Linden council introduces multiple zoning changes as residents accuse measures of targeting Hasidic community

The Linden City Council on April 18 introduced a set of ordinances that would change rules on subcode fees, parking, traffic, residential permit parking and land‑use procedures, prompting sharp criticism from residents who said the proposals appear aimed at limiting growth by the city’s Hasidic Jewish community.

Council members voted to introduce ordinances numbered 69‑22 through 69‑29 on first reading; each motion passed on roll call. The measures ranged from amendments to subcode fees (69‑22) to changes in traffic and parking regulations (69‑25, 69‑26, 69‑27), updates to district regulations (69‑28) and revisions to land‑use procedures (69‑29). Several residents told the council they had not been given adequate time to review the proposals before the special meeting.

Why it matters: Residents said the changes could affect how large families can modify or expand single‑family homes, reduce allowable lot coverage and restrict basement usage — measures some speakers called discriminatory and potentially exclusionary.

Several public commenters who identified themselves as Linden residents said the ordinances were rushed and unevenly applied. Shana Ferhang of 923 Summit Street said, “Some of the ordinances that were proposed during this meeting are veiled antisemitism.” Nathaniel (Nate) Ferling, also of 923 Summit Street, said, “These zoning ordinances ... restrict basement usage. They restrict homeowners from making common sense improvements to their homes and their communities. ... They do smack of restricting Jewish growth.”

Other speakers raised related concerns. Shirley Mandelbaum, 315 West Gibbon Street, said Linden’s zoning had been largely unchanged for decades until recent years and that in the past seven‑plus years there have been multiple zoning changes that she said have made it harder for the Hasidic community to establish roots. Joseph Katz, 34 Harvard, criticized the council’s handling of public access and meeting scheduling and urged officials to respect residents’ rights under the Open Public Meetings Act.

Council members did not debate the substance of the ordinances before voting to introduce them for first reading. At least one council attorney present advised the body not to comment publicly on specifics because of threats of litigation related to the proposed measures.

Residents asked the council to pause and open a broader public forum for discussion prior to final votes. Several requested that full text of the ordinances be posted and time be provided for detailed review and public input before the council advances the measures beyond first reading.

Ending: The ordinances were introduced on first reading and will return for additional readings and formal votes at later meetings; the council set a public hearing schedule for budget and other items but did not set final dates here for each ordinance’s subsequent readings.