Notes below about the township’s Label Street study was done to seek designation so 3 story zoning can be ignored. See previous notice above on this page. 
 
The Township’s March study for the Label Street area cites the “New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan” (2001), and highlights 6 of that plan’s 11 Policy Objectives, which the Township study considers most relevant to Label Street Redevelopment. But it fails to mention Policy Objective 9, which stipulates the importance of historic preservation. We believe this is highly relevant to any redevelopment of the Label Street area.
 
The Township study points out that in the State plan, Essex County is classified as a Metropolitan Planning Area PA1, and cited several of the 11 Policy Objectives for such an area. It neglected to mention:
 
Policy Objective 9:  Historic Preservation: “Encourage the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic or significant buildings, Historic and Cultural Sites, neighborhoods and districts in ways that will not compromise either the historic resource or the area’s ability to redevelop. Coordinate historic preservation with tourism efforts.” (Print Page 191/ Digital Page 225) Here is the State study: https://nj.gov/state/planning/assets/docs/2001-state-plan/stateplan030101.pdf
 
More broadly, on a Statewide basis, going beyond just Metropolitan Planning Area PA1, the State plan cites 8 overall “Statewide Goals, Strategies and Policies.” Goal 7 is “Preserve and Enhance Areas with Historic, Cultural, Scenic, Open Space and Recreational Value”:
 
Goal 7’s Strategy: “Enhance, preserve and use historic, cultural, scenic, open space and recreational assets by collaborative planning, design, investment and management techniques. Locate and design development and redevelopment and supporting infrastructure to improve access to and protect these sites. Support the important role of the arts in contributing to community life and civic beauty.”  (Page 87)
 
Goal 7’s Vision for Historic Preservation: “In 2020, historic sites and districts are given special recognition in their communities and are integrated into local zoning and development strategies. Seeking to maximize the unique character of their communities, nearly all municipalities in New Jersey have enacted ordinances recognizing the value of local history and providing limited protection of historic resources. In addition, these communities have conducted surveys to identify and map the location of sites, landmarks and districts as part of the master plan process. Utilizing the state’s building code that enables economically viable rehabilitation of historic properties, builders and developers embrace the ideals of conserving resources by revitalizing existing neighborhoods. Creative use of building codes now encourages the retention of the historic fabric of our communities. Development projects around the state provide for archeological investigations and on-site public observation, enhancing the understanding of our past and increasing the awareness of the current cultural diversity of the state.” (Page 87)
 
The State plan also outlines 19 Statewide Policy Categories.  No. 9 is “Historic, Cultural and Scenic Resources” (Page 144):
 
“Protect, enhance, and where appropriate rehabilitate historic, cultural and scenic resources by identifying, evaluating and registering significant historic, cultural and scenic landscapes, districts, structures, buildings, objects and sites and ensuring that new growth and development is compatible with historic, cultural and scenic values.”
 
Also, Statewide Policy Category No. 19 is “Design,” (Page 174), which includes as a subcategory Policy 10:
 
“Respecting Local Context and its Vernacular: Acknowledge and incorporate local history, climate, ecology, topography, building materials, building practices and local scale into the design of the built environment and the protection of the natural environment, where practicable and cost-effective.” (Page 178)
 
And Policy 19/Adaptive Reuse:
 
“Design and construct buildings in a way that will facilitate their adaptive reuse.” (Page 180)
 
Conclusion:
 
Based on the “New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan,” the State strongly recognizes the importance of historic preservation in such projects. Any consideration of redevelopment for the Label Street area should also embrace historic preservation and seek ways to enhance the historic industrial structures in the study area. 
***Please forward to other residents and Join Us to receive future notices about develpment.

This Monday, April 11 at 7:30 PM our Planning Board is scheduled to review two Walnut Street area land parcels proposed for a designation of “ Area in Need of Redevelopment” or ANR so 3 story zoning restrictions can be officially ignored. 
One parcel is half the block between Label and Oak Place including vacant restaurant and second parcel is empty lot on Forest and Oak Place corner. A developer has a plan already in place for an 8 story building.  This building would replace the factory building currently housing 16 businesses at older construction rental rates.  The proposed building is shown here.

The ANR designation is meant to provide financial incentives and flexibility to attract development for dilapidated, dangerous or abandoned property which would otherwise be of no interest to developers.   
In this case the ANR designation would help a developer’s interests but alter the charm of this successful mixed-use neighborhood as well as add congestion to the adjacent residential streets. If the ANR designation is stopped Monday night by the Planning Board and not recommended this kind of building cannot be built.
Residents need to voice opposition by calling into Mondays meeting. Find directions on Planning Board page under Agendas in on the town site here.

***Please forward this to other residents and Join Us to receive future notices about town development.

Additionally the Depot Square station parking lot/ farmers market area has been proposed for designation of “area in need of rehabilitation”, with similar incentives.  

Here is how this happens.

 1st   A property owner approaches our own town planner about what they want to do outside of our zoning restrictions, which exist to protect all area property owners.  Zoning is determined by the Planning Board as the most appropriate land use setting for that part of the community.

 2nd  The planner now comes to the Council with a proposal to study the area to support a proposal for ANR designation. The planner hires an outside agency for the study which almost always recommends a designation.  All Councilors and the Mayor approved this study.

 3rd    The developer then brings the development proposal to the Planning Board with few restrictions including heights, parking requirements and preservation laws.  

Unfortunately, high rise development has been proposed in town since the Mayor Fried administration hired an urban town planner prior to 2012 experienced in planning Hoboken development.  During the the Jackson administration in 2013-2015 residents all over town pushed back hard to stop rezoning to allow 7-12 story high density building in business districts throughout the township in the new Montclair masterplan. In 2014, in one planning board meeting scheduled during Thanksgiving week, sixteen ANRs were designated in our downtown Bloomfield Ave area and adjacent neighborhoods making zoning immaterial for these properties.

Transit Oriented Development or TODs has also been promoted here since 2012.   NJ Transit funded many NJ town masterplans to support this  which resulted in confusing, complex and overly technical masterplan documents with high density development around train stations.  Montclair was of special interest since we have six train stations.  Montclair was one of only 3 towns in the state that our Council actually approved using the 200-page masterplan funded by NJ Transit, replacing our previous, easy to understand masterplans with a few pages.  “It’s all about fannies in the seat”,  the NJ Transit property manager told this writer.  More history of development in town can be found on the SaveMontclair.org site. Join Us to receive future notices about development.

Since 2012 the township planner and four of the holdover current Councilors from the past administration have heard residents all over town fight over development and zoning for high density;  Sean Spiller, Bill Hurlock, Robin Schlager and Bob Russo have all heard ongoing resident anger and dismay about continued proposals and oversized projects. They’ve heard it over and over, night after night; sometimes with 150 or 200 residents attending board and ward meetings… “We did not move to Montclair to live in a city”.  

Residents can participate in the Planning Board meeting Monday at 7:30 PM by following directions on the Planning Board page of town site here.  Sometimes the PB meeting schedule or agenda changes with little or no notice so check this site again Monday. The study for ANR designation and maps can be found town site on the Planning Board page here.

***Please forward this email to other residents and call in Monday night to stop the ANR designation.
​
***Join Us to receive future notices about town development.
 
 

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.