Residents urge Passaic City Council to withdraw redevelopment directive for Orchard/Westervelt area
Loading...
Summary
Residents at a Feb. 17 public hearing urged the council to withdraw a Feb. 3 resolution directing the planning board to study parcels near Orchard and Westervelt Streets as an "area in need of redevelopment," citing cost, notice and density concerns; the administration said designation is a statutory first step to allow negotiated plans and cost‑recouping agreements.
Public commenters pressed the Passaic City Council on Feb. 17 to withdraw a recent resolution that directed the planning board to evaluate parcels around Orchard Street and Westervelt Place for designation as an "area in need of redevelopment." Residents warned the measure is premature and could waste city funds on state‑required studies if no ordinance follows.
"If the council approves the area in need of redevelopment designation, it is hurting our cause," Joshua Goldman, who lives at 185 High Street, told the council. Goldman urged rescinding the authorization so the developer—rather than the city—must first put a concrete, vetted proposal on the table.
Rachel Azer, 36 Orchard Street, asked the council to withdraw the direction because the planning‑board recommendation requires outside consultants whose costs the city would pay. "Should no redevelopment occur, then such costs will be unrecoverable," she said, and warned that the process could narrow negotiation options and potentially raise the specter of eminent domain if owner neglect is used to justify acquisition.
Business Administrator Fernandez replied that, under New Jersey’s local housing and redevelopment framework, the designation is a statutory preliminary step that allows the city to enter into an interim developer agreement that can help recover the costs of studies and plan preparation. "The designation gives us the authority to enter into this interim agreement to get our costs recuperated," Fernandez said, adding that the designation is a resolution, while the redevelopment plan would later be adopted by ordinance.
Several council members and the mayor described the two routes available to a developer—seeking site‑plan/zoning board approvals under existing code or pursuing designation and a redevelopment plan—and said the redevelopment route can give the council more opportunity to negotiate limits such as height, uses or owner‑occupancy. The mayor cautioned that timelines are uncertain and depend on negotiations and developer willingness.
Residents raised other neighborhood concerns during the public comments: Lea Zimmerman, whose home backs the project site, said the neighborhood needs houses rather than more apartments; Desiree Abriani said the root problem is the location and design of an older multifamily building and that incentives could encourage higher density in an unsuitable location.
Officials confirmed the planning board will consider the designation on March 4; if the planning board finds the parcels meet statutory criteria, the council would consider a resolution on March 5 to formally designate the area and permit the city to move to the plan/negotiation stage.
The council closed the public hearing and proceeded with the agenda; no final council ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for the Orchard/Westervelt area was adopted at the Feb. 17 meeting.
