Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning Settlement 660 Passaic topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board to consider dismissal tied to 660 Passaic settlement that rezoned site for 32 townhouses with seven affordable units

Township of Washington Zoning Board · May 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board reviewed a settlement that rezoned 660 Passaic to permit a 32-unit inclusionary townhouse development with a minimum of seven affordable units; because the board is a named party in litigation it will meet in a special session (target June 4) to consider formally signing off on the dismissal.

The Township of Washington Zoning Board discussed on May 19 a settlement tied to pending litigation over a long-disputed proposal at 660 Passaic.

Board members said the mayor and council have rezoned the parcel under a settlement intended to partially resolve an appeal of the board’s prior denial of a shopping-center proposal. Under the settlement as described to the board, the applicant has agreed to apply to the planning board for a 32-unit inclusionary townhouse development that would include a minimum of seven affordable units; the town will receive affordable-housing credit if the plan proceeds as described.

Because the zoning board is a named party in the appeal, the board must take a formal, ministerial step to remove itself from the litigation if it concurs with the dismissal. Members noted a risk: if the board declines to sign the dismissal and a judge later rules for the appellant on the original case, the result could be remand and a different outcome for the property. Chairman Guest urged members to raise any legal objections grounded in evidence; absent such a reason the board’s action would likely be procedural.

The settlement documents had arrived shortly before the meeting, so members agreed to hold a special meeting to review the written agreement, to allow township counsel to appear and answer questions, and to ensure proper notice and quorum. The board discussed possible dates and targeted a special meeting for June 4, subject to public-notice requirements and member availability.

No formal dismissal or vote occurred at the May 19 meeting; the board will consider the written settlement at the special meeting and may be asked to execute the dismissal as a ministerial step if members have no legal grounds to object.