PASCACK VALLEY—Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC) is challenging the Fourth Round affordable-housing plans filed by Montvale and Park Ridge, accusing both towns of using “procedural games and bad-faith arguments” to avoid their obligations. The Cherry Hill–based group is also asking that both towns immediately lose their legal immunity from builder’s-remedy lawsuits.
It was not immediately clear when the challenges will be heard by a mediator or retired judge through the state’s Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program. Officials said only a Superior Court judge can rule on a request to end a town’s immunity, which could suspend local zoning while the matter is litigated.
FSHC filed challenge letters against each town, citing specific alleged deficiencies in their Housing Element and Fair Share Plans (HEFSPs). Montvale and Park Ridge are two of 16 municipalities statewide facing formal challenges; Pascack Press has obtained both letters.
“The vast majority of towns across New Jersey are working in good faith to meet their affordable housing needs, including many in Bergen County. However, Montvale and Park Ridge stand out for all the wrong reasons,” says Adam Gordon, FSHC’s executive director. “Instead of identifying viable sites to allow affordable homes as required by state law, both towns are relying on procedural games and bad-faith arguments to avoid creating new homes over the next decade. Ultimately this litigious strategy wastes their local taxpayers’ dollars and hurts their own communities.”
Gordon ads, “These towns cannot have it both ways — telling courts that this new law requires them to do too much, and then when it comes time to implement their plans, pretending that the law requires them to do nothing. We plan to hold them accountable and ensure we create the affordable homes New Jersey desperately needs.”
Park Ridge: FSHC calls plan ‘absurd approach’
FSHC says Park Ridge’s Fourth Round HEFSP and its Vacant Land Adjustment (VLA) are “woefully inadequate” under legal standards and decades of precedent.
According to the challenge, “Park Ridge seeks [a] vacant land adjustment wherein it claims its RDP for the Fourth Round is 3 (units). The Program should require Park Ridge to conduct a new Fourth Round vacant land adjustment in accordance with the law.
“In addition, the Borough now asserts that a municipally sponsored site from its Third Round HEFSP (Bear’s Nest) is no longer viable, and incredibly, demands a vacant land adjustment for its Third Round prospective need obligation. The Program should reject this approach. The Borough should not be permitted to neglect and dispose of its municipally sponsored site by downwardly adjusting its Third Round RDP.”
FSHC continues, “The Borough’s Fourth Round HEFSP confirms that it intends to continue the same pattern of obstruction that defined its conduct in the Third Round… On top of this, it attempts to triple count mechanisms. Despite these clear violations and its ongoing failure to meet its constitutional obligations, it wants to be rewarded with immunity from builder’s remedy suits for the next decade. This is an absurd approach and a perversion of what this process and the Mount Laurel Doctrine is designed to achieve: a realistic opportunity for each town’s fair share of affordable housing.”
Park Ridge Mayor Keith Misciagna said, “This is very disappointing news as Park Ridge continues to do everything in its power to reasonably meet its affordable housing obligations. We have and will continue to support reasonable development but will not be bullied into allowing overdevelopment of our community without considering proper established planning practices.”
He added, “The borough must be entitled to comply in a manner that is reasonable and consistent with sound land-use planning and the long-term goals of this community… From my view, I am concerned that affordable housing and overdevelopment have become the defining characteristics of New Jersey planning and the doctrine has reached an unsustainable level.”
Misciagna said “housing advocates and developers have recently commandeered the process and have too much influence over the policymakers and court proceedings. We are confident that our submittal is proper and we will be deemed so by the courts.”
Montvale: FSHC says borough ‘radically reinterprets’ the law
In its challenge to Montvale’s HEFSP, FSHC notes the borough’s leadership in a 30-town coalition contesting the amended Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Fourth Round framework.
“Montvale, having repeatedly lost its attempts to overturn the Amended Fair Housing Act in court, claiming that it would place untenable burdens on the Borough, now radically reinterprets the Fair Housing Act to require the Borough to do practically nothing,” the letter states. FSHC asks the program to deny Montvale’s request for Compliance Certification and to terminate its builder’s-remedy immunity “until it is determined to come into constitutional compliance.”
The letter continues: “Ultimately, the [Montvale] HEFSP fails the most basic standards: it proposes almost no new affordable housing… The Borough has rejected six proposed redevelopment sites that were expressly volunteered by builders—sites that could provide more than sufficient affordable housing to satisfy the Borough’s remaining prospective need obligation.”
Given Montvale’s assertion of “almost zero realistic development potential (RDP),” FSHC argues, the borough is “obstructing opportunities to create affordable housing” while seeking immunity.
Borough Administrator Joseph Voytus countered that critics “ignore the fact that the Borough comes into Round 4 with a surplus of 44 units. That means we facilitated the construction of and/or extension of controls on affordable units before we were even required to.”
He said Montvale has proposed 18 new affordable units on borough owned property with “a well known developer who is in the process of building six disabled veteran homes in town – very-low-income units for a particularly vulnerable population,” and noted past state trust-fund support for a 25-unit family development in Round 3.
“If Fair Share believes this doesn’t prove Montvale’s good-faith efforts at compliance, then this system is irreparably broken,” Voytus said. “We are disappointed that despite Montvale’s demonstrated commitment to actually developing affordable housing within the Borough, Fair Share Housing Center would rather issue threats and press releases, instead of working collaboratively with a municipality proceeding in good faith to satisfy its constitutional obligations.”
In a June 25 email to residents titled “348 to 3 – Housing Plan,” Mayor Michael Ghassali wrote, “Our obligation number was 348, while our submitted number was just 3,” attributing the reduction to limited buildable land. He said Montvale and its Local Leaders For Responsible Planning coalition continue to challenge “flaws and corruption inherent in this system.” He did not cite sources for those claims and declined to elaborate.
FSHC says a record 423 New Jersey towns filed HEFSPs by the June 30 deadline.
Hillsdale notes objections, too
At the Sept. 9 Hillsdale Council meeting, Councilor John Ruocco reported that the Bergen County League of Municipalities was told more than 400 objections were filed statewide—including against Hillsdale—by FSHC and developers. Mayor Michael Sheinfield later said FSHC’s objection concerns how Hillsdale calculated its Round 4 RDP after conducting a VLA.
The League urged towns to meet with adjudicators to resolve challenges before they reach the state dispute-resolution program staffed by retired judges, Ruocco said.
Sheinfield predicted Hillsdale’s plan will land in Superior Court due to its RDP methodology. Hillsdale’s Fourth Round obligation was found to be 190 units; after a VLA, the borough calculated its 2025–2035 RDP at four units. He noted the rising 156-unit Patterson Street Redevelopment is expected to generate some 20 affordable units; other projects might add more. Patterson Street complex is eyed slated to open in spring/summer 2026.
What’s next
- By Dec. 31, 2025: Challenges should be resolved or towns must explain why requested changes will not be made.
- By March 15, 2026: Municipalities must adopt revised HEFSPs (with required changes) and pass implementing ordinances.
- Anytime: Requests to end immunity are decided by Superior Court; a ruling against a town could suspend local zoning while the case proceeds.
Under the amended Fair Housing Act signed in March 2024, HEFSPs were due June 30; interested parties—including FSHC, developers, and residents—had until Aug. 31 to file objections.