Redevelopment agency advances 61 Acue Ave project subject to county parking negotiation

The Pompton Lakes Redevelopment Agency on a split vote moved to advance a proposed residential project at 61 Acue Avenue and to direct agency staff to negotiate a redevelopment agreement consistent with the plans submitted.

The project team told the agency the design could produce 17 units with 26 on‑site parking spaces or 23 units if the developer secures eight additional off‑site spaces from Passaic County. "We do have now, as of September 3, conditional approval from the county," applicant counsel Steve Malenek said, asking the agency to recommend the plan and allow staff to finalize a redevelopment agreement and financial terms.

Why it matters: the developer asked the agency to recommend amendments to the borough—s redevelopment plan that would avoid variances at the planning‑board stage and to provide flexibility so the site could be built either as a 17‑unit (26 spaces on site) or 23‑unit scheme (26 on site plus 8 county spaces). That outcome will affect the project's density, parking allocations and what the council must later consider when it reviews the redevelopment‑plan amendment.

Details of the proposal: Engineer Marvin Blethen described a constrained site with a right‑turn‑only egress required by the county and said vehicle‑tracking and sight‑distance checks were done to confirm turning movements. He noted requirements to protect an existing storm outlet and the need to provide a new manhole to capture on‑site runoff. Architect Brian Cooney outlined changes to materials and elevations, noting the design uses brick and composite cladding and that unit mix includes studios (~500 sq ft), one‑bedrooms (~675 sq ft) and some two‑bedrooms (~950 sq ft).

Board concerns and conditions: members pressed the applicant on building height, façade treatment and whether ground‑floor retail was feasible on the tight lot. The agency also discussed required bulk exceptions (height, setbacks, parking ratios and minimum unit square footage) and the applicant said those would be addressed by an amendment to the redevelopment plan rather than variances, if the board recommends the change.

Vote and next steps: On roll call the motion carried (Silverstein: Yes; Quigley: Yes; Novak: No; Ross: Yes). The board's approval was conditional and procedural: the agency voted to direct counsel to prepare and negotiate a redevelopment agreement and to advise the governing body on the redevelopment‑plan amendment; final binding approvals remain subject to the formal redevelopment agreement, planning‑board reviews and any county easement outcomes. The applicant said it expects to return with redevelopment‑agreement documents and for the council to consider the plan amendment and financial terms at a subsequent meeting.