Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts Resolution 25-55 addressing DCA affordable‑housing number; borough to seek vacant‑land adjustment
Summary
Woodcliff Lake Council adopted Resolution 25-55 after a presentation from council leadership that the Department of Community Affairs 423-unit figure can be reduced through technical adjustments to 329 and that the borough will pursue a vacant‑land adjustment (estimated around 80 units including bonus credits) ahead of the June 30 deadline to seek immunity from builder‑remedy exposure.
The Woodcliff Lake Borough Council voted to adopt Resolution 25-55, a non‑consent action that addresses the borough's fourth‑round affordable‑housing number from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The motion passed on a recorded roll call; all members present voted yes.
Council President Stern explained the borough's analysis of the DCA figure and the next procedural steps. "The Department of Community Affairs number was 423," Stern said. He outlined that borough staff and consultants identified instances where DCA had included certain lands (notably within the 300‑foot reservoir buffer and a pond in Wooddale Park) that the borough maintains should not have been included; removing those areas reduced the borough's internal figure to 349. After applying updated census inputs the number fell to 329.
Stern said the borough will prepare and submit a vacant‑land adjustment by the June 30 deadline, a procedural step the council expects will further reduce the site‑capacity calculation to an estimated total near 80 units after bonus credits are counted. He framed the objective as seeking municipal control of zoning outcomes and avoiding a builder's‑remedy imposition: "We believe we can meet that number by the June 30th deadline and secure immunity from builder remedy until 2035," Stern said.
Council members noted the town's prior actions, reviewed legal options the borough considered (including a decision not to join a neighboring suit), and thanked the planning consultants and municipal attorney for their work. The council emphasized that the 80‑unit estimate is not a commitment to build 80 affordable houses but a target in the vacant‑land adjustment calculation that includes bonus credits and other technical adjustments.
A roll call recorded the yes votes as: Mr. Bano; M. Brodsky; Mr. Marolas Marsh; Mr. Poock; and Mr. Stern. Following the roll call the council adjourned.
Next steps described in the meeting included preparing the vacant‑land adjustment submission for the June 30 deadline and continued coordination with planning consultants and the borough attorney; no additional binding land‑use approvals were taken at this meeting.
