Guess who’s in court trying to force Chatham to bring back the big Redevelopment Plan to allow up to 720 more apartments on the Ivy end of River Road?
Screenshot
That’s right:The one now pushing another big Redevelopment Plan is AJDM, the very same Ivy-affiliated developer Chatham just gave the green light to build a small, 100-apartment project on the same part of River Road!https://chathamchoice.org/2026/06/__trashed/
But why? Isn’t AJDM happy with the project it was pushing all last spring? Didn’t the Mayor suggest that project would satisfy everyone?
Looks like that project was simply a. ploy. Now AJDM won’t give up until the Council adopts a Redevelopment Plan so that AJDM can build many more apartments on the same property, and also likely get Mayor &. Council to grant a PILOT, excusing AJDM from paying any property taxes.
And on 8/28/26 Fair Share Housing Center joined the fray.
Screenshot
Why exactly would our Mayor & Council want to grant yet another developer like AJDM a free pass not to pay property taxes like the rest of us?
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:
You know our Mayor & Council often turn a deaf ear to the residents who elected them.
Sometimes they have to listen to you. Now for instance.
With a strong candidate like David Andeasen challenging the Party machine in the June 2nd primary, our Mayor & Council cannot ignore your views on the two big issues facing them:
To meet a July 1 deadline, the Council needs to vet a new Redevelopment Plan for River Road by its June 8th meeting. The proposed Plan would allow up to 720 MORE apartments on River Road, at least 64% more than allowed under current zoning. https://chathamchoice.org/2026/04/another-project-on-river-road/
Only after that is resolved will the court issue a Certificate of Compliance. As such, the Mayor & Council have plenty of time to hold a public forum to explain their plan to develop the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic, next to Memorial Park, versus buying an alternative site, before hiring a contractor to pave over 80% of that green gem. https://chathamchoice.org/2026/03/just-the-facts/
Wondering why the Council hasn’t already laid out the facts about its plan for 58 North Passaic Avenue – at least the construction costs?
Why would the Mayor & Council even consider allowing 720 new apartments on River Road when it’s already flooded with cars?
Wouldn’t a Redeveloper inevitably get a PILOT property tax break at the expense of the rest of us?
attend public Council meetings on Monday, May 11 and Tuesday May 26, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Speaking is optional.)
Why are our Mayor & Council negotiating yet another Redevelopment contract, when they haven’t even unveiled their plan for the second big Redevelopment project they aim to build on River Road, next to the massive, 245-unit Ivy apartment project?
Or simply email the Mayor & Council and ask: Why are you negotiating yet another Redevelopment contract, when you don’t even have a plan for the second big Redevelopment project you aim to build on River Road, next to the massive, 245-unit Ivy apartment project?
The public meeting starts 7:30 pm TONIGHT, Monday, December 8th, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. (Take the elevator to the upper level.)
Have our Mayor & Borough Council found a good way to resolve the legal challenges to Chatham’s 6/18/25 Master Plan amendment for affordable housing?
A possible settlement is on their agenda for the December 8th Council meeting, and the Council may even VOTE on it during the public session, which starts 7:30 pm TONIGHT at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue.
To find out what happened last night, keep scrolling down!
Yesterday shortly before 5:00 pm, our Mayor & Council made their way to Borough Hall, filed into Room 301, and shut the door behind them.
They were behind closed doors for a special meeting to discuss recent developments in the litigation over their controversial Master Plan amendment of June 18th.
That’s the Master Plan amendment that includes sacrificing the green, vacant, Borough-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park.
The Borough adopted that Plan over the objections of more than 90% of residents polled, who want the Council to consider preserving that parcel by putting affordable housing on other Borough sites.
Nearly two hours later, the door to Room 301 swung open and out trudged the Mayor & Council.
They refused to answer questions posed by residents, citing the advice of Borough lawyers.
They didn’t promise to consider alternatives to 58 North Passaic Avenue in closed session, or even to hold off signing a development agreement for that site until residents have had a chance to weigh in.
All we know is that the next settlement conference in that case has been set for November 20:
The Mayor & Council also chose not to answer any questions about their plan, commissioned one year ago, to Redevelop the rest of Chatham‘s River Road, south and west of the massive, 245-unit Ivy complex at the corner of River Road and Watchung Avenue.
Unless a developer chooses to pay extra to set aside more affordable rental units than required by law, the new project would put 500 new apartments adjacent to the Ivy and no doubt insist on an exemption from paying millions in property taxes, just as the Ivy has.
For more information, attend the next Council meeting, this Monday, November 10th, 7:30 pm at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. Take the elevator to the upper level. Use the big doors down that hall on the left.
Who is responsible for the Master Plan amendment our Planning Board won’t see until June 6, but is under pressure to adopt on June18, setting Borough housing policy for the next ten years?
Why did our Borough Council let someone concoct such a plan 100% behind closed doors, without any public input?
Why does that plan include developing a vacant, green, woodsy, Borough-owned lot right next to Memorial Park?
58 N. Passaic Avenue
Was it ok for our Borough Council to skip presenting that plan in public, skip voting on it, skip running it by the Shade Tree Commission or Environmental Commission, and instead simply pay a hired planner to present a summary to our Planning Board?
Did the Council have an obligation to explain, release, or disclose the actual plan BEFORE turning it over to the Planning Board?
Did having the planner tell the Planning Board about the plan really muzzle the Borough Council as claimed?
Is the Planning Board required to approve the plan, which it won’t even see until at least June 6?
If the Planning Board is required to rubber stamp the never-before-seen plan, which the Council has never voted on or even discussed in public, then who is responsible for the policy decisions that will guide local decision making for the next ten years?
Why does the Council President say answering questions like that would expose her to “legal risk”?
Ask her: Jmathiasen@chathamborough.org
Ok with you if the Planning Board votes to develop that green, vacant, Borough-owned lot right next to the park without having justified or explained that choice?
Ever notice that each NJ town has its own unique character?
One reason is that each town is protected by a local Master Plan, created by residents to guide local officials in big decisions.
When asked to adopt a new regulation or grant a special exemption from zoning laws, our leaders must consider if what’s proposed is consistent with the Master Plan. If not, they must vote it down.
Changing the Master Plan can be done only by the local Planning Board, which is made up only of residents and must follow a transparent process. They review the Master Plan, discuss and air proposed changes at public meetings, take questions and comments from residents, and make decisions in public.
At the Wednesday, May 7 meeting – the Board’s first since January – members learned about a major change in the Master Plan’s Fair Share & Housing Element, which was crafted behind closed doors by a special 8-member advisory committee that includes four non-residents and does not answer to the public. https://www.chathamborough.org/boards/advisory/235-affordable-housing
The only hearing scheduled to give residents chance to ask questions or tell the Planning Board what they think of the changes is at the same June 18 meeting where the Planning Board must vote to approve those changes.
That puts our Planning Board in a tight spot. Or rather, it’s a tight spot for the rank and file members, who who aren’t also Mayor, or married to the boss of the dominant party, or members of the elite committee that drafted the changes behind closed doors.
But what options do the rank and file Planning Board members really have?
Should they stand up for the right of residents to participate in the process, and risk not being reappointed to the Boardby the Mayor?
Or should they go along to get along, and hope for other opportunities to protect Chatham Borough?
That’s the easy way out, but if they take it, they will have lost control of one of the most important parts of our Master Plan.
It’s time for the Planning Board to do right by residents and stand up for itself. Refuse to be bullied into approving a Housing Element they had no role in crafting. Demand a chance to do their job, and weigh alternatives.
Your opportunity to ask or weigh in about any of that at a public meeting – before it’s too late to make any difference – will be at the Council meeting this Monday, May 12, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
Please keep in mind that you need not say a word. You can make a difference simply by attending that meeting.
You indulge in restaurants, travel, parties, gifts, and concert tickets, and then discover you don’t have enough money left for necessities like your mortgage payment or groceries.
What should you do?
Incur more debt? Make your spouse take a second job to cover necessities?
That’s what our Mayor and some Borough Council members seem to think.
Faced with an urgent need for two or three new fire trucks to replace a dangerously aging fleet, they continued to prioritize lower priority expenses, like public art, street decorations, concerts, parades, celebrations, tennis courts, and the Stanley Center.
Now they’re tying to tell us that the Borough can afford the desperately needed ladder truck only because the Borough is moonlighting as a real estate developer to bring in new PILOT income from the giant Ivy apartment project on River Road.
That’s the thrust of the April 28 budget presentation, an extended infomercial for PILOTS, starting at approx. minute 1:39:30 here:
That might make sense if the Mayor & Council were required to place a higher priority on the fun stuff. But it isn’t. The Council’s highest priority must be public safety, including adequate fire trucks. The fun stuff must come second.
At that April 28 meeting, Mayor & Council ignored all that, and tried to justify the Ivy PILOT deal (and warm you up for the next PILOT project in the pipeline) by claiming a good chunk of the revenue will be put aside for the ladder truck.
Don’t fall for that.
In fact, the PILOT payments go into the Borough’s general fund, along with revenue from various other sources, including your property taxes.
Because money is fungible, there is no way Mayor Council can say if a certain dollar came from property taxes, or PILOT revenue, or some other source, like the ECLC rents or the parking fees.
Pretending they can is pure spin.
Simple fact is, every time they raise spending, you lose the tax break that the PILOT payments could afford.
Time to tell our Mayor & Council to do the right thing:
First, take care of absolute necessities, like the ladder fire truck. before considering secondary expenses and discretionary items likepublic art, concerts, parades, celebrations, decorations, and the Stanley Center.
Second, the Council should NOT use the PILOT revenue as an excuse to increase spending. Use it to reduce the tax rate.
Third, if the Council wants extra goodies, let the voters decide whether or not to sacrifice the tax break to get those goodies.
After all, it’s your money they’re spending. Find out how the Mayor & Council aim to spend it while there’s still time to influence the outcome.
Stop by the next Council meeting, May 12 at 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue.You don’t need to speak.
