TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON, N.J.—A long-stalled and controversial plan to construct 73 housing units—including 48 single-family homes and 25 townhomes—on a 14-acre property, is likely to be heard by the Planning Board before year’s end, say citizens from a group calling for more oversight of the development.
Sources watching plan progress told Pascack Press that the applicant hoped to get the application before the board in November, or by December at the latest.
The development plan began almost two decades ago and has been detoured by a series of challenges: from settling affordable housing requirements and wastewater concerns to pandemic-related delays and threats of builder’s remedy lawsuits against the township.
The developer also has filed a succession of delays, and bailed on special meetings, fraying some Planning Board members’ patience. In July 2019 board member Tom Sears moved that presenters for the late James A. Viviano and his assigns attend regular Planning Board meetings.
“This meeting was was supposed to be for Viviano. It’s been consistent with them for not showing up or pushing the meeting off. I am making a motion before this board that they attend the regular Planning Board meetings,” Sears said.
He added, “I feel enough is enough. We all have lives to live. We can’t be catering strictly to one individual person in this township—or developer.”
Mayor Peter Calamari said, “Before we vote on that officially I’d like to say the prior chairman [August Calamari], who everybody knows is my dad, through the years he’s always said to me on Viviano that part of the settlement—I don’t know how much of the settlement is in effect or not—part of it is that he was guaranteed special meetings at their discretion.”
The initial development approval for the Viviano property at 463 Van Emburgh Ave., or American Dream Estates, was approved in 2004. In 2002, the land owner had agreed to reimburse the Township for about $375,000 that was paid to Bayonne under the Township’s affordable housing regional contribution agreement to construct affordable units there.
[For more, see Township residents slam ‘monster’ subdivision approved in 2004, Sept. 28, 2018.]
No affordable units are required for the Viviano development, a condition approved recently by a state Superior Court final judgment of compliance and repose on the Township’s affordable housing settlement.
The payment was made by Township in lieu of the developer needing to build any affordable units at the proposed subdivision off of Pascack Road.
Regional Contribution Agreements, once allowed under the now-defunct Council on Affordable Housing, were outlawed in 2008 when the Legislature voted to ban them, finding they were against the spirit of the Mount Laurel doctrine.
In 2019, the property’s tax assessment dropped to $2,000, thanks to a farmland assessment filed by developer Tomaron Inc. Tomaron Inc. paid $48.77 in property taxes compared to a longstanding assessment of around $1,035,000, records show.
The developer secured the more favorable tax bill by stating that it had sold $500 of firewood
Residents Lou Melendez and Diane Grimaldi, members of the Concerned Neighbors of Washington Township, noted that they have many issues with the long-stalled 73-unit development now advancing, including concerns about stormwater management, a lack of road space for fire truck access and turnaround, and the high density being permitted there in what is a AA single-family, half-acre zone.
Grimaldi said she would like to see fewer single-family homes proposed along the backyards of Katharina Place reduced by six or more, she said. She noted the citizens group has hired an attorney and engineering consultant to help them raise issues and improve any development, while improving quality of life for nearby residents.
Grimaldi said she worries most about stormwater management, and its impact as the plan’s engineering and site layout may be outdated.
An effort to revive the plan a couple years back never gained traction after a raucous Planning Board meeting were unresolved issues dominated discussion.
These included whether Phase I environmental studies were completed properly, with residents noting the onsite presence of oil tanks, cars and old batteries still being pulled from the ground.
Years ago, the site was a chicken farm.
Other development hiccups included lack of a current traffic study, a minimal escrow account to clean up possible sewage backups, whether sidewalks were included, trees removed in violation of ordinance, lack of coordination on future school needs with Westwood Regional School District, and no analysis of construction impacts on nearby towns.
Now a revised preliminary and final site plan, apparently incorporating some of 2018’s changes, will be heard soon, say area neighbors.
Melendez said while neighbors are not against developing the property they want to make sure it is not overdeveloped, as current plans propose.
“Just go back and look at it very carefully, that’s what we want,” Melendez said, further noting that the plan is outdated and needs to be improved and reduced before approved.
“We want the township to go back and look at this [development very carefully and study this. And ask questions such as should we have this project here at this point in time?” he added.
Melendez also pointed out that, to his knowledge, the Township has not yet been reimbursed for $375,000 it paid out to Bayonne as part of an affordable housing regional contribution agreement on Viviano’s behalf.
The Township received 11 affordable housing credits for the outlay.
Melendez stressed that the area around the long-proposed Viviano development has changed dramatically since its original proposal nearly two decades ago and there needs to be a comprehensive review of what should be allowed there before any plan is approved.
He said nearby Katharina Place had three homes on it in 2000 and now has 20 homes on the same tract, while more development is planned and ongoing elsewhere in town.
Efforts to obtain the plan via a public records request and email to Planning Board chair Brian Murphy were not successful. However, Melendez shared details of the site plan previously provided to the citizens group.
“Is this the kind of development that we want in that area at this time?” he said.