Ridgewood council says state historic‑preservation application resubmitted as public questions mount over Schedler soil testing

Village Manager Keith told the Village Council on May 7 that the revised State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) application for the Zabriskie‑Schedler property was resubmitted to the state late last week and posted on the village website so residents could review it.

The manager said the village received approval from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Solid Waste to proceed with a Matrix‑proposed scope of work for soil testing, and that testing is expected later this month. He also reported Matrix asked the council for a $23,410 change order to continue public outreach and answer new questions tied to the SHPO filing.

The outreach proposal drew concern from several council members during the meeting. The manager said the outreach plan is part of the remediation and public‑engagement process the DEP requires, and that recent submissions included “some of these questions are new” and “some of them tie back to the soil issues to the SHPO application.” He told council members he had instructed Matrix and village staff to avoid answering duplicate questions and to direct residents to previously published answers where appropriate.

During public comment, multiple residents said they had submitted questions and remained dissatisfied with answers so far. Resident Christina Milian told the council she had received conflicting information from county and state officials about whether soil originating from Bergen Community College exceeded mercury standards before it reached Schedler; she said DEP staff provided clarity only after direct engagement. Resident Amy McCambridge criticized the cost of answering multiple public submissions and urged the council to expect continued, intensive resident oversight.

Council members acknowledged the expense of continued outreach. One council member asked for a tally of prior outreach spending; the manager said he would compile prior Matrix invoices and noted this was an additional appropriation request—the fourth round of outreach—and that earlier rounds had already been billed. The manager also underscored that, under the DEP’s public‑engagement requirements, the obligation to respond remains open for the duration of the remediation.

Council members asked staff to provide clearer explanations on the website and to publish tools to help residents follow the schedule and findings. The proposal for additional Matrix outreach remained an appropriation request to be considered by the council; no final appropriation vote was recorded in this meeting.