Old Tappan council approves settlement to resolve lawsuit over proposed assisted-living project at 244 Old Tappan Road

The Borough of Old Tappan Mayor and Council voted to authorize a consent judgment settling litigation with CSH Old Tappan LLC over a proposed assisted-living facility at 244 Old Tappan Road. Mary McDonald, litigation counsel for the borough, told the council that “the sole purpose of this meeting tonight is for the council to vote on the proposed settlement that’s been negotiated by the parties and their counsel.”

The settlement, as presented by borough counsel and the parties’ attorneys, preserves the previously approved site plan except for the relocation of a historic house to remain on the same side of the street and a corresponding shift of the required detention basin. The agreement also conveys approximately 2.2 acres of the site to the borough for open-space use, counsel said. Ms. Price, who spoke for the applicant’s side in the meeting, said the developer’s client “is fully prepared to abide by those terms” and that a licensed, insured and bonded firm would be engaged to move the house.

Council members framed the vote as a choice between settling and accepting financial risk. A council member summarized the legal advice they had received, saying in the meeting that “we’ll likely lose this case and the town would be on the hook for millions of dollars of damages,” and described settlement as the option that minimized fiscal exposure to the borough.

Residents gave extended public comment before the vote. Speakers raised alternatives, including locating the facility in an existing vacant building at a nearby plaza; questioned whether the new owner or investors have the funds to complete the project; urged stronger guarantees and bonds to protect the borough if the house is damaged in a move; and raised environmental and stormwater impacts to nearby Lake View. Public commenters who identified themselves included Johan bger, who urged considering the vacant Foodtown/State Plaza site; Brian mirandy, who objected to private individuals being named in the suit and requested transparency about ownership; Angeline Sheridan and Jane Cho, who requested financial guarantees and protections for the historic house; and H Gand, representing the Bergen County Historical Society, who warned that developers sometimes fail to follow through on preservation promises.

The resolution on the floor authorized the mayor and borough clerk to execute the consent judgment and settlement. Councilman Bo read the resolution, which restated the planning-board history (approval on Feb. 8, 2023), the council’s reversal on Aug. 7, 2023, and the subsequent Superior Court litigation (docket BL-4189-D/23). In discussion members emphasized that settlement produced conditions favorable to the borough, including the acreage conveyance and financial guarantees tied to the house relocation and site modifications.

A roll-call vote recorded affirmative votes and the resolution was adopted. The transcript records the vote as “I vote yes,” followed by “Councilman Marty yes, Councilwoman Misso yes, Councilman You yes.” The resolution was approved and the meeting moved to a planning-board special meeting to consider the modified site plan.

The council adjourned after the vote. The planning board expected to hold a public meeting immediately afterward to consider the amended site plan and any remaining public comment.

What’s next: the settlement requires the planning board to consider a modified site plan consistent with the agreement and the conveyance and house-move provisions to be completed under the terms outlined in the consent judgment (developer funding and mover qualifications were discussed but specific investor identities and full funding guarantees were described in the meeting as not fully disclosed).