TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—Nearly two dozen residents opposed DPW operations at a Bethany Church lot off Woodfield Road at a special meeting Nov. 17, where Township Council introduced an ordinance, 3–1, to allow such operations at the 1.25-acre leased site.
The re-introduction was needed after officials discovered the Nov. 10 vote approving the 18-month, $104,400 Bethany lease was invalid under the Faulkner Act due to a lack of quorum. That meeting drew nearly a dozen nearby residents who spoke out against the lease. A public hearing and second vote are set for Dec. 2.
(See “Neighbors oppose $104K Bethany DPW lease; Council sets re-do vote for Nov. 17,” by Michael Olohan, Nov. 16, 2025, thepressgroup.net.)
Lease re-introduced; residents raise process questions
After almost two hours of public comment Nov. 17, the council introduced Ordinance 25-25 by a 3–1 vote, with Councilors Michael Ullman, Tom Sears and Daisy Velez in favor and Council President Michael DeSena, one of two recent challengers for the mayor’s gavel, against. Council Vice President Steve Cascio was absent.
Mayor Peter Calamari said he has again asked church officials whether DPW vehicles may enter and exit via the Bethany Community Center driveway on Pascack Road. Previously, officials said church representatives told them the Pascack Road access was “non-negotiable.”
Residents urged the mayor to press the issue, citing the $5,800 monthly lease cost, nearly $60,000 in site improvements already made at Bethany, and the township’s recent lease of church space for a relocated polling place.
Before a signed lease was obtained — a major point of contention — the township authorized construction of a new driveway, a security gate, fencing, and black privacy screening for the DPW lot for a total of $57,700.
Several residents questioned how work could begin without a signed agreement. Township Attorney Siobhan Spillane Bailey said she would need to confer with Administrator Mark DiCarlo, who was absent Nov. 17, and would address the issue at the Dec. 2 public hearing. DeSena noted some officials, including DiCarlo and Clerk Sue Witkowski, were attending the League of Municipalities conference.
Resident Bob Stickel questioned the legality and oversight of making improvements at Bethany without a signed lease. “Why would you make improvements without a signed lease? Why would that be allowed,” he asked. He also pressed for clarity on what happens if the DPW loses access to the current Our Lady of Good Counsel storage area in the future.
Stickel repeated his concerns: “So you think what you’ve done was legal to make improvements on a property we don’t own?” Stickel asked Township Attorney Siobhan Spillane Bailey. “Makes no sense to me,” he said.
Woodfield Road concerns dominate comments
Most residents urged officials to require DPW trucks to use Pascack Road rather than Woodfield Road, citing pedestrian and child safety in the neighborhood. Others cited possible pollution impacts on Musquapsink Brook, a Category One waterway, and questioned the council’s transparency and communication on the lease.
Much council discussion occurred in closed session prior to Oct. 20, when the original lease was introduced. Pascack Press first reported the arrangement Oct. 3 after calls from residents who received certified letters sent by DiCarlo to 37 households near Bethany.
Press inquiries often went unanswered or received brief replies. Lease costs and duration were not disclosed until the lease’s Oct. 20 introduction, approved 5–0.
Efforts to reach Bethany Church officials for comment were not immediately successful.
Under the lease, the township must restore the site to its original condition when the term ends — removing the newly paved driveway, gates, fencing and screening — though Bethany could choose to retain some fencing, officials said.
Push for Pascack Road access
Several residents suggested calling church officials directly to request Pascack Road access, noting the lease’s high cost and temporary nature. One resident questioned why Bethany would not allow Pascack Road access, noting that DPW vehicles generally leave at 7 a.m. and return around 3 p.m.
Officials said it would be rare for DPW vehicles to enter or exit the site during the workday, except during weather emergencies.
DPW must relocate ahead of new facility construction
In early September, officials awarded a $4.9 million contract to Premier Building & Construction Management of Midland Park for a new three-bay DPW facility. The contractor hopes to begin work in December, requiring DPW trucks and equipment to be relocated offsite during construction.
Residents suggested alternate locations, including the township-owned former swim club and 450 Pascack Road. However, both properties were purchased with County Open Space funds and cannot be used to store DPW vehicles.
Another resident suggested acquiring the Valley National Bank property via eminent domain. Calamari said he had reached out to bank officials previously but they did not contact the township before listing the property. DeSena said he would not support eminent domain and questioned the total cost of acquiring and converting the site.
Officials previously raised eminent domain with owners of the former Charlie Brown’s and 450 Pascack Road, though it was never exercised.
Environmental and quality-of-life concerns
Resident Larry Sloan of Woodfield Road questioned whether DPW activities would attract vermin and asked about site lighting, runoff toward the brook, and odors. He also asked for clarification on the “leaf transfer and other related activities” previously mentioned.
Calamari said no leaves would be stored on site and described “related activities” as minor tasks such as transferring leaves between trucks. He said the township’s pest control contractor would address potential vermin issues and that pumpkins and seasonal vegetation can attract rodents.
Calamari added that if the new DPW facility is completed sooner than the expected 12- to 18-month timeline, trucks and equipment would be moved off the Bethany site early.