HACKENSACK—An Aug. 5 pre-trial hearing in Superior Court before Judge Gregg Padovano to determine whether the Borough of Park Ridge winds up in court—and more importantly, what affordable housing issues the court ultimately will decide—was postponed to Sept. 9.
Padovano had previously set a Sept. 9 court date at a May case conference on the Park Ridge affordable negotiations, which remain unsettled after four years of debate and legal exchanges between the borough, Fair Share Housing Center and Hornrock Properties, plus two additional intervenors.
The borough has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs opposing Hornrock’s efforts to site 972 multifamily units—with a 20% affordable set-aside—on the 30-acre former Sony property.
The borough contends the property is not suitable for such development due to environmental constraints and that the plan it submitted in March 2018—based on methodology developed by EConsult—should satisfy its affordable obligations. The plan calls for no units of development on the 30-acre property.
Recently, the Montvale Planning Board approved a 185-unit development by Hornrock Properties—with 20% affordable set-aside—on an adjacent 7-acre former Sony parcel.
Before construction begins, Hornrock must obtain a use variance and parking variance from Park Ridge’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The original Park Ridge affordable housing plan calls for 247 affordable housing units and an 81-unit “realistic development potential” between 2015 and 2025, which the plan provides for with a combination of affordable units, credits, and future building overlays.
Trial on methodology?
At an approximate 45-minute case conference July 15 in Superior Court, Hackensack, attorneys from Park Ridge, Fair Share Housing Center and Hornrock Properties argued whether it should be a trial on methodology to calculate affordable housing obligations.
Moreover, the judge had provided Fair Share attorney Kevin Walsh until July 25 to respond to an almost 1,000-page motion submitted by Park Ridge to limit the scope of a trial.
The motion by Park Ridge lists nine conditions for a future trial that focus on limiting the trial to exclude the “gap period,” 1999 to 2015, as well as present and prospective need, which it states should be evaluated based on Judge Mary Jacobson’s 2017 Princeton affordable methodology and not re-tried in Bergen County Superior Court.
Park Ridge’s motion also calls on the court to appoint a special methodology master should a trial move forward, consolidate all remaining unresolved Bergen County affordable cases, and if a methodology trial occurs, order updated expert reports from all parties and a new discovery period, whereby attorneys would again be allowed to depose all expert witnesses.
At the July 15 conference, attorneys for Park Ridge, Fair Share Housing Center and Hornrock Properties argued over whether a trial on methodology should occur and if so, what should a trial involve.
Meanwhile, negotiations were said to be continuing between Fair Share and Park Ridge in an effort to settle affordable obligations prior to an upcoming trial.
The pretrial conference Aug. 5 had been expected to discuss oral arguments for and against a 972-page motion filed by Park Ridge to limit the scope of a trial on the borough’s affordable housing obligations.
“A lot must happen between now and [a trial] for the parties to be ready to try methodology,” said Park Ridge special counsel Scott Reynolds during the July 15 hearing.
Reynolds repeatedly told Padovano that he “was not sure” and “had no idea” what a trial would be on, and thus he did not know how to prepare.
The Park Ridge special counsel’s call for more updated reports, data and discovery among parties prior to a trial was opposed by attorneys for Hornrock and Fair Share.
Prior to the July 15 case conference, Reynolds submitted a 46-page brief and 972-page motion to limit the scope of a future methodology trial.
Padovano gave Fair Share’s attorney until July 25 to submit a brief in response to Park Ridge’s 972-page motion limiting trial scope and an accompanying 90-page report from Econsult.
Reynolds said that “recent data” needs to be incorporated into Judge Mary Jacobson’s 2017 Princeton decision for it to be applied to Park Ridge’s situation.
Hornrock attorney Richard Hoff said it would only “further delay” proceedings to submit new expert reports—as Park Ridge recommended—and called it a delay tactic.
“They can’t meet their [affordable] number whether they pick Jacobson’s [methodology] or not,” said Hoff. He said Hornrock plans to offer an “enlightening” legal position.
“Meanwhile, they ignore a site being offered to them for affordable housing,” he said.
Park Ridge contends its plan satisfies “realistic development potential” for 81 affordable units and it does not need Hornrock’s proposed 972-unit development to help meet its “unmet need” for future affordable housing.
Fair Share attorney Walsh said they did not want to re-open negotiations for new expert reports or discovery, as proposed by Park Ridge prior to a methodology trial.
He said Fair Share “never contemplated” a trial to develop a new affordable methodology. Fair Share is relying on a report prepared by Dr. David Kinsey, which it submitted in 2018 following Park Ridge’s original plan submission.
“Hopefully, it [the affordable plan] gets settled. If not, we’re ready for trial in September,” said Walsh. He said during private negotiations “we made a substantive offer to Park Ridge” to settle but were waiting for a response.
Both Reynolds and Walsh argued over what methodology and data was in dispute, and Walsh argued that Reynolds’s 972-page motion made it unclear what affordable housing obligation number was being proposed by Park Ridge.
At one point, Reynolds noted that only Park Ridge followed Padovano’s May directive to submit briefs on points of contention with Judge Jacobson’s 2017 Princeton affordable housing settlement methodology.
Questions about trial
“We just want a fair process and to understand what is in dispute,” Reynolds said.
Padovano had planned for more details to be clarified on what should be submitted for a trial at the now-postponed Aug. 5 case conference, should the case proceed to trial.
“I would caution everyone to be prepared for trial on Sept. 9 and to be prepared to address any updated information” before then, he said, prior to the delay.
Padovano had said that on Aug. 5 he had hoped to get to an agreement among all parties on trial specifics. He said the Supreme Court wanted affordable negotiations settled in six months. Park Ridge has been negotiating since July 2015.
In response, Reynolds reiterated that Park Ridge does not want to go to trial on affordable housing methodology.
“My client does not want to have to incur this expense. We are ready to stipulate to Judge Jacobson’s number,” said Reynolds, without specifying a number. He said only Fair Share Housing Center and Hornrock Properties want a trial.
Walsh said he was concerned about Park Ridge changing its affordable housing obligations based on a new report prepared by Econsult, which Fair Share only was informed of as an addendum to Park Ridge’s motion to limit the potential trial’s scope.
Another town goes to trial
Meanwhile, in Englewood Cliffs, the borough council passed a resolution July 29 to take its affordable housing litigation to trial rather than settle with a developer hoping to build a 600-unit multifamily development at 800 Sylvan Ave., which includes about 100 affordable units.
The developer, Normandy Real Estate Partners, have been an intervenor since July 2015 in the borough’s affordable housing settlement negotiations.
At a raucous July 10 council meeting attended by almost 300 residents, the town’s legal counsel urged council to settle with the developer and not go to trial. Mayor Mario Kranjac advocated for dismissing legal counsel handling its negotiations and also to not settle with the developer of 800 Sylvan Ave.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article appeared in the Aug. 5 print edition of Pascack Press. The scheduled Aug. 5 case conference was postponed after print deadline.