Developer presents 30‑unit transit‑oriented townhouse concept for Houston Avenue

A developer representing EMR on Thursday presented a concept plan to the Waldwick Borough Council for a transit‑oriented townhouse development on three lots on Houston Avenue adjacent to the NJ Transit station.

The project described by the presenter would occupy about 1.3 acres at Block 116, Lots 916 and 18. The concept shown to council included roughly 30 townhouses, with the developer estimating 20–24 market units and six affordable for‑sale units (about 20 percent of the total). The presenter said the townhouses would range from two to four bedrooms depending on buyer configuration and noted the design is intended to be compatible with nearby station apartments.

The developer proposed 84 parking spaces for the site — about 2.8 spaces per dwelling — which the presenter said exceeds the RSIS standard the borough uses and an earlier Harrison Avenue plan. Parking would be provided in driveways and one‑car garages; market units were described as having three spaces (driveway plus garage) under the proposal. Internal private roads would be maintained by a homeowners association (HOA), and driveways would be rear‑entry to preserve a consistent streetscape.

Council members pressed the development team on several technical points. On emergency access, the developer said the internal courts are under 300 feet, so they would not include hammer‑head turnarounds and that fire apparatus could pull in and back out. On utilities and infrastructure, the presenters said the developer would pay for on‑site improvements and any necessary water‑main or sewer upgrades that are triggered by the project, and that environmental remediation — if required by site investigations — would be addressed to the applicable standards before construction.

An analyst who presented tax and school‑impact figures told council the three lots had a combined assessed value of about $1.9 million and used a conservative tax‑valuation approach to project roughly $450,000 in additional municipal tax revenue annually under the scenario shown. Using a Rutgers student‑generation multiplier cited by the presenter, the analysis estimated roughly 5–7 additional public‑school students could be generated by the development; the presenter used a cited per‑pupil spending figure to illustrate that the estimated incremental school cost would be substantially less than the projected municipal tax gain under the conservative assumptions described.

On process and timing, the developer asked the governing body to direct the borough planner to prepare a redevelopment plan that would enable the project. The presenters said they would pursue planning‑board and other required approvals and aim to complete full site work and vertical construction within about 24 months from approvals, with initial phasing around building pads of six to seven units. The team said they were not requesting a PILOT agreement at this time.

The presentation concluded with council and public questions about aesthetics adjacent to an existing auto‑repair site, landscaping and screening, the mix and pricing of the affordable units (which the presenter said will comply with state rules), and financing considerations. The developer emphasized contract deadlines and requested timely consideration from the borough.

Next steps: the council may decide whether to direct staff to prepare a redevelopment plan and to refer the concept to planning and engineering staff for technical review and required environmental or traffic studies.