For more than four years, local residents, developers, and environmental activists have debated the fate of a lot that was intended for the construction of three condominium towers.
The lot, located at River Road and Bulls Ferry Road, was originally purchased by Riverview Development to construct a condominium complex.
The complex was to consist of three nine-story towers, 120 feet each, which could block the view of the Hudson River that many nearby homeowners – such as those situated in the Bergen Ridge community – currently enjoy.
The state Department of Environmental Protection had given the developers a permit to build in 2006. The developers planned to invest $200 million.
Since that time, the NY/NJ Baykeeper group – an environmental activist group – and the Bergen Ridge Homeowners Association have been protesting the development plans. Two years ago, they appealed the DEP’s decision.
“There is no new information – the Department has simply changed its mind.” – Riverview Development
____________
On Jan. 26 of this year, the DEP requested more information from all of the parties involved.
Two weeks ago, the DEP revoked the permit, disallowing any further construction by Riverview.
The DEP said it revoked the permit for two reasons: it concluded that the proposed development would cause too large a traffic increase, and that the bulk of the structures would run parallel along the Hudson River, violating a state rule regarding high rises.
The DEP explained that the permit had initially been authorized because Riverview had shown that the development would not cause a substantial change in traffic levels.
The future of the land
After the DEP made its decision, Riverview attorneys wrote a letter to the DEP explaining why they feel the decision is incorrect.
Scott Rekant, an attorney for Riverview, said that if the permit revocation is overturned, the developer “would seek to build a project consistent with its approvals.”
The complex, according to Riverview, would generate $5.5 million in tax revenue.
Phil Swibinski, a spokesman for Mayor Nicholas Sacco, did not want to comment last week on the town’s feeling about the development or the ruling.
“We are reviewing the DEP’s ruling,” Swibinski said, “and will be in contact with the developer to get an understanding of what their basis is for an appeal.”
Riverview initially purchased the land from the town. The town had no comment last week regarding whether they would buy the land back for any reason.
Christopher Len, an attorney for NY/NJ Baykeeper, said last week, “The appropriate thing for them to do would be to use it for what it’s suited for, which would be parkland.”
But the Bergen Ridge Homeowners Association is not against the lot being used for real estate development.
“They had a plan initially that had about 55 townhouses on it that weren’t too high and looked to be a decent project,” said Bergen Ridge attorney John Lamb. “Obviously the developer wants as many units as they can.”
Lamb said in a press release that his group was pleased with the decision. “Up against a well-financed developer,” the release said, “Bergen Ridge was the mouse that roared.”
Basis confusing
In Riverview’s letter to the DEP, they expressed that the traffic comments “cannot serve as a basis for suspension.” In regards to the high rise rule violation, “There is no new information – the department has simply changed its mind.”
Citing the Coastal Permit Program Rules, Riverview attorneys claim that “the Department must provide the Permittee with notice of its intent to revoke the permit and of the permittee’s right to a hearing prior to revocation becoming final.”
Riverview has therefore requested a hearing on the decision, believing that the DEP’s decision is “not in accordance with the law.”
When asked if the information regarding an increase in traffic had previously been available to the DEP, Lamb said, “They just ignored it [the information], even though we had raised it.”
Baykeeper Deputy Executive Director Greg Rimaud said of the decision, “The DEP made the right choice, halting a clearly illegal project on a piece of land it had long determined was only suitable for parkland.”
Stephen LaMarca may be reached ateditorial@hudsonreporter.com.