But WHAT “Redevelopment Contract” are they talking about?
Are they looking to renegotiate the Borough’s longstanding deal with the Ivy? Or the 15-unit project they agreed to build at Post Office Plaza back in 2022?
Last November 11, our Borough Council commissioned a draft Redevelopment Plan for a massive, 500-unit apartment project on River Road, next to the huge, 245-unit Ivy complex.
Since then, it’s come to light that the new project would be risky for Chatham Borough in at least seven ways, as follows:
First, this new River Road project is NOT required by affordable housing law, and it would NOT help fulfill the Borough’s new Fourth Round affordable housing RDP quota for 2025-2035 either.
The new apartments would be in addition to the Borough’s 2025-2035 affordable housing quota, which the Council must figure out how to satisfy before the end of this June2025.
Second, the alleged risk associated with NOT adopting that 500-apartment Redevelopment Plan for River Road is imaginary.
Our Council President insists that, absent the new Plan, current zoning allows private property owners to develop up to 707 new apartments on River Road and the Borough would have NO say in the matter. That sounds scary, but where is the evidence?
In fact, about 40% of the Redevelopment Area (and more than 50% of the Gateway 1 district) is Borough-owned. Would-be developers can’t touch it without the Council’s consent.
Also, the part of the Redevelopment area that’s privately-owned is mostly small lots, all subject to many federal, state, and local rules and regulations, including setbacks. https://ecode360.com/6793110#29899351
As such, the owners of that private property would NOT be able to build anywhere near 707 new apartments there without Borough approval.
Third, if the Borough Council tries to prevent private development by adopting a rental Redevelopment Plan, then we’ll end up with far more apartments on River Road. That’s because to satisfy the legal requirement to provide at least 75 affordable units, making up at least 15% of the project, a rental Plan would have to provide for at least 500 new apartments – more than twice the number at the Ivy.
Our Mayor & Council are well aware that the Redevelopment Plan would allow construction of 500 apartments – twice the number at the Ivy. They heard it directly from Borough Planner Fran Reiner last March. Go to minute 1:06:00 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=197
Fourth, some Council members don’t seem to realize that such a Plan would also almost inevitably involve granting the redeveloper corporate welfare, at the very least a total PILOT exemption from paying property taxes, same as the Ivy.
Fifth, some believe the Mayor & Council could persuade a developer to provide MORE than 15% affordable rental units. A 20% affordable project, for instance, could be limited to 375 units. But what would the Council need to do to induce a redeveloper to accept that deal?
Would they give away some of the Borough land along the River? Allow the redeveloper to build several extra stories? Grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption? All three? How would such concessions impact financial security and quality of life in the Borough?
Sixth, even a 375-unit Redevelopment project would burden our precious water supply, and might force us to resort to less desirable sources.
Seventh, the Mayor & Council President claim that adopting a Plan would enable them to get the redeveloper to throw in a “free” riverside park and other so-called “amenities.” But the fact is that nothing is free.
To get those goodies, the Borough Council would have to accept an even worse a deal for residents and taxpayers. They’d probably need to give away most or all of the Borough land along the River, to allow the redeveloper to build even more extra stories, and to grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption.
Before spending any more time or money on another Redevelopment Plan for River Road, our Mayor & Council need to tell us how they would avoid getting stuck with a huge, 500-unit rental projectthat would clog up our roads, and would almost certainly demand an exemption from property taxes, forcing the rest of us to make up the difference.
Better yet, tell the Mayor & Council to set aside this ill-conceived scheme and concentrate on urgent business, including meeting our affordable housing quota without overburdening our wallets and infrastructure.
Our Mayor & Borough Council are plunging ahead with a Redevelopment Plan for another massive, 500-unit River Road apartment project that:
is NOT REQUIRED by affordable housing law; and
will NOT COUNT toward meeting the Borough’s RDP affordable housing quota!
Why would they do THAT?They offer two justifications, both flimsy.
First,they’ll tell you a Redevelopment Plan is the only way to “control” what gets built on RIver Road:Absent a Plan, they claim, the property owners can do whatever they want.That’s nonsense.
All Chatham property is subject to countless federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A Plan wouldactually make matters worse by providing for at least 500 rental apartments to satisfy setaside rquirements.
Second, they’ll tell you that with a Redevelopment Plan they can make the developer throw in some public goodies – such as a free riverside park.More nonsense.
Nothing is free. Whether or not the Mayor & Council manage to negotiate for any decent public benefits whatsoever, the rest of us will pay dearly in the form of a stealth tax increase triggered by the corporate welfare PILOT tax exemption the developer will demand and get, just as happened at the Ivy project.
The good news is that there’s still time to change all that.
Tell the Mayor & Council to put this project on ice until they’ve done their homework and considered their options.
Or better yet, shelve this massive Redevelopment project. Concentrate on urgent matters, like finding a way to meet the Borough’s affordable housing obligations without overwhelming our roads and schools, depleting our water supply, polluting our environment, or cheating taxpayers.
The Council is under pressure to burden Borough taxpayers with more than their fair share of school taxes, jeopardizing its ability to provide urgent necessities like new fire trucks.
Our Borough Council got some good news at its April 10 meeting.
Retired Bloomfield Fire Captain Robert Penn reported that the apartment project going up on River Road is far safer than he had expected. Check out his words at minute 1:29:28:
Of course, our volunteer fire fighters are still hobbled by ancient fire trucks and have no good way to put out fires in the growing number of electric cars.
Can your town suddenly decide to zone one lot differently from its neighbors?
No. That’s “spot-zoning.” It’s illegal in New Jersey.
But there is an exception if the lot is arguably “blighted” or “in need of redevelopment,” according to a state law designed to help poor towns attract new construction.
For years, real estate developers have abused that exception to achieve a kind of legalized spot zoning:
They’ve used it to get around normal zoning laws in towns that have no trouble attracting investors.
They’ve used it to sweep away normal zoning rules for properties that aren’t blighted at all.
They’ve used it to qualify for whopping property tax breaks that enrich the developers at the expense of residents.
Sometimes they’ve used it to get title to public land without the normal checks and balances.
The courts usually turn a blind eye to that kind of abuse.
One noteworthy exception is the 2007 case of Gallenthin v. Paulsboro, in which the state Supreme Court made clear that the mere fact that a property is operated in a less than optimal manner does not make it “stagnant and unproductive” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e).
Now it seems the Court is beginning to tighten up the criteria for designating a property “in need of redevelopment” on the grounds that it is “dilapidated, obsolete, overcrowded” or has “other deleterious conditions.”
In a case published this month, Malanga v. Township of West Orange, the Court rejected the designation of the West Orange library as an “area in need of redevelopment” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d) simply because it was old, out of style, and needed repair. The Court also put to rest the idea that the mere assertion that a place is dilapidated, obsolescent, etc. will suffice, or that courts should defer to the township’s judgment on that score.
The Malanga case establishes that to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d), the township must show both:
1) evidence of “dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout”; and
2) that, as a result, the premises “are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.”
Great news for anyone concerned about reckless overdevelopment.
What effect will the Malanga case have on areas already designated in need of redevelopment? Ask an expert:
Yesterday morning, after three tense public hearings, Morris County Superior Court Judge Stephan Hansbury soundly rejected the Kushners’ brazen attempt to cram an unpopular 100-rental unit project on mostly public land behind our Main Street Post Office.
That decision frees Chatham Borough to meet part of its affordable housing requirements by building a 15-unit apartment house there, as our Mayor & Council voted on May 2.
For a quick summary, watch the video of Mayor Kobylarz’s comments in this Tap story:
For details, check out the records at e-courts, culminating in this final court order finding Chatham in compliance with its affordable housing obligations through September 29, 2026:
Will the Kushners accept that outcome and let Chatham build some affordable housing at Post Office Plaza, or will they continue to sue, appeal, and otherwise try to block progress? Stay tuned here and at this FB group:
Let’s say the monstrous development that’s devouring River Road does bring an average of $1.73 million into the Borough’s coffers each year, as the Council predicts.
Care about the plans for Post Office Plaza or the future of Chatham Borough?
Come to the Final Compliance Hearing
Now rescheduled to be heard before the Hon. Stephan C. Hansbury, J.S.C., Monday, November 14, 9:30 am, at the Morris County Courthouse, Morristown, NJ.
