Guess who’s in court trying to force Chatham to bring back the big Plan to allow up to 720 more apartments on the Ivy end of River Road?
Screenshot
That’s right: The challenger is AJDM, the very same Ivy-affiliated developer Chatham just gave the green light to build a small project on the same part of River Road!
Why isn’t the developer AJDM happy with its own project? Didn’t the Mayor suggest that would satisfy everyone?
Is the developer AJDM determined to get a Redevelopment Plan because it allows building more apartments? Or is the goal to qualify for PILOT, which would allow AJDM’s new project to operate without paying property taxes for up to 30 years?
Why would our Mayor & Council want to grant the developer AJDM a pass not to pay property taxes like the rest of us?
Now that the Borough has the all-important Certificate of Compliance, permitting the Mayor & Council to consider improving their Fair Share plan, when will they schedule the long-awaited public forum to answer basic, unanswered questions and consider alternatives to paving over the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park?
What are the realistic alternatives? If buying another lot to preserve 58 North Passaic would cost the average homeowner no more than $122 per year for ten years, is it worth the price?
What about other Borough-owned properties?Now that the Borough has scheduled a crew to pave the west end of Front Street, “from Washington Avenue to the dead end” on Monday, August 10, 2026, when will the Mayor stop claiming that #39 Front Street, is somehow “inaccessible,” and as such unsuitable for affordable housing?
Face it: if you allow the Mayor & Council to sacrifice the unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel next to the public park without answering even basic questions, you will have given up all hope of having any say in any other local issue in the future.
Don’t let that happen.
Tell your elected representatives you expect them to schedule a public forum BEFORE they hire a contractor to chop down the trees and pave 58 North Passaic Avenue:
ANOTHER UPDATE: Instead of paving Front Street to the dead end as announced in the letter (below) dated July 31, 2026, the Borough chose to pave only part of Front Street, skipping the end leading to the parcel supposedly “inaccessible” for affordable housing, as shown here:
UPDATE: “Due to a contractor delay, paving on… Front Street has been rescheduled for Monday, August 10, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weather permitting…”
In the past, our Council tried to increase the property tax base by selling surplus, tax-exempt, Borough-owned land, including the vacant, 0.62-acre parcel just south of the train tracks at 39 Front Street:
Though 39 Front Street remains vacant and tax-exempt, and ideally situated for a residence, the Mayor & Council steered clear of that site, now dubbed “rear of 16 Walnut St,” or “16 Walnut Street, rear” in 2025, when they were inventorying vacant parcels for the Borough’s state-mandated affordable housing plan:
The Mayor did not even bother to justify overlooking 39 Front Street until May 2026, when residents demanded an explanation for the Council’s plan to pave 80% of the green, taxpayer-owned lot at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to our Memorial Park behind the public library.
Screenshot from the. May 7, 2025 PowerPoint presentation, showing the Council hopes to preserve one of the trees on the vacant, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
Screenshot of Google aerial image, marked to show the wooded, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic, which the Mayor aims to pave over to build the apartment project and parking lot shown above.
Only when the public outcry reached a certain pitch did the Mayor claim that 39 Front Street was not suitable for that project because it was “inaccessible.”
How can a parcel with a 50′ frontage on a downtown public street be called “inaccessible”?
Is the trouble that that end of Front Street isn’t paved?
If so, that will soon be remedied. A few days ago the Mayor’s Department of Public Works announced its plans to pave the dead end of Front Street:
Does paving the west end of Front Street make the parcel at 39 Front Street accessible?
Does paving it make 39 Front Street a suitable alternative site for the 100% affordable project that will otherwise obliterate the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park?
Ask your Mayor & Councilusing these email addresses:
Now at last our Mayor & Council can finally hold a public forum on their decision to pave 80% of the unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to our Memorial Park!
Aerial view of vacant, wooded, taxpayer-owned 58 N. Passaic, marked to show site chosen by Council for construction of 4-apartment, 7-parking space project. Source: Google images
What do the Mayor & Council plan to do with that wooded parcel? They plan to chop down most of the trees to build four apartments and seven parking spaces:
Diagram of the 4-apartment, 7-parking space project designed for the vacant, 0.3-acre parcel at 58 North Passaic. Source: PowerPoint first revealed to the Planning Board on May 7, 2025, outlining the Fourth Round Affordable Housing Plan created by an insider-only committee that met behind closed doors, kept no records, and even left the Council in the dark until late April, 2025.
Wait. What?!
For the past year, residents have been asking how the Council had chosen that site for the project, how much it will cost taxpayers, and the pros and cons of the alternatives.
Residents got few answers. Borough experts said the Mayor & Council could not consider alternatives until a judge had certified the Borough’s affordable housing plan.
Now Judge Allen has officially certified the Borough’s housing plan:
That means now our Mayor & Council can finally hold that public forum and residents can finally get the facts on the plan to sacrifice 58 North Passaic Avenue.
The only question is, when?
Should our Mayor & Council hold the public forum right away? At their regular meeting on August 10, 2026? Maybe in September, when most residents are back in town?
Tell your Mayor & Council what you prefer, using these addresses:
The storm that swept the Chathams last Friday, July 3rd wrecked havoc with our plans and our lives. It also underscored our total dependence on regular electrical service.
Chatham only began to dabble with the stuff in 1901 when, after careful analysis, bidding, and informed public debate, voters approved a proposal to build a municipal electric plant to light the streets.
That kind of timely, meaningful, public review is exactly what today’s Borough Council should do before embarking on major projects.
Chatham Press, May 18, 1901
The new electrical utility got residents to sample electric lighting by offering to supply the wiring and the fixtures:
Screenshot of ad in Chatham Press, September 14, 1901
Everybody got hooked. By 1920, even a brief power outage was more than a minor inconvenience:
Screenshot of Chatham Press, Saturday, May 29, 1920, p. 1
Why doesn’t today’s Borough Council include residents in such big decisions?
In fact, that AJDM proposal PREDATES the Redevelopment Plan. When the Council first unveiled that Plan, on April 14, 2026 https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=488the Planning Board ALREADY HAD details of the proposal, as you can see in the following letters, dated March 6 and 27, 2026:
What that means is that as of April 14, 2026, when the Mayor & Council presented their Redevelopment Plan to the public, they already knew what the developer was prepared to build without the benefit of such a plan or a PILOT tax exemption.So, contrary to the official explanation, the developer’s proposal cannot be the reason the Mayor & Council chose to reject the Plan at the June 22 meeting.
One thing we do know is that vote was risky. It triggered consequence under an agreement the Council had approved last December 8, 2025:
Screenshot
What does that mean for Chatham? How was it risky for the Council to vote NOT to adopt the Plan for River Road?
“If the Borough does not adopt a plan by July 1, Fair Share Housing Center has the right to re-open this issue to ask for the existing affordable housing overlay zones to even higher density in that area. Fair Share Housing Center may also request changes to the adopted plan if they do not believe that the plan will lead to a successful project.” (p. 5)
Will Fair Share – or anyone else – seize that opportunity to demand greater density on River Road or reopen the Council’s Fourth Round plan?
Meanwhile, after months of legal wrangling behind the scenes, at the June 22nd meeting the Council also voted to consent to a court order the public couldn’t see until it was filed with the court the following day.
What does that order mean for Chatham? Why did the Council authorize the affordable housing lawyer to sign it after fighting over the terms of that order for months?
For clues, check out the letter the Borough lawyer had filed with the court on May 14, 2026:
Have you seen your latest Chatham Borough tax bill?
Then you’ve also seen Mayor Dempsey’s enclosed letter, full of rumors, myths, and misinformation about the Borough’s plan to pave over the wooded, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
Screenshot
The Mayor’s letter doesn’t answer any of the questions driving the growing demand for a public forum on that project.
Why would the Mayor wish to pave that green lot, right next to our Memorial Park?
How much will that project cost Borough taxpayers?
What are the alternatives?
What are the pros and cons?
Tell the Mayor & Council you expect straight answers:
attend the public Council meetings on Monday, June 22, and Monday, July 13, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Come as you are, whenever you can. Sit where you like and leave when you please. Speaking is optional.)
Don’t accept the usual nonsense:
MYTH: The Borough must develop 58 North Passaic to meet the state’s affordable housing quota.
REALITY: The state did not target 58 North Passaic for development. It was selected by eight Borough insiders who met only behind closed doors and claim they kept no records. All we know is they had many options, including some on Main Street.
MYTH: Developing 58 North Passaic would help the Borough meet its affordable housing quota at no cost to taxpayers.
REALITY: Nothing is free. Borough taxpayers would be ultimately responsible for ALL of the costs of building, operating, and maintaining the North Passaic project, as the Council agreed on March 9, 2026.
MYTH: Developing 58 North Passaic is the only way to meet the Borough’s affordable housing quota without buying land.
REALITY: Of course, there are other options. One disadvantage of building the project at 58 North Passaic is it would mean the permanent loss of trees, fresh air, natural habitats, and the opportunity to use that land to benefit all residents.
MYTH: The only alternative to developing 58 North Passaic would be a much bigger project, with much higher density.
REALITY: In fact, the Mayor’s contractor is willing to build the same project, with the same bonus credits, at ANY location in the Borough.
MYTH:There is no other potential location.
REALITY: The viable options include both other Borough-owned land and privately-owned sites.
MYTH: It is too late to consider alternatives to developing 58 North Passaic Avenue.
REALITY: In fact, it is too early to consider alternatives. The Borough cannot propose one until after receiving its Certificate of Compliance.
MYTH: Even proposing an alternative to developing 58 North Passaic would put the Borough at great risk of lawsuits.
REALITY: If it were risky to propose an alternative, the Borough’s experts would have warned about that when they spoke at the Planning Board hearing on June 18, 2025 and at the Council meeting on December 8, 2025. They didn’t. The affordable housing lawyer and planner warned only that such a proposal must wait until after the Borough receives its Certificate of Compliance.
MYTH: It would take too long to select and develop another location.
REALITY: We haven’t seen any evidence to back up that claim.
Myth: Buying a privately-owned lot as an alternative site for the project would be expensive – too expensive for taxpayers.
REALITY: With an irreplaceable, taxpayer-owned asset at stake, the question is not whether buying an alternative site would cost us, but whether it’s cost-effective: Is preserving one of the last few green spots in town worth that? The Mayor can’t say. She chooses not even to estimate the cost to the typical homeowner.
MYTH: Environmentalists are trying to force the Mayor &. Council to spend our money to preserve the tree canopy at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
REALITY: All we are asking the Mayor & Council to do is to hold off paving over that green lot until after a public forum, where people can get basic facts, ask questions, and get answers. The Mayor & Council can do that at no cost to taxpayers now that a local has offered to pay the experts’ hourly fees. If 58 North Passaic turns out to be the best choice for Chatham, so be it.
MYTH: The questions about the 58 North Passaic project have been asked and answered at many Council meetings.
REALITY: While residents have been asking questions, the Mayor &. Council have not disclosed even basic facts, such as cost estimates and the viable alternatives rejected without explanation.
Enough is enough. Demand an answer:
When will the Council hold a public forum on the plan for 58 North Passaic Avenue?
attend the public Council meetings on Monday, June 22, and Monday, July 13, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Come as you are, whenever you can. Sit where you like and leave when you please.
Attend public Council meetings starting on Monday, June 8, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Come as you are, whenever you can. Sit where you like and leave when you please. Speaking is optional.)
Curious what this is all about?
The problem surfaced at the May 11th Council meeting, where residents begged the Mayor & Council to hold a public forum to provide basic facts and answer simple questions BEFORE hiring someone to chop down and pave over 80% of the grass and trees at taxpayer-owned 58 North Passaic, right next to our Memorial Park.
“All the questions have been… asked and answered multiple times,” insisted Mayor Dempsey, flatly refusing to hold a public forum. (2:06:00)
In fact, the Mayor & Council have NEVER answered the most basic questions about the project they aim to build at 58 North Passaic.
For instance, which privately-owned alternative sites did the Mayor & Council consider? How was each selected and evaluated, using what criteria? How did they compare? Why was each one ruled out?
Crickets.
Could be the Mayor & Council don’t answer those questions because they don’t know the answers, never having done the necessary homework or due diligence.
Jocelyn Mathiasen, the Council member who spearheaded this scheme, admitted to two resident on March 26th that she had NEVER SEEN a list of privately-owned sites under consideration.
Ms Mathiasen couldn’t even recall the Main Street parcel the planner had said she had “looked at purchasing” as a substitute for 58 North Passaic in the plan submitted to the state in June 2025.
So are all the questions “asked and answered,” as the Mayor claimed? Obviously not.
Another one of the Mayor’s misstatements at the May 11th meeting was her response to the suggestion that the Council consider proposing to purchase a substitute site after the judge issues a Certificate of Compliance.
We know that is an option. The Borough planner and affordable housing lawyer said so at the June 18th Planning Board hearing and again at the December 8th, 2025 Council meeting. “You have a right to do that,” said the planner last December. (1:55:00) https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=441
Yet at the May 11th Council meeting, our Mayor claimed it would be VERY risky to propose another site. “[W]e could, but then we face a huge risk of losing our immunity…” she said (2:05:16) adding, “[O]pening up our Plan puts us at too much risk.” (2:06:00)
The right thing for the Mayor & Councilto do is to hold a public forum on the 58 North Passaic project: A real forum, where residents and Council members alike can get the relevant facts, and the Borough’s affordable housing lawyer and planner can explain the risks, if any, BEFORE the Council hires someone to chop down the trees and pave over 58 North Passaic Avenue.
The Mayor & Council can invite the lawyer and planner to that forum at no cost to taxpayers, as a Township resident has volunteered to pay their fees.
Best of all, there’s plenty of time for the Mayor & Council to hold that public forum. This Council can’t start chopping down 58 North Passaic until AFTER the court issues the Compliance Certificate, and the court won’t issue that Certificate until AFTER the Council votes on its proposed Redevelopment Plan for River Road.
Once the judge issues the Certificate, the Mayor & Council will have NO EXCUSE not to hold a public forum to CONSIDER alternatives, instead of blindly plunging ahead and needlessly sacrificing the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=508
Tell the Mayor & Council you expect them to do the right thing:
attend public Council meetings starting on Monday, June 8, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Come as you are, whenever you can. Sit where you like and leave when you please. Speaking is optional.)
