WOODCLIFF LAKE—Following questions from more than a half-dozen residents quizzing the applicant’s planner about the appropriateness of multifamily housing proposed for 188 Broadway, the Zoning Board agreed to continue hearing the 53-unit application at a special meeting on July 20.
Should the hearings not conclude at its fourth hearing on July 20, it’s likely that it will be continued at the July 27 regular Zoning Board meeting.
The board is under an Aug. 3 deadline to make a decision on the revised application.
Previously the board rejected an application for a 60-unit apartment complex in July 2019 citing a host of reasons, including traffic and the failure of the applicant to prove special reasons for a use variance requested.
Scheduled to appear July 20 is Richard Preiss, the borough’s planner, who the applicant hopes to question about his previous testimony, and possibly Preiss’s interpretation of whether res judicata, a legal principle that means “the thing has been judged,” applies to the current 188 Broadway application before the board.
(See “Has the thing been judged? ZBA eyes 188 Broadway revision,” Pascack Press, July 5.)
Due to going second on the June 22 agenda, residents only got 90 minutes to question applicant planner Joseph Burgis before the meeting ended about 11 p.m. Generally, meetings end at 10:30.
Before the third hearing began, both attorneys agreed to try not to talk over each other, which occurred regularly in two prior hearings, leading to often heated exchanges.
Board attorney Salvatore Princiotto said he would discuss with members how and whether the “jurisdictional issue” of res judicata applies to 188 Broadway LLP’s current application and also when a vote on the legal principle should occur.
Affordable Units, Corridor Planning
Residents asked Burgis about multiple topics, including affordable housing, multifamily housing, inclusionary housing, the Broadway Corridor, smart growth, and implications of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan to Burgis’s statement that multifamily housing near a train station is supported by the state plan.
Moreover, Kaufman said that the applicant was reserving its right, under state law, to not commit to building 53 units for rental apartments versus for-sale (or market-rate) condominium units.
Also, Kaufman said the applicant was reserving its right not to build affordable units on site, but somewhere else off-site in the borough. Both issues provoked questions from residents and were left unanswered during the hearing.
Resident Alex Cuto questioned Burgis how he came up with his estimated 439 units of “unmet need” for affordable units. Burgis said the third round need (through 2025) was a 357-unit unmet need and the second round unmet need was 82, which totaled 439 units.
Burgis said while the borough does have an approved third round affordable settlement, and is mostly developed, the borough is still “required to show a good faith effort to try and meet that number” although he agreed most consider the “unmet need” more an aspirational number than an achievable number.
Burgis said he cited six “special reasons” that show a multifamily building, and affordable units, appropriate for the 188 Broadway site, including that across from a train station “would be a good place for multifamily inclusionary housing.”
It was not explained how that may be compatible with possible off-site affordable units, a topic raised by Kaufman.
Although 188 Broadway is located in the S-O (Special Office) zone, Burgis said that the borough permits inclusionary housing in other zones “and that’s what we’re here for.” He noted that by adding to its affordable housing units, the borough can show “that you’ve affirmatively addressed some segment of that unmet need… [which] can go a long way toward the next round” of affordable obligations after 2025.
AnnMarie Borelli said one recent Broadway Corridor study showed that the borough did not desire residential development along Broadway. Kaufman criticized Borelli’s comments, noting she was testifying as to what was in another person’s mind, which she did not really know. Borelli asked where residents might walk to or hang out if no public parks were within walking distance.
Gwenn Levine questioned whether traffic problems were taken into account when Burgis repeatedly stated that the State Development and Redevelopment Plan favors multifamily housing near a train station. Kaufman replied that the county has “exclusive jurisdiction” over Broadway since it’s a county road and the questions were not relevant to the applicant.
Board chair Robin Malley said she had a concern with Kaufman’s view, and Princiotto noted that “any change in traffic patterns” resulting from a development is relevant to an applicant’s proposal.
Resident Craig Marson asked Burgis to define “proximity to a train station” and Burgis said proximity is generally considered within walking distance, about a quarter- to a half-mile distance.
Another nearby resident wanted to know when she should put her house up for sale after the board votes on the current application.
Princiotto said he expected a decision on the application either on July 20 or July 27. He said the July 20 hearing was likely to focus more on the relevance of the res judicata principle to the application.