WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J.—A multifamily 60-unit, two-building development proposed for 188 Broadway was overwhelmingly rejected after seven months of hearings and strong local opposition by a group fighting overdevelopment of Woodcliff Lake.
The applicant said an appeal is “under consideration.”
The July 23 vote comes a week after the Borough Council’s decision, also cheered by local activists known as SHINE, to designate developer Alpert Group and authorize preparation for the affordable housing project on Broadway north of Highview Avenue.
That project will erect 16 units of affordable housing—and nothing more—on three vacant lots at the site as part of the borough’s settlement with Fair Share Housing Center.
Following the Broadway vote, Veronica Appelle, a SHINE member, said “We thought we were fighting Goliath. David was fighting Goliath and David prevailed.”
Most SHINE members appeared surprised the vote was unanimous.
“We’re very grateful to the Zoning Board—particularly that they listened to our concerns and that they realized that the east side is part of Woodcliff Lake. We are one community, one town,” Appelle said.
She added that Woodcliff Lake has settled its affordable housing plan and needed no additional affordable units from the proposed development to help satisfy its affordable obligations.
The same point was raised by applicant planner Joseph Burgis in June testimony.
The proposed 60-unit complex included nine affordable housing rental units, which were required under the borough’s 15 percent affordable rental set-aside ordinance.
The original proposal included no affordable units; they were added to satisfy a new set-aside ordinance for multifamily housing of five or more units.
Deficiencies called out
In rejecting the application for the 188 Broadway complex, members cited problems with traffic, a zoning change, high density, lack of open space, and a lack of benefits for the borough.
The vote followed eight public hearings with members. Before making their decision they called out a lack of applicant testimony on why the existing single office building could not be leased out or occupied as office space.
In order to approve a zoning change requested by 188 Broadway LLP—which would allow a proposed 60-unit residential housing complex in an S-O zone, or Special Office zone, board members had to weigh whether the proposed development offered a substantial benefit or improvement to the community.
The 7–0 vote denying a zoning change and variances followed more than a dozen speakers arguing against the development—and a final statement from applicant attorney James J. Delia quoting the borough planner lauding the project.
The ZBA, chaired by Christina Hembree, has members Gary Newman, Sanjeev Dhawan, Emilia Fendian, Robert Hayes, Robin Malley, and John Spirig.
The public hearings often drew a dozen or more residents from SHINE, which opposes “high-density overdevelopment” they predict would change the borough’s suburban character.
‘Clearly disappointed’
“We’re clearly disappointed and don’t believe the board followed evidence or the law and believe their decision is wrong,” said Delia, of Wells Jaworski & Liebman LLP.
Delia said an appeal is “under consideration” and the applicant has 45 days after a memorializing resolution is voted on at the board’s Aug. 27 meeting.
Delia said the applicant’s experts—and the board’s professionals—showed how the proposed land use change to residential units was “particularly suited” to the site.
“They turned deaf, dumb and blind to their own experts. Why have experts if you don’t rely on their opinions?” Delia told Pascack Press July 24.
“Here’s the point: I’m disappointed but I wish I could say I was shocked,” he said, adding that “public pressure was obvious” to vote against the development.
“Unfortunately, the board had a closed mind and never opened their minds to the proofs of our case,” he said.
The vote leaves vacant a one-building office complex.
According to Hembree leading off board comments, “the application is not a permitted use in the zone, and I think that’s a crucial statement.”
She added, “I, as a member of the Zoning Board, do not create and change ordinances.”
Hayes said he could “not reconcile that the council and Planning Board have not taken action on mixed use development on Broadway Corridor and the proposed development.”
He later said such a decision was one for the mayor and council and Planning Board, and not the Zoning Board.
Newman pointed out there was no testimony “that the existing [office] use is a challenge” and claimed that portions of the office complex were rented out when the application was submitted. He said that and its current office zoning went against a change in zoning.
Spirig called construction of a second residential building on site “a complete non-starter for me” and criticized the lack of open space on the property with a second building.
He said planner Richard Preiss’s previous testimony said that a residential housing was not previously considered for Broadway Corridor.
Spirig later said the residents who spoke did not mention any positive aspects to a residential development.
Malley said the development was inconsistent with ordinances and said the planning is better done by mayor, council and Planning Board and not the zoning board.
Newman said his “issues” with the project include the density proposed and the number of units.
He said he could not reconcile previous applicant planner testimony on empty-nesters “with the community that we live in.”
He said 60 units comprising 2,570 square feet per unit “and the density being proposed with the second building” would not be considered by the council for the Broadway Corridor zone.
He said he did not think residents whose children grow up and leave would likely stay in the proposed “empty-nester” units.
He said “Woodcliff Lake is not in a vacuum” and other multifamily housing units are being built in neighboring towns such as Park Ridge and Montvale.
“I don’t feel that this is a use that’s lacking within the community…it’s too many units, not enough property, and not enough space. It just makes it, frankly, incompatible with the borough,” he added.
Malley said “There is no reason for me to downsize there” with no amenities and no backyard.
“Why would I as a resident see that as a benefit? So it’s lacking,” she said.
Hayes noted 188 Broadway’s immediate proximity to the Woodcliff Avenue–Broadway intersection and said testimony looking at a residential complex’s peak hour traffic flows only was “superficial” for such a congested area.
Hayes said a residential development means a 24/7 traffic flow that was not accounted for.
Member Sanjeev Dhawan said the development was near “the worst intersection in town” and said the applicant had “sugar coated” the traffic testimony.
Residents two for two
Appelle, of SHINE, had said her group, in the wake of their July 15 win at the council meeting, was not resting on its laurels.
“We’ve got one down, one to go, as far as Woodcliff Lake craziness is concerned,” she said.