Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lakeside Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency advances Lakeside/Colfax redevelopment after debate over parking easement and licensed spaces
Summary
The Redevelopment Agency directed staff to continue negotiating a redevelopment agreement for the Lakeside/Colfax proposal and to present two parking alternatives to the borough council: a nonexclusive easement to access additional on‑site parking or a licensing agreement for a larger number of borough spaces. Final approval remains contingent on council action.
The Pompton Lakes Redevelopment Agency voted to advance a revised mixed‑use proposal at Lakeside/Colfax and to direct counsel to negotiate a redevelopment agreement while the applicant pursues either a borough easement or a licensed‑parking alternative.
Applicant counsel told the agency the team prepared two alternatives to address parking and bank financing: the preferred version would include a nonexclusive easement through the borough pothole area that allows vehicle access to two levels of on‑site parking; the no‑easement alternative would reconfigure the lower level and require the borough to license dozens of spaces so the project meets parking ratios. "It is a nonexclusive easement, meaning that it does not restrict any other use of the property," the applicant said, describing the easement as flexible in alignment so the borough could still use the area in the future.
Why it matters: The project calls for roughly 51 residential units over four residential floors above a ground level of retail and parking. The applicant described two parking scenarios during the hearing: a plan with 20 on‑site spaces plus a request to license 46 borough spaces (no easement), or a configuration that relies on easement access and would reduce the number of licensed off‑site spaces the borough must provide. The choice between those options affects density, traffic flow, existing public parking, and the governing body—s willingness to grant long‑term parking rights.
Details and board concerns: The architect and engineer presented a reconfigured ground floor that increased retail area (applicant reported 5,176 sq ft of retail in the revised plan) and shifted transformer and dumpster locations. Board members raised driveway operations, potential loss of three existing spaces at the pothole entry, fire‑lane use, and how banks would underwrite the project absent firm parking commitments. Agency members asked that the applicant provide clear plans for the governing body to evaluate whether the borough should grant an easement or license spaces.
Vote and next steps: On roll call the motion to direct negotiations and present both parking alternatives to the borough council passed (Silverstein: Yes; Quigley: Yes; Novak: No; Ross: Yes). The agency—s recommendation to the council will include the applicant—s preferred easement scenario and the licensing alternative; the applicant will seek final parking assurances from the governing body and return with a negotiated redevelopment agreement.
