TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—Residents of Washington Township and Paramus who live near the proposed DPW facility at 95 Linwood Avenue — the former Charlie Brown’s restaurant — criticized the plan for two hours during the April 4 Township Council meeting.
Only Mayor Peter Calamari and the council leadership spoke for it, though in terms that it’s the only site left in the mix. The officials assured residents that a concept rendering publicly glimpsed for the first time March 21 was not yet final and changes will be made.
The hybrid session packed council chambers. It also was livestreamed on WCTV-NJ.
Speakers — appealing for consideration as homeowners, families with young children, newcomers, retirees, and seniors — hammered the proposal over anticipated increased traffic, pollution, noise, and risks to public safety to this Route 17 residential doorstep of the township.
They called the project “shameful,” unconscionable,” and “a lose-lose” and expressed anger that the town didn’t write to homeowners that this plan was in the works.
A developer would have had to notify abutters within 200 feet by certified mail; the municipality is not required to, though the council leadership said it had requested the administration notify residents in writing.
And on April 6 the Borough of Paramus council unanimously passed a resolution that its clerk said speaks to the need to think about and show concern for all surrounding towns. (The document was unavailable at press time.)
The Township of Washington is conducting due diligence including a land survey and environmental site assessment on the triangular 1.45-acre site, for which it recently approved a $1.35 million bond to purchase.
Beyond the spectre of waking up to an industrial site, speakers April 4 worried that heavy trucks would likely turn onto Linwood Avenue and then Parkway Court, and would traverse area streets and neighborhoods, adding heavy traffic, noise, pollution and public safety concerns to streets frequented by children and pedestrians.
A traffic light, they said, would back traffic up to Route 17 and box in side streets.
Calamari and Council President Desserie Morgan assured residents that if DPW crews are directed not to drive heavy vehicles down certain streets, that policy would be followed — under threat of severe discipline.
Calamari insisted, “Most if not all of our DPW employees have CDL licenses. They are probably safer divers than I want to say the average driver; they take it very seriously. As far as accidents and safety, that is almost a non-issue because their livelihood depends on having this license.”
Based on town administrator Robert Tovo’s estimate, council leadership assured residents that ground will not be broken for 8–12 months, providing time for refinements to the plans.
Calamari also has said that the plans for the facility were shaped over months by senior DPW leadership.
The property is under contract, the deal having been wrested from Apple Montessori Schools, which until recently had the sale under contract, was undergoing due diligence, and would have had to have secured a use variance.
(See our web archive for our coverage of this acquisition.)
The timing of the advertisement of the ordinance would seem to give the town until mid-June to back out of the deal, a move many speakers desperately urged.
Indeed, one speaker, William McAuliffe of Hemlock Drive, has since launched an online petition, “No to WT DPW,” asking Washington Township and Paramus residents to help stop the purchase.
Well after the public speaking portion of the meeting, late in the session, the council approved $207,100 for down payments on both 95 Linwood Ave. and the 6.1-acre swim and recreation property, at 464 Ridgewood Boulevard North.
Member Steven Cascio, who had sided with residents on the likelihood that DPW trucks simply would take the most direct route available — “it’s the nature of the beast; it’s going to happen” — voted no on that question.
(He explained his vote to Pascack Press on April 6: “We do not need to be the land barons. We use the threat of condemnation and eminent domain to take these lands and stop private buyers … We have enough space for equipment needed to run and service the town. We just buy too much equipment and now make a problem that we need to store it all.”)
Calamari said the swim club site, if the $800,000 deal closes, would be added to the township’s inventory of recreation space. Both deals were discussed at the night’s closed session.
Also speaking at the meeting was Lynn Pistono, 631 Washington Ave., who objected to the “spotlights” of the under-construction emergency services building recently being left on all night, with neighbors experiencing “sunshine all night in their houses. Are all the lights and noise punishment for noting the absurdity on the building?” (Calamari said the lights and their timers would be adjusted.)
Pistono told the DPW protesters, “A warning to those who live in that neighborhood: I hope you fare better than we did.”
Julianne Lipnick of 184 Finnerty Place said her struggles against the shopping center’s long-ago expansion did not get her the town help she’d long appealed for, complained of litter, noise, and public urination there, and said of the DPW plan, “You’re putting a great burden on [those residents].”
She also asked town attorney Kenneth Poller for an update on a 2021 lawsuit brought by Joseph Sanzari, of Joseph M. Sanzari Construction, a heavy construction and highway builder, and Lorraine Rubino, alleging that several borough officials delayed or failed to provide permits for a home being built by Sanzari. Poller said the suit remained pending.
Officials heard repeated complaints over a declining quality of life and loss in property value, especially for Hemlock Drive residents whose properties lie opposite the proposed facility.
Accountant Sam Batraki of Edgewood Drive estimated that 38 homes would be “significantly affected” that would involve about $569,000 in annual tax revenue, which would be subject to tax appeals and reductions based on the new DPW facility. He estimated a loss of $76,000 in annual lost revenue due to tax appeals.
He asked why the DPW could not stay where it was, behind town hall, where the site was razed and its contaminated soil remediated.
He also suggested building the facility at the former swim and recreation club.
Speakers urged that the council consider moving the planned facility to the swim club’s much larger property, against the highway, where trucks would not be visible or in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Council vice president Stacey DeMarco Feeney explained the municipal complex site was ruled out because the DPW was expected to outgrow the available footprint. She started to explain the town was not interested in cutting down trees at the swim club site, but gave up amid a sharp reaction. [Edit April 11: We incorrectly attributed this explanation to Morgan in print and in the initial version of this web story.]
Paramus resident Kenneth Buckler spoke about the “horrible” intersection of Highland Avenue and Linwood Avenue, and asked whether the council had consulted the mayors of Ridgewood or Paramus.
Buckler told council that they should not put his home’s value “in the toilet” and questioned why the facility was planned at such a busy location. He and others asked who on the council would want to live next to such an industrial function.
Morgan noted that the facility would be within the Township of Washington and said the council would work to “do everything in our power to make it beautiful, as pretty as we can; we already want it to look like a home. It’s not your typical DPW industrial-type building. So yes, I would be okay living next to it, I would, I would.”
As members of the public scoffed, Morgan rapped her gavel. “I’m not going to do this all night. I’m going to close this. We’re going to stop the meeting if this continues. This is the last time I’m saying it.”
Town attorney Poller, who grew up in Paramus and works for the borough, backed Morgan, saying in part, “There’s a protocol. There’s going to be an orderly meeting and we’re not going to have the shouting out and the hollering and the hooting… We’re not going to have a polling of the council.”
Poller suggested he was not able to weigh in on anything helpful to a protest, given that that would constitute a conflict of interest. “All I can tell you is if you’re aggrieved go get a lawyer and find out your rights.”
Srba Nikolic, of 99 Linwood Ave., said, “My concern here is that you are mentioning that you are doing something in the public interest. How many people do we have here? 50? 60? Are we part of the public or not?”
He said, “Please consider what you’re doing. You didn’t inform a single resident of your plans that you’re going to put a DPW in front of our houses. At least you should consider who lives next door to it and send a letter.”
He said, “Try to make everybody happy. Don’t look just at your side. You’re just working here. You’re going to be here six months, a year, two more.”
To Morgan, he said, “You’re putting yourself so emotionally, shouting at these people. Why? We should shout, and we should make scream and cry over here. Not you.”
Morgan replied, “You’re right, I’m as emotional as you guys. I do not want anyone being disrespectful in here and you will not get that from us. We are not shouting … you can interpret that how you like, but it’s order. I’m trying to maintain order.”
She noted she and her family are township residents.
Zillow gives 99 Linwood Dr. — off the market with three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, and1,569 square feet — a “Zestimate” of $634,100, within a range of $577,000 to $698,000.
‘We feel for you’
Referring to a concept illustration presented March 21, Annette DeSciora of 62 Edgewood Dr. said “I don’t want to keep hearing how glorious the new DPW building will look. In fact it’s mentioned over and over again that it will look like a house. Yes: a house that belches obnoxious diesel fuel; a house that has bright yellow garbage trucks and has monstrous equipment in the driveway; a house with a shed full of salt — a mountain of salt. I’m sorry, but that’s not the type of house that I would choose to live in.”
She said, “To the residents on Hemlock Drive, just understand that the residents on Parkway Court and Edgewood [Drive] and Andrea [Lane] feel for you and we’re with you on this 100 percent, 110 percent.”
She told the governing body, “You cannot compare living next to a restaurant to living next to a DPW… Residents who bought their homes around here, where the original DPW site was, bought their home at a discounted price and knew that the DPW was here. Hemlock Drive property owners have seen their property values plummet overnight. through no fault of their own, and that is shameful.”
She said affected residents “should not have to bear the burden of truck traffic. They should also not have to play truck police and be monitoring which trucks are coming and when they’re coming and taking pictures and making phone calls. That’s absurd.”
DeSciora called for “at the very least” signs directing truck traffic around Route 17 to East Glen. “Making the left out of [the facility], there’s going to be some truck–car accidents that are going to be horrific.”
And she said, “As you can see, dozens of residents are imploring you to rethink and carefully reassess this plan. And to keep our quality of life as it is now. It’s your duty and it’s your responsibility.”
Morgan responded to a different speaker. “We have to do it. That’s the answer.”
She said, “As much as I would like to take this building and move it over there and move that over here, am I going to pay for that in taxes or are you guys going to protest that? We’re doing the best we can with what we have.”
She also insisted that the plan at the moment is “just on paper,” and that the purpose of the hearing was to solicit input for the governing body to forward to the project architect.
“None of us up here are architects,” she said.
She said the town needs a DPW in town and cannot continue with the DPW spread out in three locations. “We have no solutions right now because we’re still in the planning stage.”
Council vice president Stacey DeMarco Feeney, who was council president last year, said she’s supported two other proposed sites — one, she said, was perfect — but that the administration did not support it and she found herself in the minority.
It was not clear what properties she was referring to. She did not respond to our request for clarification by press time.
— With John Snyder