NUTLEY, NJ — On Nov. 4, the township of Nutley approved a resolution authorizing a preliminary study to investigate the possibility of obtaining a portion of the former Hoffmann–La Roche site through the redevelopment process. This move comes after Nutley officials have long criticized the property’s redeveloper and owner, Prism Capital Partners, with claims that Prism is not redeveloping the property, which is in Nutley and Clifton, with a cohesive plan for the entirety of the property in a way that will positively impact both communities.
“This property is too significant not to get it right,” Nutley Mayor Mauro G. Tucci said Nov. 8. “What gets developed in and around this site will shape Nutley’s future for generations to come.”
The proposed area for study was declared a condemnation site in need of redevelopment in 2015; this move gave the municipality more control over the site’s future. This Nov. 4 resolution authorizes commencement of the condemnation process for the areas of the redevelopment property that are not subject to the already enacted redevelopment plans.
“As our residents know, the commissioners have been attempting to work with Prism for several years, trying to agree on a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the property,” Tucci said Nov. 8. “In the beginning, we were able to work cooperatively with Prism on certain matters, such as the financial agreements for the medical school, Ralph Lauren, Modern Meadow and the building soon to be occupied by Eisai Pharmaceuticals, including the parking deck that services those buildings. When requested by the developer, we expedited decisions to help him move these projects forward quickly.”
After several years of successful negotiations, however, relations between the town and the developer have come to an impasse, according to the municipality.
“Unfortunately, our efforts to work with Prism regarding the balance of the Roche site have not been successful,” Tucci said. “Rather than develop a comprehensive plan for the entire site, which would enable Nutley to understand the depth of the impact to be felt by Nutley residents, Prism has instead elected to move forward with piecemeal development, which will have a devastating traffic impact on our streets and stands to change the nature of this area of Nutley. When asked to address our traffic concerns and to work with us on solutions, we have been rebuffed at every turn.”
But Prism principal partner Eugene Diaz denied Nutley’s allegations of Prism being difficult to work with and instead accused the township of not working with Prism.
“We read with shock and disbelief the statements made by the township commissioners announcing an intent to acquire the remaining portions of the ON3 campus via the exercise of eminent domain. The commissioners continue to spread lies and falsehoods to cover up their own mismanagement of the single greatest economic development opportunity in Nutley for the past 50 years,” Diaz told the Nutley Journal in a statement on Nov. 12. “The commissioners have not attempted to work with Prism. In fact, the commissioners have refused to meet with Prism for the past two years. Instead the commissioners have spent more than $1 million of taxpayer money working with consultants that have produced absolutely nothing of value for the future of Nutley. The commissioners hide copies of studies that they refuse to disclose to Prism. Rather than engage in planning for the future of Nutley, the commissioners spend tax dollars on lawyers who have put forth challenges to every new development proposed in either Nutley or Clifton.”
Previously, for instance, Nutley officials voiced concerns regarding the addition of a Marriott hotel to the ON3 site, primarily citing increased traffic. The Nutley Board of Commissioners even appealed the application to build the hotel during the Clifton Planning Board meeting on Oct. 24, 2019. As the hotel’s footprint is in the Clifton section of ON3, Prism does not need approval from Nutley for this project, which was approved by Clifton.
But Nutley denies Prism’s claims that they have not met in two years.
“The commissioners have met with Prism on several occasions,” the municipality stated in a press release titled “ON3 Fiction vs. Fact.” “At our most recent meeting, the commissioners presented a concept to build a ramp from Route 3 westbound into and out of the site. Traffic experts agree this ramp would alleviate all traffic concerns for Nutley and allow a full buildout of ON3. Prism rejected the township’s concerns and solutions and inexplicably left the meeting.”
The township also denied spending tax dollars on lawyers to challenge every new development proposed at the site.
“While the township has retained counsel — with expertise in redevelopment litigation — to represent it in the process, many of the funds used to pay the attorneys have been and will continue to be reimbursed to the township by the current or future developer,” the statement read.
As with the concerns for the future Marriott hotel, traffic issues seem to be front and center in the dispute.
“We made commitments to make reasonable and necessary traffic improvements as shown in numerous traffic studies Prism has submitted to the township and the county with every application for development,” Diaz said. “In fact, Prism is undertaking more than $2 million of roadway improvements on Bloomfield Avenue, in connection with approvals granted by Clifton and Passaic counties. The commissioners have refused to act on any of these plans, and they have put forth no alternatives whatsoever to create value from these vacant parcels or to further its development as a cohesive and unified campus that can benefit all.”
In the ongoing back-and-forth, however, Nutley officials deny all of Diaz’s above statement.
“Prism has failed to provide a comprehensive traffic study for the site despite repeated requests from the township. Prism has continually denied possession of a comprehensive traffic study and called for Nutley to commission their own, which the township has done. Prism’s representatives have stated repeatedly, ‘Why should we fix any of the problem intersections when they were a problem 50 years ago?’” the township stated. “The Nutley commissioners have acted on numerous requests by the developer. … The commissioners have provided alternatives to traffic impacts including Metro Boulevard, Ideation Way, Kingsland Street and its intersecting roadways.”
In his statement, Diaz accuses the town of trying to shut down redevelopment entirely.
“It is clear from their legal strategy and their own inaction in addressing redevelopment of this campus for the past six years that the commissioners’ ideas of redevelopment are ‘no development,’” Diaz said. “They’ve attempted to illegally close the internal campus roadway system, the result of which would have been to overburden Passaic Avenue and Bloomfield Avenue with even more traffic. The closure of Metro Boulevard was thwarted by the court, who ruled in Prism’s and Clifton’s favor that Nutley lacks jurisdiction to close intermunicipal roadways.”
The town denies any illegal action.
“The township has done everything legally possible to protect the citizens of Nutley from the inevitable traffic and infrastructure burden that overdevelopment in Clifton would cause,” the town stated. “While surrounding municipalities reap the tax benefits, Nutley gets all the traffic — reminiscent of the Clifton Commons redevelopment bordering Nutley, near the intersection of Kingsland Street and Washington Avenue.”
Additionally, Diaz claims that for Nutley to purchase sections of ON3 through eminent domain would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but the town countered that these costs would be offset by borrowing and by finding a new developer.
“One thing is correct in (the town’s) statement: ‘This property is too significant not to get it right.’ Then why haven’t the commissioners put forth any ideas as to what they would like to see developed? It only took Prism 3.5 years to rebuild and repopulate the existing buildings in Nutley that were part of the prior Hoffmann–La Roche campus. Prism has attracted world-class companies to Nutley,” Diaz said. “It doesn’t take six years to figure out what else can be built on the Prism property. We have provided numerous ideas to the commissioners, only to be met with silence. The taxpayers of Nutley cannot afford to have the Prism property remain vacant. Further, with 1,000 unemployed people in Nutley, it is vital that development move forward swiftly. The fault does not lie with Prism, but with the commissioners.”
But the Nutley commissioners argue that all of their actions were for the benefit of Nutley residents.
“The ideas provided by Prism were for the profit of Prism and Prism only. While the developer relies on ‘higher taxes’ scare tactics to try and sway public opinion, the commissioners are focused on and dedicated to Nutley residents’ quality of life,” the town stated. ‘This is not about whose fault it is; this is about what’s best for Nutley. … Nutley has one chance to get this right. The township needs a developer that will be as concerned about the citizens of Nutley as they are about their profits.”
Photos Courtesy of Prism Capital Partners
Back-and-forth between Nutley and Prism continues added by Yael Katzwer on
View all posts by Yael Katzwer →