Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councillors press developer on parking and rent levels for proposed 194-unit senior affordable project
Summary
Developer representatives told council packets show up to 274 off‑site parking spaces for a proposed 194‑unit senior affordable building and said the developer will cover parking costs; council members raised concerns about the distance to parking and whether AMI-based rents match local incomes.
A developer presentation and robust council Q&A at the Dec. 9 workshop focused on a proposed downtown project that would repurpose a building into 194 senior affordable units and use off‑site parking.
The presentation: Adam Faiella of Sills, Kummers & Gross and the developer team told the council there are up to 274 parking spaces available in nearby parking authority garages, exceeding the redevelopment plan requirement (272 spaces). The team said off‑site parking within 1,000 feet is permitted by the redevelopment plan and that the developer will enter agreements with the parking authority as needed.
Council concerns: multiple members probed who would pay for parking, how tenants (especially seniors) would access spaces, and whether drop‑off capacity was adequate for groceries and moving day. Developer counsel said the developer would cover costs to the parking authority for tenant spaces and that drop‑off areas exist on site for short loading (but they acknowledge only limited simultaneous capacity).
Affordability and AMI: project counsel gave the AMI and rent schedule used for the financing: studios at 30% AMI (AMI $28,276) would rent for $772 per month; studios at 50% AMI (AMI $48,850) would rent for $1,286 per month; one‑bedrooms at 50% AMI were cited at $1,378 per month. Several council members noted Paterson’s median household income (cited in the meeting at roughly $35,000) and questioned whether those rents and eligibility bands will meaningfully serve existing low‑income residents.
Process and transparency questions: Council members asked for the parking authority letter and any draft agreements to be made readily available to residents (acknowledged as included in the planning‑board packet). Several members said comparable adjacent buildings required residents to buy monthly vouchers and reported early‑morning lines for parking passes; they sought assurances the developer’s promised cost coverage would prevent tenants from being charged.
What’s next: the items related to letters of support and parking were placed on the regular agenda for further review next week. Council members requested that any contract or agreement language with the parking authority be provided in the council packet so residents who do not receive the planning packet can review it.
