A plan proposing to replace street parking with dedicated bike lanes on residential streets all over town will be reviewed this Monday during the Planning Board's virtual meeting. You may see streets effected on page 14 of the plan below. If you want to maintain parking on your street you need to speak out during public comment at this meeting and contact your Councilor.

Montclair's public parking is continually under assault by developers attempting to justify building less parking spaces than required by law for apartment projects by claiming people " dont want cars". Some people like to walk and some like to bike... "if weather permits".... but cars are used 24/7. Cities with extensive bike lanes such as NYC have alternative transportation available when biking or walking is not possible.

Montclair streets were designed in the 1800s and built for horses and carriages. There will never be enough space for every group demanding special accommodations. Eliminating one lane of parking on streets will have many consequences. Currently when parking is not used that lane and space provides for vehicles to pass, deliver, provide lawn service just to name a few.

Those of us who enjoy biking have Montclair and Essex County parks expressly made for safe walking and biking.

You may watch this meeting on Channel 34 at 7:30 Monday or on your computer via Montclair Government Youtube. You may comment via phone or as per directions here in the town site. Its essential that those wishing to maintain street parking is heard from.

See this link for directions to view meeting on your computer and call in to speak. See page 14 for SAFE Complete Streets for on left side of Planning Board town page.
https://montclairnjusa.org/government/boards_and_commissions/planning_board/agendas

How much can tax payers or the town bear?  Last week, during a teleconference meeting the Council approved a rent control ordinance in buildings with 4 or more units, capping rent increases at 4.25% and at 2.50% if anyone over age 65 years lives in the unit.  Town tax revenue will be reduced as rental revenues decrease in buildings.  Someone has to make up the difference.

According the Montclair Local, the 2016 census reported, 42% of town residents rent and with 13.2% in 2 units buildings and 10.2% in 3-4 unit buildings. That means 58% of town residents are buying their home…and investing in Montclair.  Representatives are responding to tenants’ complaints but what do people say who will pay for it?  

Rent control has been debated for decades and consistently voted down by Montclair residents as a referendum on the ballet.  Now its approved by the Council just a month before the town election May 12 and during this extraordinary time when residents have to remain home.  Proposals for rent control came from both mayoral candidates and a proposal was approved by those councilors running for re-election.  The mayor and one councilor chose to abstain who are not running.  

" We need more ratables" was the mantra pro-development advocates used to justify large scale development to increase the town's tax base..  How does causing taxes revenues to come down on apartment buildings fit this objective?

According to the NJ Assessor’s Handbook, residential property with 5 or more units are assessed or valued with an income approach.   Four unit properties are valued with an approach using both income and sales and 1-3 units valued with a sales approach only.

Montclair’s Municipal Assessor, George Librizzi, CTA, IFAS, SCGREA stated, “Rent control will eventually shift some tax burden to property with 4 units and less; when that happens, depends on economic and market conditions.”  If the property’s revenue is constrained, then value of the property is constrained and consequently taxes which will be made up by smaller properties. 

Mr. Librizzi added, “A free market will find the right level of rent.”  Hundreds of apartments are now being built or are planned for in and surrounging Montclair. "Landlords will have to compete for the good tenants.”

Economic experts cannot predict market forces with recent weekly leaps in unemployment and a plunging economy. So why and why now? 

When someone pays less, others pay more.  Costs do not disappear.  Economic and racial diversity is valued in Montclair but how much will social engineering contribute to a gradual demise of the town’s popularity by intervening in market forces?  Most single family home owners in median priced homes, no matter what their ethnic group already flee Montclair taxes when their children graduate from high school, selling to young families who will also pay less taxes than the town incurs with the costs for public schooling.  We need empty nesters to stay in town and pay taxes to support the schools they no longer use. 

Montclair is full of good people who like to help others with affordable housing in Montclair; however costs and consequences seem ignored.   Affordable housing advocates press our town for more and more lower cost/ lower taxed housing.  Other tax payers have to make up the differences in services not covered by those lower taxes.  Montclair provides its share of government mandated affordable units.   
 
Advocates speak about the long list of people who need affordable housing and want to live in Montclair.  They also speak about those residents spending over 30% of income for housing and about life long residents who now cannot afford to stay.  It’s not unique to pay 30% in housing if you choose to live in popular area and retirees all over the Northeast leave their homes for less expensive states.    Many Montclair retirees move to more affordable local towns and still enjoy Montclair. There is an endless list of people who want what they cannot afford. We are all on that list.
 
That said, losing most empty nesters and seniors is very problematic.  Town finances need more residents paying taxes who support the schools but don't use them.  Montclair needs to work harder to be affordable for residents to stay and maintain the wide diversity of homes.

Several local realtors all say the same thing.  People choose Montclair for a variety of reasons:  its accessibility to Manhattan, the school system, a cosmopolitan feel, walkable business districts, parks and park like neighborhoods, a wealth of beautiful housing stock and its diversity.  

A group of landlords protesting the ordinance may appeal the new law in court and/or will collect signatures to put this on the ballot as a referendum for voters to decide. 
 
There is a policy debate.  Ask yourselves. 
1.       Is it the obligation of tax payers and the town's government to maintain our diversity and demographic character by redistributing taxes? 
2.       How much intervention in market forces can town residents afford to help people live here who otherwise cannot afford to?
3.       This proposal provides for a review in 10 years. Would it make more sense to have a short term rent control to restrict unjustifiable high rent increases until the market forces provide a path to the “right level of rent”? 
4.       Do we have the right to limit private property rights with rent control?
5.      Why now...during personal, family and an economic upheaval and when so many apartments are being developed in the area?
6.       Will landlords not want to rent to seniors since rents are more restrictive?  

What can you do to have a say?
1. Support the landlords appeal or sign their petition for a referendum to be on the ballet for voters to decide. 
2. Ask the Councilors why they think this ordinance is good for the town and their constituents.  
1st Ward Cllr. Hurlock: whurlock@montclairnjusa.org
2nd Ward Cllr. Schlager: robinschlager@montclairnjusa.org
3rd Ward Cllr. Spiller: sspiller@montclairnjusa.org 
4th Ward Cllr. Baskerville: rbaskerville@montclairnjusa.org
At-Large Robert J. Russo: rrusso@montclairnjusa.org 

See ordinance on town site Council agenda page for April 7 here. 
See video of April 7 Council meeting here or search in Youtube.com 

Here is another sad example of our Council not willing to confront the Township planning department for appearing to work on behalf of the developer, rather than protect the interests of town residents.  Rather than getting to the bottom of a potential manipulation during the planning process, they are attacking and attempting to discredit the source of information.

Prior to this week’s Planning Board review of the MC Residences, the 37 Orange Rd application by developers – a project with 46 residential units per acre, Martin Schwartz of the Planning Board stated before the hearing that he believed there may have been intentional staff manipulation that impacted the Council’s approval process for this project.   

See attached article here:

Mr. Schwartz spoke prior to the official hearing and announced that  18 units/ acre were originally intended in the Redevelopment Plan amendment for this neighborhood, both originally suggested by the Council and then agreed to by  the Planning Board.  Once discovered months ago, the Township Manager reportedly told Councilors he would investigate and report back why the 18 units per acre agreed to was not the determined Plan result.  However, no report was apparently given to Councilors which Mr. Schwartz publicly reported during Monday's PB meeting Sept 9, since he was advised by some that there was no report.   Since no corrective action was taken, the developer was able to move forward and gain approval for a much higher density than originally authorized.

The 37 Orange Road developers, Pinnacle Companies and Hampshire Companies, are also developers for Lackawanna Plaza. Pinnacle is a major developer for several major Montclair sites including the recently opened MC Hotel on Bloomfield Ave, The Sienna on Church and South Park, Valley and Bloom apartment complex and Pinnacle is currently building the Seymour St. project.

Our Town Planning Department is the key player in coordination and expediting of proper planning processes for the benefit of Montclair, not developers.  They are the professionals and experts hired to serve, advise and protect Montclair residents based on township interests and master plan goals. 
 
View the video of the statement by Martin Schwartz just a few minutes into Monday’s planning board, prior to 37 Orange Rd application review by the Board here 
 
Read the conflicting exchange of statements between Mr. Schwartz and Township
​here.  

Residents need to know the Planning Department is serving them. Voters need to get answers and action from our Council.  Ask questions:   
​ 
Mayor Robert Jackson: rjackson@montclairnjusa.org
1st Ward Cllr. Hurlock: whurlock@montclairnjusa.org
2nd Ward Cllr. Schlager: robinschlager@montclairnjusa.org
3rd Ward Cllr. Spiller: sspiller@montclairnjusa.org 
4th Ward Cllr. Baskerville: rbaskerville@montclairnjusa.org
At-Large Robert J. Russo: rrusso@montclairnjusa.org
At-Large Rich McMahon: rmcmahon@montclairnjusa.org
 
 
​

​ABetterLackawanna group of dedicated residents now have a website for residents to review and join the complaint seeking to appeal the approved plan for Lackawanna Plaza.  Plaintiffs are not financially obligated.
Our Council needs to hear from you.
​
Deadline is this Thursday, July 18th to be listed as a plaintiff on the amended filing of the suit. 

Those who previously sent in their names and street addresses also need to provide an official signature to be listed formally as a plaintiff and may now do so electronically.

Go to www.abetterlackawanna.org to review complaint items and sign to be heard and support those residents working hard for a better downtown.  

Please forward this to others willing to stand for a better Montclair.

***Refer others to www.SaveMontclair.org for recent history of development in Montclair and to Join Us for updates.

​Residents who comprehend what brings people to Montclair can only be shocked and question why more residents, planning board members and elected officials do not stand up and fight to preserve what is valued in this unique and historic town. 

Lackawanna Station is listed as one of New Jersey's 10 most endangered historic sites in Montclair Patch article.

The April hearing at the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the so called Lloyd Estate or mega mansion plan has been rescheduled for May 15.  When a project becomes controversial such as this one, the applicant's attorney may use common strategies to frustrate and wear down opposition with delays.  Moving board reviews and decisions to summer or holiday periods eliminates the numbers of opponents willing to attend meetings. You may track any meeting changes and the agendas on the town site page for the Zoning Board of Adjustment or call the Planning Department to check for last minute changes. 
   
Zoning regulations are established to protect the town and neighboring property owners. Residents wishing to follow and/ or influence the plans need to show up at Zoning hearings.  The applicant will have experts explain how the plan will work while asking the Zoning Board to approve the required zoning variances for the off street parking, extra bulk and rear set back closer to the land reserve than zoning allows. 

The applicant will likely have an attorney presiding while experts testify how the plan will work in order to convince the board to approve it. The public will have an opportunity to ask questions of each expert after their testimony. You may also bring a sign to communicate your wishes but  well thought out questions from the public can provide information and influence board decisions. 

See Montclair Local article for plan information here.
***Please pass to residents to Join Us. Like Us on Facebook.

A Deputy Director of Preservation at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and Montclair resident, Caroline Kane Levy says Lackawanna developer failed to satisfy the heavy burden of proof for the both a parking variance and demolition of a historic site and the Planning Board did not do its job in demanding proof. The developer’s variances are directly tied to the demolition of a historic structure important to the town and region and are asking for a 400 car parking variance in an already parking-starved downtown. Ms. Levy explains that:

1. A variance should be granted only if there is not "substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
2. A developer seeking a variance must meet strict standards under the NJ Municipal Land Use Law based on hardship and therefore cannot self-create an undue hardship for a supermarket, such as eliminating existing the parking across Grove Street for a new residential development.
3. Historic preservation law, including Montclair’s ordinance requires that the developer has the burden to show that an important and vital historic building cannot be retained and reused.

Ms. Levy says the above are substantive reasons why the Planning Board’s decision was flawed but there are procedural reasons as well.

1. The applicant never revealed a tenant until the last possible minute and that a supermarket representative was not allowed to be questioned or to affirm the claims of the developer.
2. The Township Council voting ahead of the Planning Board by passing a Council resolution to urge the expedited approval by the board of this ill-conceived plan.
3. The aggressively prejudicial way Chairman Wynn led the meetings, opening each meeting with a statement that he expects the applicants to sue, refusing the Historic Preservation Commission's request to allow additional expert witnesses, and not allowing members of the public speak who did not live in Montclair which is not accounted for in the planning board bylaws.
4. Instead of doing research himself, the Planning Board’s attorney told the applicant to prepare a report on whether there may in fact be easements or deed restrictions dating from the 1980s federally funded adaptive re-use, such as retaining public access through the tunnel under Grove Street, therefore taking the word of the developer.
5. At the last possible minute, the entire program was revised, to include a much smaller supermarket with very different loading and parking requirements, and a vote was taken without any questioning or time for additional review by other agencies or interested parties.
6. The Historic Preservation Commission has been marginalized during this entire process.
​
If the supermarket fails, the valuable historic asset will be gone and what will be left is a very large development site zoned for 6 stories with recommendation to consider up to 8 stories in the master plan guidelines.
​
See Ms. Levy entire article here.

​February 11, the Planning Board approved the Lackawanna Plaza plan allowing for the demolition of part of the train station stanchions for new parking spaces and a reduction of 400 parking spaces normally required for this type of plan. The planning board's own supermarket design consultant pointed out that this parking variance would not be needed if the supermarket was an appropriate size for this downtown location and no larger than 35000 square feet.  This approved plan now provides for a 29000 square foot supermarket with the balance of the 47000 square foot Pathmark space left without a the developer providing a plan.   

The Planning Board received pressure for months from various sources to make a decision because some local residents just wanted a supermarket.  Some stated that a compromise had already been given by the developer when the number of apartment units was reduced from 349 to 154.   Immediately prior to the planning board vote on February 11, Lidl supermarket was introduced as the intended market, a German chain and competitor of Aldi and Walmart.    Its very difficult for anyone as well as board members to sift through the facts and comprehend the implications of any complex decision in a high pressure environment.  We will all see what the implications of this decision over many years. 

Any developer has a strategy laid out by a professional team to ultimately obtain the goals for his property. Part of this strategy is to initially ask for much more than he actually expects then use board fatigue and resident pressure as advantages.  Lackawanna Plaza is now much more valuable property with a 400 parking variance and is zoned for 6 stories and with a recommendation to consider up to eight stories in the master plan for land use policy.  Recently, a Lidl representative said that he did not want to answer press questions because a lease had still not been finalized.  

See this article for thoughts from a professional in preservation.

First its the Lackawanna Station and now its historic homes.

​Now is the time to make it very clear to officials that we value Montclair’s history and assets. Let's do something about the demolitions and knock downs of our older homes and historic properties.  Your Township Council and Manager need to take immediate action. 

The “No Knock Down” law used to be in force but was removed in 2012 under this current Council’s  watch. A number of great older houses have been demolished since then. This protection needs to be reinstated.  This law provides for a review process to help control arbitrary demolition of valued historic properties.

This week’s knockdown and loss of two 19th and early 20th century historic homes on Undercliff and Lloyd Roads is a disgrace. By not ensuring that the legal protections were kept in place to prevent these and past tear-downs, they are not doing their job for this historic town.  Historic homes is one of our most important selling points when people visit and move here. It’s their job to preserve historic neighborhoods and those assets.   

Montclair is here for residents, not developers. Make this happen. Stop the destruction of our town. Send a letter or email now.
rjackson@montclairnjusa.org, rrusso@montclairnjusa.org, rmcmahon@montclairnjusa.org, whurlock@montclairnjusa.org, rschlager@montclairnjusa.org, sspiller@montclairnjusa.org, rbaskerville@montclairnjusa.org, Tstafford@montclairnjusa.org
​