings before decisions are made.

Lisa Yakomin questioned the process used and voiced concern that the applicant may have “pre-existing relationships” with planners who may be used by the Planning Board for its study. 

She urged the board to be “very careful” in selecting a planner and that the planner have no prior relationship with the applicant, 188 Broadway LLP, or its principals.

Veronica Appelle said she was concerned about a possible PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) arrangement if an area in need of redevelopment is designated there.

She said the AINOR designation means no local zoning laws apply to the site and that the property does not pay school taxes. 

According to a state website, “Authority to declare an area in need of redevelopment or an area in need of rehabilitation is created pursuant to 40A:12A-1 et seq. the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (Redevelopment Law).”

Under criteria to establish a redevelopment zone, the law expands on eight criteria, requiring that only one be met for the site to be designated.

A brief abridged review of the criteria include: buildings that are substandard and unsafe; buildings no longer used for commercial or industrial purposes; unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a decade or more; dilapidated, obsolete or overcrowded buildings; a growing lack of proper utilization of areas; areas harmed in such a way that the area’s aggregate assessed value has been materially depreciated; current Urban Enterprise Zones (UEZs); and delineated areas consistent with smart growth planning principles.