BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF PASCACK PRESS
MONTVALE, N.J. —— The Montvale Borough Council voted 4-2 on Nov. 14 to settle its almost two-year negotiation with Fair Share Housing Center – and three interveners – by agreeing to allow construction of 615 units of housing that includes approximately 106 units of affordable housing.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
“We had to minimize our exposure” to builder’s remedy lawsuits, said Mayor Michael Ghassali, reached by phone Nov. 15.
“The council made the right decision,” he said, conceding the development being permitted in the settlement is “really high numbers.”
The three resolutions approved agreements with three interveners—The S. Hekemian Group, for development of the Mercedes-Benz site; Hornrock Properties, owner of the Sony property; and 2 Paragon Drive LLC, purchaser of the vacant A&P lot.
A fourth resolution approved a settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center, which was contingent on agreements with the three interveners, and sets out Montvale’s “fair share” housing obligations through July 2025.
“No one wants to change our town [but] the options we had are limited,” Ghassali added.
If the settlement agreements are approved by Superior Court at a settlement Fairness Hearing in Hackensack—which the public can attend—the settlement agreements then go to the Planning Board for review and approval.
If the agreement is approved, “the borough will work towards adopting a Housing Element and Fair Share Plan that incorporates each agreement approved by the court following a fairness hearing,” Borough Attorney Joseph Voytus told Pascack Press via email Nov. 15.
No date had been set for a fairness hearing yet, but Voytus said Montvale will advertise the court hearing date in newspapers and its website. He said he was likely to attend the hearing along with Surenian.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
No copies of the final settlement plan were available at the council’s public meeting Nov. 14 for approximately 60 residents who filled the council’s second-floor chambers for an almost two-hour meeting. The meeting included a presentation by special counsel Jeff Surenian, followed by questions and a final vote.
The settlement agreement resolutions were posted Nov. 15 on the borough website at bit.ly/mvsettle.
Several residents asked why no copies of a settlement agreement were available. Mayor Mike Ghassali replied that the settlement “was fluid until the last minute.”
Later, Councilman Douglas Arendacs, who voted against the agreement, said he received a revised settlement agreement that was provided to him at 3:15 that afternoon. Calling it “a very difficult decision,” Arendacs said he was voting against the settlement “because it is not in the best interests of the town.”
“This is all happening too fast and appears to be a rushed deal,” said Arendacs, explaining his vote. He called the numbers “unrealistic” being permitted under the settlement. He said “we’re very close but we’re still not there.”
Councilman Michael Weaver also opposed the settlement.
“I think I’m numb. I think I’m stick to my stomach. I’m depressed. And I think it’s disgusting and all this is happening in the name of affordable housing when the people who need it are only getting 15 percent,” said Weaver. He apologized to residents before stating he was opposed to the settlement.
Both Weaver and Arendacs voted against resolutions approving development on the Mercedes-Benz and Sony properties. Both voted in favor of a resolution approving development at 2 Paragon Drive, former A&P site.
Voting in the settlement’s favor were council members Elizabeth Gloegller, Dieter Koelling, Rose Curry, and Timothy E. Lane.
Special counsel Jeff Surenian spent 15 minutes spelling out settlement details, noting that four agreements—contained in separate resolutions voted on and approved by council—comprised the full settlement.
The settlement permits construction of 80 units of housing on 13 acres at 2 Paragon Drive (former A&P site) including 16 units of affordable housing; 350 units of housing at the former Mercedes-Benz and Glenview sites: 308 units at Mercedes including 44 affordable housing units and 42 units at Glenview, including nine affordable housing units; and 185 units on seven acres at former Sony property, including 37 affordable housing units.
Surenian said Montvale was able to negotiate larger affordable housing “set-asides” in rental housing as part of its settlement with developers, thus leading to a “surplus” of 44 affordable housing units. This surplus can be used towards future affordable housing requirements should another commercial tenant leave or future development occur in the borough.
Following negotiations with Fair Share Housing Center, he said Montvale had a “fair share” affordable housing number of 542 units that included 181 units of “realistic development potential” or RDP, and 361 units of “unmet need” which can be remedied by creating “zoning overlays” for possible future affordable housing units.
Surenian said RDP consists of the number of units “that could be theoretically developed if all [Montvale] vacant land was developed at a 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing.”
He said “overlay zones” for future affordable housing units were planned for the Annie Sez site on Kinderkamack Road, and a business district in the southeast part of town near train tracks. An overlay zone provides new zoning for a specific site that includes affordable housing should that site be redeveloped in the future.
“No one appears happy with the unfortunate and frankly unfair situation that the state, legislature, the Supreme Court has placed us in,” he said. He said “they created the chaos and left us to clean it.”
He said “we have an obligation” to make the best decision for Montvale and called the affordable housing process “heavily weighted against municipalities.”
He said losing immunity against builder’s remedy lawsuits may mean “hundreds of proposed units could turn into thousands … municipal control over architecture, layout and design would be non-existent. Our Master Plan would be determined for us. All local control over zoning and planning would be taken away. This is not fear mongering my friends, this is reality.”
As part of its settlement, Surenian said the borough is required to adopt a mandatary set-aside ordinance to include affordable units in future multifamily development.
Councilman Timothy Lane also provided residents with a one-page summary of projected annual tax revenues for the proposed developments. He said the developments could generate $4.38 million annually.
Ghassali also pointed out that students generated by the new developments would bring Montvale’s per-student rate more in line with Hillsdale and River Vale in the Pascack Valley regional district.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Surenian said approval of the settlement agreement extends the borough’s immunity to “builder’s remedy” lawsuits until July 2025. After mentioning the borough will receive a surplus affordable housing credit of 44 homes for satisfying its current “realistic development potential” of 181 homes, he said: “You can’t do better than what we’ve achieved here.”
Under questioning by residents – generally opposed to the settlement and some complaining the agreement was not available – Surenian emphasized the settlement is “really important to preserving immunity” against developer’s possible lawsuits and that full implementation of the agreement will take “easily a year, two years.”
One resident who questioned the agreement asked what happens when immunity runs out in 2025.
Surenian initially said “a lot can happen” in seven years and later added “this [Mount Laurel] affordable housing ruling is primed and ready for a reset.”
“I don’t really love it, I don’t even like it but I will agree to it,” said Councilwoman Elizabeth Gloegller, who said getting a settlement with Fair Share Housing Center was critical. “It’s time to settle,” she added.
Councilman Timothy Lane, who voted for the settlement, said he felt the “politicization” of the issue was a problem.
“We have plenty of blame to go around,” he said. “The only way to address this is through a constitutional amendment,” he added.
Councilman Dieter Koelling said “it’s time to settle this” before he voted for the agreement.
Montvale’s council has turned down settlement agreements twice this year, rejecting an agreement in June with S. Hekemian for a mixed use development for 300 units on the Mercedes-Benz site and a deal with Hornrock for 160 units of housing on the former Sony property. Hekemian subsequently sought to intervene in the borough’s declaratory judgment for up to 1,000 units of multifamily housing.
Again in late September the council tabled a resolution, 4-3, with Ghassali voting to table, that would have allowed Hekemian to erect 350 units of multifamily housing on the Mercedes site. The council was then ordered to court for mediation after tabling a decision on the Hekemian development.
The state law mandating affordable housing requirements stems from a series of landmark state Supreme Court decisions dating to 1975 that obligate all municipalities to provide their “fair share” of housing for low- and moderate income residents.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Montvale filed a declaratory judgment in 2015 in Superior Court, like most municipalities in the state, and has been negotiating since then to develop a settlement.