PARK RIDGE, N.J.—Superior Court Judge Gregg Padovano found the borough’s much-contested affordable housing settlement to be “fair, reasonable and appropriate” and granted a preliminary judgment of compliance and repose at a fairness hearing held Jan. 15 via Zoom in Superior Court.
The settlement permits Landmark AR Park Ridge LLC to construct a 448-unit rental development, including 68 affordable units, on a 30-acre former Sony property at the heart of litigation that started in July 2015.
Padovano said the settlement, approved Nov. 23, 2020 under Superior Court pressure to settle and several court decisions that went against Park Ridge, “adequately protects” the interests of low-income families.
A court-mandated compliance hearing will be held later this year to ensure Park Ridge is complying with the settlement. The plan makes Park Ridge compliant through July 2025.
Padovano said the fairness hearing was about ensuring fairness to low-income families and whether Park Ridge’s plan creates the opportunity to legally fulfill that obligation.
The settlement concludes a nearly six-year legal battle between Park Ridge, Fair Share Housing Center, and several developers, the largest being Hornrock Properties, now part of Landmark AR Park Ridge LLC.
Following two hours of testimony, Padovano described the settlement as fair, reasonable and appropriate and said that he reviewed all testimony, agreements, exhibits, and correspondence before arriving at his decision.
The settlement calls for 448 rental apartment units, including 68 affordables, on about 23 of 30 acres at Sony’s former site, a 100% affordable 51-unit development at Bear’s Nest, a $150,000 payment to Fair Share Housing Center, and adoption of ordinances to rezone the Sony property, require affordable set-asides in future multifamily housing, plus other measures to fulfill its 225-unit third round obligation.
It was approved, 4–2, on Nov. 23 by Borough Council, with Kelly Epstein and Matthew Capilli opposed.
Most public comments opposed the settlement. Told by attorneys that the borough faced even higher densities and court fines if it did not settle, Mayor Keith Misciagna called the settlement “the best outcome” for Park Ridge. “None of us can be happy about it at this point,” he said then.
On Jan. 15, several residents, including Burton Hall, Susan DeLorenzo, and Brittany Mayo voiced opposition to the settlement.
Moreover, former resident David O’Sullivan repeated his strong objections, questioning special court master Frank Banisch’s decision to increase the Sony site’s recommended dwelling units per acre (DUA) from 12–15 to 35 DUA.
O’Sullivan questioned the timing of Bansich’s report before a March trial that was scheduled and why Banisch denied the borough a so-called “vacant land adjustment” that was granted to nearby municipalities, including Montvale. This could have highly limited available land for development, he said.
However, due to Banisch’s limited testimony at the hearing, O’Sullivan was not able to question him on his charges but only on what he presented that day, said Padovano.
O’Sullivan charged the special master’s recommendation to deny a vacant land adjustment was “unprecedented” and “the epitome of unfairness.” He charged Fair Share Housing Center with “trying to strong-arm many towns” to settle affordable obligations and alleged the special master made public statements saying he would not take a position contrary to Fair Share.
He also charged the Superior Court “coerced” Park Ridge to settle by threatening to take away its immunity to “builder’s remedy” suits and local zoning power.
After both O’Sullivan’s and Hall’s professional qualifications and credentials were questioned by Banisch’s attorney, Howard Cohen, DeLorenzo took exception to Cohen’s efforts to discredit them. She said she was “offended by the way [Cohen] treated” O’Sullivan and Hall. “As a citizen in New Jersey, it’s getting to the point where myself and others are getting ready to go,” she said.
Borough Planner Joseph Burgis provided a detailed history of the borough’s affordable settlement. He said the settlement meets its prior rehabilitation obligation, and second round and third round unmet need obligations through mechanisms that include supportive housing, group homes, family rentals, rental bonus credits, 100 percent affordable units (50) at Bear’s Nest, accessory apartments and 68 units (of 448) at the former Sony site.
He said Park Ridge “is one of the rare instances in Bergen County” to meet its full second and third round obligations. He provided a bedroom breakdown of 448 units to be built on the Sony site: 15% one-bedroom; 35% 3-bedroom; and 50% 2-bedroom units. Of 68 affordable units, 34 are set aside for low-income residents and 34 for very-low-income.
Burgis said the Park Ridge settlement permits Landmark AR Park Ridge use of an adjoining access road to its 185-unit inclusionary Montvale apartment complex; agrees to a minimum two Planning Board meetings per month to review Landmark’s 448-unit site plan proposal; agrees the board will act within 60 days to approve its site plan application; and has 40 days to determine Landmark’s application “complete” after submission.
Moreover, Burgis said Park Ridge will demonstrate site control and plan for construction of Bear’s Nest 50 affordable units; provide a timetable for its completion and agree to bond if financing is not secured by 2022. He said the borough agrees that the special master can assist the borough and Superior Court to implement the settlement.
DeLorenzo told Pascack Press that 524 residents signed the online petition opposing the settlement.
Hall said he had “deep gratitude” for all who signed, and charged that the special court master’s “bias” in increasing dwelling unit per acre (DUA) density at the Sony site “resulted in an erroneous ruling.”
“A timeline of the actions and conduct of Special Master Francis Banisch demonstrates a pattern of bias that unfairly and, one could infer, knowingly distorted the settlement process to the profound detriment of Park Ridge.
The special master’s bias, as well, has a long reaching and compounding destructive impact on the town beyond this settlement,” said Hall.
“Having to accept such a high density for this project saddles Park Ridge with a high density precedent when next negotiating Fair Share Housing mandates. The long-term implications for the future health and viability of this small town are frightening,” Hall testified.
In their own words
Pascack Press reached out to Hall and DeLorenzo post-hearing to get their comments.
“For those with a deep abiding faith in our justice system, this Fairness Hearing was a disturbing experience with a proceeding as scripted as a professional wrestling match,” Hall said.
“Throughout the hearing it was made clear that fairness only referred to ensuring that the court-enabled Fair Share Housing big developer money machine would be given a free pass to gobble up whatever property it wanted in Park Ridge with absolutely no concern for the damage to the town. This point was made very clear by the Special Master Frank Banisch who basically stated that fairness to Park Ridge was of no concern to him,” he added.
Hall went even further to attack affordable housing mandates.
“Lessons learned this day. The word ‘fairness’ in the context of affordable housing issues is a Trojan horse. The word ‘fairness’ gains traction and acceptance because we all want to be fair. However, once applied to affordable housing mandates, ‘fairness’ subjects the host town to affordable housing machine’s true intent of promoting greed and misinformation,” he said.
He added, “Make no mistake, Fair Share Housing mandates are not fair to communities sincerely pursuing honest affordable housing goals. Fairness appears to be defined as giving large developers what they want.”
DeLorenzo offered views similar to Hall’s, citing affordable housing’s ties to developers and builders.
“I have lived in Park Ridge since March 1977. I have loved this town. Operative word: town. I took it for granted. Behind the scenes, the state and certain political forces and agendas have worked quietly with the big builders to devise a way [to] push social engineering, and big bucks for the builders, through the builder’s remedy,” she wrote.
DeLorenzo charged that lawyers and judges “are all in on the game” which Hall also stated.
“To be clear, this is not about low-income housing but rather the density needed to make big money for the builders from the luxury housing, only to get the small number, percentage-wise, of the low and moderate income housing,” DeLorenzo said.
She added, “Of course, they want to portray the residents as anti-affordable housing. Tactic: demonize the opposition.”