ONCE AGAIN IMPORTANT TO LOBBY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON LACKAWANNA PLAZA BEFORE MON, OCTOBER 23.
The Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment is the only remaining opportunity to enhance our downtown town center on such a large scale. There is no question it will add to congestion and density, creating more difficulty for current residents to maneuver and enjoy our downtown. For these reasons, our representatives need to assure voters that benefits will make it fully worthwhile. (Please Join Us for updates and see more history of the issues impacting Montclair’s development. Like Us on Facebook. Since the Council did not allow the Planning Board more than one review session of the initial Redevelopment Plan draft in June, it is necessary now that the plan be fully reviewed again in full detail including the best practices for due diligence. The Town Council has referred the Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment plan draft back to their Economic Development Sub-Committee for review October 23rd, hopefully before it goes again to the Planning Board, likely sometime in November. The EDC includes Renee Baskerville, Robin Schlager and Sean Spiller who is being asked to modify the Plan draft to reflect the Council’s decision to accept much of the Planning Board’s June recommendations from their first and only review session as required by the Council's time restriction. However, this plan still does not reflect what residents have overwhelmingly asked for in vision workshops and in review meetings. It still provides for 280 residential units to be developed. This density issue and others require more time for consideration and review of all the Plan details, to better shape and make this very important project optimized for the town’s maximum benefit. What justification is there to press our Planning Board to make quick decisions about such an important project when actual development is really 3-5 years out. This same developer has the Seymour Street project as its current priority which has received final approval, but is not yet underway. Now is the time to remind officials again what voters and current residents want. Its important to take some time to do that before October 23. Reach out to the Councilors once again asking them to listen to what voters want and let the Planning Board have what time is required to provide the best plan. Successful growth requires the right kind of balanced development in order to both enhance neighborhoods and also improve the fiscal health of our town. Residents want a Redevelopment Plan here that reflects what was said in the Lackawanna Plaza visioning workshops and a town center they can be proud of. That’s why we need to communicate to representatives: 1.Insist the developer hire a preservation architect with substantial experience designing plans for urban preservation and restoration projects so that the historic train station and other elements are the aesthetic focal point of this project, as was requested by our town’s Historic Preservation Commission. 2.Reduce the number of residential units to maximum of 200 to best achieve an attractive and moderate density development in our lower town center. 3.Support adding more open spaces and daylight Tony’s Brook where it makes sense to create park and gathering spaces, both to enhance the Plaza and the surrounding neighborhoods. 4.Design walkable connections to Crane Park and Glen Ridge Ave to encourage more foot and shopping traffic flowing throughout the entire downtown. 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 (LikeUs on Facebook and Join Us for updates and see more history of the issues impacting Montclair’s development. Lackawanna Plaza is on agenda again for next week’s Planning Board meeting, Monday, Sept 11, 7:30 at 205 Claremont Ave.
The Council's Economic Development Committee is expected to attend in order to respond to the Planning Board’s list of many objections about the Redevelopment Plan for the area. The EDC, a Council subcommittee which includes Councilors Sean Spiller, Robin Schlager and Renee Baskerville) is responsible for fiscal growth and business development efforts for the Township. The Planning Board’s objections included the lack of adherence to Montclair’s master plan which guides policy direction for what Montclair should look like in the future. Additional criticisms stated that this plan diminishes the importance of the historic train station elements, while allowing overpowering structures and building mass. This early stage of the planning process is extremely important since it ultimately approves the heights and bulk of buildings. (Please pass to other residents. Join Us for updates and see more history of the widespread town development on www.SaveMontclair.org and Like Us on Facebook.) The Planning Board effectively rejected the Council’s Plan, as a whole. It is still unclear how the Council will respond to the Planning Board’s comprehensive rejection of their Lackawanna Plaza Plan. Normally our Township Council ultimately approves redevelopment plans after the planning department drafts them and the Planning Board revises and edits them through public review meetings. Usually the Council follows vetted planning board recommendations. In this case, however the Council has taken control. The Council hired a firm to draft a plan and imposed immediate and hard deadlines on the planning board. This effectively short circuited a comprehensive planning board review process. The Council’s Plan is also criticized for primarily mirroring what the developer wants including 350 residential units. The Council took this action after a lengthy and unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a municipal center to be built on the site by property owner and developer. Pressure on the Council evolved for a local supermarket after the Pathmark closed and the property owner would not agree to provide a temporary grocer at the site. Residents keep asking, “why are they pushing this when residents overwhelmingly do not want it”? Why does the Council support this unwanted plan? Mayor Jackson told residents that the town will have more flexibility to get what it wants, by designating various “redevelopment areas” in town. Residents hear from officials that “we need more ratings” but does this justify out of character, oversized development. Residents need to keep asking our officials to represent their constituents and do what is right for the town. “Its not what you say, its how you vote”. Successful growth requires the right kind and the right amount of development to enhance neighborhoods and fiscal health. Residents want a plan that reflects what was said in the Lackawanna Plaza visioning workshop and a town center to be proud of. We want officials who represent us: 1.Stop short circuiting the planning board reviews with unreasonable deadlines. Allow the planning board time to do their job well. 2.Ask the developer to hire a preservation planner/ architect to design the plan with the historic train station and elements refurbished and the focal point of the whole project. 3.Reduce residential units to maximum of 200 and achieve an attractive development in our town center. 4.Support adding more open space and daylight Tony’s Brook to create park and gathering spaces to enhancing the Plaza and surrounding neighborhoods. 5.Design connections to Crane Park and Glen Ridge Ave to encourage foot traffic throughout the downtown. If you cannot attend Monday's meeting, watch it on TV 34 but be sure to communicate with officials. Remember that this stage of development determines the footprint and bulk of buildings. (Please pass to other residents. LikeUs on Facebook and Join Us for updates and see more history of the widespread town development on www.SaveMontclair.org.) 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@montnjusa.org At-Large Rich McMahon: rmcmahon@montclairnjusa.org The Township Council previously said it would review a final Redevelopment Plan created for Lackawanna Plaza this Tuesday, July 25th. However, only about a month ago, the Council asked our Planning Board to review and make recommendations about this newly written Plan -- which meant only 1 to 2 meetings. However, this stage of the Plan approval is most important as it really determines the footprint, heights and bulk of the project. One or two meetings is hardly enough to understand and decide what works best for the town and finalize the level of detail needed in a redevelopment plan of this scope and magnitude.
In addition, this current plan was written by the consulting firm hired by the Council. Unfortunately, it reflects what the developer wants, not what residents had told town leaders they wanted in previous meetings and visioning sessions. It’s hard to excuse or justify why our Mayor and Council want to bypass the full due diligence process for Lackawanna Plaza, but a badly needed supermarket which is years away does not begin to explain it. Full Planning Board reviews provide the opportunity for residents and board members to review and respond to protect and enhance neighborhoods and seek the best for our town’s future. During 2013 and 2014 planning board meetings reviewing drafts of the master plan, it was clear most members of the planning either board kept quiet or were supportive of the mayor’s and town planner’s quest to increase zoning heights all over town. At that time, development was approved with little consideration for concerns of residents asking to preserve the quality of life people chose to live here for. Residents complained then, as they do now that development focused on bringing in lots of new residents and not enhancing neighborhoods or caring what current residents wanted. State required “ visioning workshops” were set up to allow residents to voice concerns for what they wanted. Officials claimed few new kids will use the already crowded schools and that the new residents don’t want cars. Promoters and NJ Transit talked about lots of amenities in new “ Transit Oriented Development” but actual plans just show 100s of new apartments, very little commercial space and more justifications for too little parking. Each of the previous developments meant more public parking spaces sold as “permit only”. During the last three years, the Council approved new planning board members that residents asked for, with a more pro-quality of life viewpoint. Our new Planning Board today has worked conscientiously to better understand and negotiate with developers more of what residents wanted: less bulky structures with more tasteful designs fitting the neighborhood character. However, this takes months of back and forth reviews -- especially in cases like those developments from Hampshire and Pinnacle, since their initial plans have little consideration for a neighborhoods and start with massive oversized footprints and heights. Pinnacle built Valley and Bloom which was initially approved by the earlier planning board members and final plans approved by this same Council as reported here. We need to keep asking our Mayor and Council to let our Boards and Historic Preservation Commission to do their job and not bypass those due diligence reviews and procedures that can protect our town, our property owners and residents. This Council has now helped provide a planning board that finally cares about our neighborhoods and residents -- so let them to their job. The town website Council page provides the agenda and as of Saturday morning, Lackawanna Plaza is not listed however public comments are scheduled. Speak out Tuesday night ( 7PM at town hall) during public comments. Tell them to let the Planning Board and HPC do their work. Ask them to represent their constituents and not just the developer. Call (973) 509-4901 for your representative’s name. 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 Ask your mayor and council representatives to explain what reasons they have to push their own Lackawanna Plaza plan against overwhelming opposition.....why do they only support what the developer wants who brought us the highly criticized Valley and Bloom project.... and once again an over sized, bulky plan. This first stage of approval ( Council could vote very soon) of the Redevelopment Plan will determine the height and bulk of any construction for Lackawanna Plaza. Later stages or site plans will determine the details of design, circulation etc. It takes 4 votes of the 7 member Council to approve this. Mayor Jackson and Rich McMahon have been historically been open about wanting large scale development in Montclair. That said, individual ward representatives are key to what happens in their ward. Its not what you say....”its what you do...or how you vote.” Mayor Jackson told residents that “the town will have more control” when he proposed “Redevelopment Area” designations in town. Is “ the town” a few elected officials?? Now instead of listening to what residents wanted during the Plaza“ visioning workshops” and Master Plan reviews, the Mayor and Council push a plan for 350 new apartments in Lackawanna Plaza...adding to another 1075 apartments planned in our downtown, according to a planning board member, Carmel Loughman. Residents have consistently complained about adding congestion and higher density and about wanting open space. A Council vote may be imminent in coming weeks for this unwanted plan. DO WHAT YOU CAN BUT ....DO SOMETHING Ask Council members to meet with you in a small group. Write to your representatives and Mayor Jackson. Attend a meeting below, speak out or hold a sign up. We all need to tell our officials to: 1.Stop bypassing the Planning Board and let them do their job for the town. 2.Stop ignoring what residents overwhelmingly want. 3.Stop ignoring what our Historic Preservation Commission recommendations for this nationally, state and locally registered historic Station which made Montclair into the nation’s early commuter town. 4.Stop ignoring Montclair’s Master Plan’s official land use guidelines. 5.Stop pushing for only what the developer wants. This can be a wonderful opportunity to enhance our downtown with a development to be proud of and the Station at the center piece. Important Meeting Schedule. June 26 Planning Board was required by Council to review and provide recommendations for a Plan supporting what the developer wants and written by a planning firm hired by the Council. An alternate plan which incorporated what residents and HPC wanted had already been rejected by the Council. Mon, July 10, 7:30 Planning board finalizes Council Resolution with its recommendations after just one review meeting as Council required, short circuiting the normal process of several months of reviews. Tues, July 11, 7PM Council Conference meeting in town hall, 2nd floor. Residents normally may speak on any topic. See town site for agenda. Tues, July 25, 7PM Council Regular meeting in town hall. Residents may speak during public comment. See town site for agenda. **See the town site’s appropriate page for meeting agendas and changes which are usually posted just 1-2 days before. Call (973) 509-4901 if you need your representative’s name. 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 Township Council short circuits Planning Board Lackawanna Plaza review process for the Redevelopment Plan.
Township Council ignores residents and Historic Preservation Commission wishes to preserve and showcase site assets. Township Council’s own plan downgrades Lackawanna Station historic assets and the designated historic district. On May 23 the Council referred their own Redevelopment Plan for Lackawanna Plaza to the Planning Board telling the PB members they wanted comments by this Monday’s PB meeting June 26, not giving the Planning Board members the normal time for review for “do diligence” as has been done on other recent projects ie Seymour St and Lorraine Ave/Time Warner. This Plan was written by a planning firm hired by the Council. This is our downtown, a designated historic district and part of a ward that complains a lot about congestion, density and getting the short end of the stick. Lackawanna Plaza is an opportunity to enhance our downtown and showcase a historic site as part of an attractive public gathering place to be proud. We all know this area needs a grocer but no matter what is decided, any supermarket is years away. Most importantly, the retail food market industry is changing rapidly with competition from internet grocers and meal deliveries as well as lower profit margins and the inefficiencies and high cost of brick and mortar sites. Plans made today will likely be obsolete for construction 4 or 5 years off. Importantly, Lackawanna Plaza neighboring residents say “the lack of a supermarket is no excuse to fast track a unwanted plan” and development years away. A crucial part of the normal review process is public comment which provides information and direction to the Planning Board from residents with knowledge and neighborhood insight from those most effected. However in this case, since the Council has put a time restriction on the process, the Planning Board chair is advocating not having public comment. The Planning Board is the official body in towns that review and recommends land use policy. Voting members are volunteer residents approved by the Council. Others members are town employees or officials required to be members. Members bring relevant expertise, receive training and with experience become more knowledgable about implications of planning decisions. During the May 23 Council meeting Planning Board members, HPC members and residents spoke publicly with concerns about 349 new residential units planned for Lackawanna Plaza and the need to showcase the important historic assets. According to Mr. William Scott, an advocate for Affordable Housing, 1080 new units have been planned for Bloomfield Ave. You can find details of other plans here on the town site here http://www.montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=40&Itemid=611 Since March of 2013 residents have spoken consistently against oversized, out of place development when the master plan became public with rezoning business districts for much higher construction. The Mayor, Council and Planning Board has heard this loud and clear. During the last 2 years some Planning Board members have worked tirelessly to respond to resident wishes, improve building design, decrease bulk of proposed buildings and footprints of large sites. The Planning Board lowered the originally proposed heights in the new master plan but then Mayor Jackson advocated for several large areas downtown to be designated “ Redevelopment Areas” which allow an open door to the Township creating new zoning for these properties, outside of protective zoning restrictions. When residents voiced disapproval of these Redevelopment Area designations, Mayor Jackson said “the town” will have more control to get what it wants. Now is the time for residents to say to the Mayor and officials. “Residents are the town” and “ The town does not want this”. At town meetings, residents hear some council members remain silent and some say “ they understand” and “are on their side”, “ they have always been against over development” or ‘we cant do anything” however some records show they have voted for approvals as seen on Council records on this SaveMontclair site's Council Voting Records page. . This first step in approvals for Lackawanna Plaza is the most critical. The redevelopment plan ..the concept, footprint, bulk ie supermarket, about 350 apts within 2 buildings. Once this is approved the town is committed to that size, footprint, height and bulk. Later stages of review determine other details such as parking, traffic circulation and external design etc. Smith Maran Architecture and Interiors, a consulting architectural firm hired to work for the Council, provides recommendations on redevelopment. Smith Maran created an alternative redevelopment plan for Lackawanna Plaza based on community input from public workshops and feedback from the Planning Board Redevelopment Subcommittee which included Historic Preservation Commission representation. This plan highlighted and maintained the historic assets and pushed heights the middle of the blocks in order to reduce bulk near streets. Smith Maran’s plan was rejected by the Council and not referred to the Planning Board for consideration or comment. We have to ask ourselves and more importantly ask our elected officials why ??? Why did our mayor tell residents the town will have more control if we have “redevelopment areas” and now pushes for a widely unwanted plan. Why do some council representatives tell residents “Im on your side” or “I have always been against too much development” and then allow this proceed or vote to support it. Why do officials support a plan that disregards and degrades a widely valued significant town historic asset. Some answers lie in residents’ stressful lifestyles, long work days and lack of attention to town business and elections. In 2012, Mayor Jackson ran on a development platform and won with just 3842 votes of about 27,000 registered voters in town. In addition, our public school system and town employees make up a large percentage of voters and many vote based on a union recommendation. Previously Mayor Fried advocated bicycling and hired a town planner with high density urban planning experience from Jersey City who continues to be our town Planning Director. In the 2016 election incumbents ran unopposed except one ward. Residents are once again asking Mayor Jackson to listen to and support what most residents want, not just 3842 supporters in a town with a population over 38,000. What you can do: Contact Mayor Jackson and ward representatives and ask them to let the Planning Board do their work and make Lackawanna Plaza something to be proud of. Call (973) 509-4901 if you need your ward representative’s name. Most effective is to attend important meetings and speak out in public. This gives Planning Board direction to speak for the public rather from their own opinion, goes into public records and potentially into media. If you cannot attend a meeting, watch PB and Council meetings on TV 34 but its crucial to let your representatives know you want the Planning Board to be given time for the normal review process. Ask your Councillor to vote down any oversized, out of character plan . Ask to meet with your representatives to ask them to help stop this short circuited process but most importantly vote accordingly. Voting records, by law should be recorded in Council meeting minutes. Important meetings: Monday, June 26, Town Hall, 7:30, Planning Board reviews Council’s proposed plan but may not be public comment so bring a sign to speak for you. Tuesday, June 27, Fire Department Headquarters, 1 Pine Street, 7PM Renee Baskerville’s Community Meeting to discuss Lackawanna Plaza, the Rectory and Montclairion II, and a new application for a seven-unit townhouse development at 360 Orange Road. July 25, Regular Council Meeting with Public comment about any topic but it may be too late to change direction of this plan. See agendas on town site. July 11 Council Conference Meeting has no public comment. Mayor Robert Jackson: rjackson@montclairnjusa.org 1st Ward Cllr./ Deputy Mayor 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 Like Us on Facebook. The developer’s plan for Lackawanna Plaza will be presented to the Council for review this Tues, May 23 at 7PM in the town hall, 205 Claremont St. Here is the proposed development massing perspective at Grove and Bloomfield Avenues. An second view from above is here. It is important for Council members to be reminded what residents have said they wanted in this project.
Please plan to attend this meeting and speak. If necessary, you may view it on TV 34 but be sure to communicate with elected officials. Email addresses are on the town site. Lackawanna Plaza is one of several areas in town which were designated “redevelopment areas” while the master plan was being reviewed between 2013 and 2015. The most controversial part of the original 2013 master plan draft was raising zoning heights in all business districts and eventually heights were reduced. However “redevelopment areas” and “ areas in need to development” were designated which allow for deviations from local zoning restrictions. Many residents expressed concern about these designations. At that time, Mayor Jackson and other officials explained that this designation would allow the town to have more control. Since this is the case, it is the time to remind elected officials what has been already asked for by the public for Lackawanna Plaza during public outreach sessions. This is the time to come out and insist that this project be a crown jewel to be proud of. Lackawanna Plaza can be an exciting and beautiful destination as well as attractive gateway to our downtown. Pass this email to residents and especially those in the 4th ward. The proposal by Pinnacle/Hampshire would vastly overdevelop the site with bulky buildings adding 349 apartments in an already congested neighborhood, degrade the eastern gateway to Montclair, dwarf and disregard elements of the venerated historic train station, and shut the door to creative possibilities for a valuable amenity in the Fourth Ward and for the town as a whole. Significant concerns about developer’s proposal include: * Overly intensive development. The west and east parcels combined (7.5 acres) would have 349 apartments, 755 parking spaces, and 36,000 square feet of office and retail. The west parcel, with the historic station, would have a density that exceeds what zoning allows. This will bring traffic congestion and obstruct the historic setting and layout of the train terminal. * Excessive mass and bulk. The buildings proposed for the west parcel (train terminal) are monolithic and completely out of scale with the existing historic structures. Deeper setbacks are needed and bulk should be drastically reduced. * Insufficient common areas. More acreage is needed for common areas such as a train-themed playground, green space, cultural plaza and outdoor dining. These features could be a fabulous amenity to Fourth Ward residents and a destination for residents area-wide, making this a true legacy project. Presently, common areas are too small a component of this massive project. * Lack of respect for the historic train station. This 1912 station, designed by William Botsford and on the National Register of Historic Places, should be the jewel in the crown – the most prominent architectural feature – of this redevelopment, yet it has been subjugated entirely. View corridors and sightlines to the terminal, particularly the monumental Waiting Room, are blocked or interrupted by the vast mass and bulk of the proposed buildings. The plan has not adequately addressed how it will preserve and highlight historic components of the train station, such as the train station building, the train sheds, the track platforms, the steel piers that supported the canopies over the platforms, the horse trough, and the stairs to Grove Street. According to the Office of New Jersey Historic Preservation, the Lackawanna Station was once called the “ Handsomest and best arranged suburban railroad terminal in the United States.” * Location of the grocery store. Consider putting the grocery store east of Grove Street instead of next to the train station’s historic buildings. That east parcel is not within the Town Center Historic District and may be a more appropriate area for a modern supermarket. Part of the process for any development are meetings providing the opportunity for the public to say what they want in a project. Below is what the public requested in community outreach meetings for this project. Overall * Make Lackawanna Plaza less of a barrier, and better connect it to the surrounding community. * Create a vibrant place with a mix of uses that bring activity to the Plan Area. * Promote redevelopment opportunities that create a positive fiscal impact for Montclair, which will complement existing uses in the vicinity and improve the streetscapes within the Plan Area. * Provide a regulatory framework that fulfills the Township's vision for the Plan Area while accommodating market preferences and reasonable economic factors. * Protect and enhance historic aspects of the Plan Area through preservation and appropriate new development. * Coordinate redevelopment efforts for the entire Plan Area to minimize disturbance to surrounding residences and businesses during construction. Land Uses * Provide a land use mix that results in a sustainable positive fiscal and social impact for the Township of Montclair. * Ensure that one of the uses is for a quality grocery store and encourage supportive food-related uses. * Provide stores and services for local residents and workers while also drawing patrons from the broader community. * Provide plazas and public gathering spaces at key locations, connected by walkways to and through the site. * Provide mixed, multi-generational housing opportunities, with a variety of unit sizes ranging from small micro-units to larger three-bedroom units. * Provide affordable housing, including workforce housing. * Incorporate arts and culture into the redevelopment project, but do not compete with other redevelopment initiatives. * Encourage shared parking in structures that are hidden from view. * Create programmable indoor and outdoor spaces that provide for year-round multi- cultural and multi-generational events. Design * Require high-quality design and building materials that reflect historic local design and materials. * Reduce the existing block pattern with visual breaks and pedestrian connections through the Plan Area. * Provide bulk and setback regulations that allow reasonable development but reduce building mass and minimize impacts on adjoining areas. * Promote high-quality architectural design of new buildings that complements existing historic buildings in the Plan Area and vicinity. * Create an inviting and attractive pedestrian-oriented atmosphere at the sidewalk level. * Enhance the public realm by providing an attractive and welcoming pedestrian environment through active ground floor uses and public spaces. * Minimize the amount of street frontage devoted to driveways, parking garages and loading areas. * Preserve and adaptively reuse historic features and structures on the site. * Establish view corridors that protect the visibility of important historic features. Mobility and Circulation * Improve safety for all modes of travel and circulation - vehicles (cars, buses, taxis), pedestrians (patrons/shoppers, commuters, young and old), and bicycles - by providing clearly defined and distinct areas for all modes of travel and safe access into and out of the site. * Provide multiple pedestrian connections to and through the Plan Area that creatively use lighting, landscaping and design to create a pleasant walking experience. * Improve connections to train stations and transit service. * Activate Grove Street, making it less of a barrier and more of a connector for both sides of the development. * Minimize traffic impact through appropriate design of driveways and parking and traffic calming improvements on area roadways. Environmental Sustainability * Achieve economic benefits through green site design, including green solutions to stormwater management and use of pervious pavement. * Reduce dependency on solo automobile trips by leveraging the Township's transit assets and encouraging walking and biking. * Promote active and passive "green" building technologies. * Ensure the redevelopment project is compatible with the carrying capacity of the utilities servicing the Plan Area. * Evaluate Toney's Brook to determine if it can be daylighted and/or relocated as an open space asset. Like us on Facebook. LOTS OF NEW HOUSING..HARD DECISIONS...MORE INPUT NEEDED
During the next few years extensive new housing is planned to go up in Montclair. Communities with a reputation for better schools attract a disproportionately higher number of school aged children. It is imperative that housing is planned to maintain the right balance of residents using public schools with those that do not but pay taxes to support them. For a list of proposed development go to our town site here---. In general, both mid range priced single family homes with school children pay much less in taxes than they cost the town. In addition, since designated affordable housing units are sold or rented below the market rate, they pay reduced taxes or rent accordingly. Other tax payers make up the difference. According to the 2015 census there were 15347 household units in Montclair but since their are foreclosures not all households are paying taxes. Many empty nesters leave New Jersey for a less expensive housing however many just move to adjacent towns. We need to have alternatives for more empty nesters to stay here since they are primarily replaced with young families. Everyone agrees that maintaining excellent education is crucial but costly. Overcrowding the classrooms degrades education for every school child. According to the NJ Dept of Education 2013/14 school year cost per K-12 Montclair student was $19,093. In 2010 the newly built Charles Bullock primary school opened in order to lower the number of children in primary grades, at a cost of $31 million. Census data for that same year indicated Montclair had 14520 households units including renters responsible for the debt which continues in our taxes today. Its not unique for all tax payers to subsidize those residents with school aged children but residents and decision makers need to understand the potential cost implications of adding housing. However in recent years Montclair has had what other towns may not have: strong pressure for larger scale development and very active proponents and agencies asking for more and more designated affordable housing. We need to understand the town’s cost implications of more housing, single family homes and "affordable housing" rented or sold on the town finances, schools and taxpayers. We have to rely our Council to make well-informed responsible planning decisions for the all residents, especially those with the lowest incomes who can least afford higher taxes or rent increases. Keep in mind, only a portion of your property taxes go to schools. According to the Montclair Assessors Office during the 2015 year 55.74% of household property taxes went to our schools while the remainder was divided among the municipality, libraries, open space and the county. In recent years, non-school town services cost an additional $5-7000 per household unit including town administration, police, fire, streets, waste management, utilities etc. A median 3 bedroom home in town assessed at $585,000 typically houses 1-2 school children and may pay $16-20,000 in total property taxes. However, if this median home has two children attending public school they will cost the town about $46,000-47,000. Renters pay taxes as a large portion of rent. Mid range single family homes are popular with developers since they sell easily now. Larger homesites are being sold and subdivided by developers into lots to build multiple homes. Just this week, the planning board was required according to zoning regulations to approve 8 new homes to be built after the demolition of a large historic homesite at 44 Pleasant Ave. Our schools can expect to gain an average of two children per household from this development. This will cost to the city schools approximately $320,000 per year at today’s cost. However, tax income from the 8 households will be much less than actual town costs. These proposed homes assessed between $8-900,000 may pay about $30,000 in property taxes for a total of $240,000. If each have two school aged children the total will cost may be over $376,000 for school and other town services. Five housing units were also approved on the corner of Claremont and Grove in a lot which had been an empty single family home and funeral parlor. We now see two duplexes and soon a new single family home will go up. Schools will likely see an additional 8-10 children from these 5 new home units and again costs will far exceed tax revenues produced. Affordable Housing is also very important to be planned responsibly and needs to be in balance with other housing to make up the difference in tax revenue and costs. “Affordable housing” is a federal term as well as a town ordinance to provide housing for those who cannot afford to live in Montclair, unless provided below market rate housing. Local proponents pressure for all development over 5 units to designate 20% affordable households. The town and tax payers share cost by accepting lower taxes from those residents and its explained here on the townsite. In addition, an agency, Homecore has a local office to promote as well as build affordable housing. Talbot Street affordable housing units went on sale recently. Open here for tax revenues for these affordable units. Since 3 bedroom unit requires 5 residents and may average $3500 in taxes but potentially have 2-4 children and cost $6-7000 in town services and about $20,000 for each child in a public school. Montclair has a sizable population who needs affordable housing assistance however eligible "affordable housing" applicants need not live in Montclair or even New Jersey. According to our planning office, any applicant living legally in the US may qualify for "affordable housing" in New Jersey. Therefore eligible applicants from out of town may obtain affordable housing in Montclair and add children to our already crowded schools while current residents do not get the help. Recently our town officials are discussing providing half of affordable housing units ( or 10% of all new units ) to town employees. Local land and affordable housing are precious commodities so should be used for the most benefit of the town. In this metropolitan area most people commute to their jobs. If affordable units went to qualified senior households or current residents there would be no impact on schools. Our Council representatives need to hear from more residents asking for balanced housing to protect our schools and tax payers. Residents want responsible, well informed planning and decisions which help our schools and township’s financial success. Communicate with your your representative. What we need:
To find your ward or Councilor’s name call 973-509-4901. Mayor Robert Jackson: rjackson@montclairnjusa.org 1st Ward Cllr./Dep. Mayor Bill 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 This week, Montclair’s Historic Preservation Commission or HPC elected a new Chair and Vice Chair and strengthened their expertise with new members. This all-volunteer board is responsible for encouraging the protection of Montclair's architectural heritage and increasing public awareness of the Township’s historical and cultural resources, including buildings, streetscapes and landscapes. Designation of historic districts and individual properties add additional guidelines for protections. The HPC members deserve our public support while they do this work for the town and for us.
Montclair’s village-like business districts and the abundance exceptional residential architecture has been the magnet that continues to attract residents and then businesses to service them. Preserving Montclair’s historic and small town character is crucial and under constant threat from developers pursuing large new construction which is out of character and proportion to our neighborhoods. In addition, here is the new link to the Interactive Map of the Township’s Historic Inventory Viewer. As of 2016, Montclair has four locally designated business districts and only 19 individual properties with local historic designation which may be seen on this map. Home owners who believe that they have significant historic architecture may apply for historic designation at the planning office. Designation can add both economic value as well as the importance to the owner, neighborhood and town. Design Guidelines are available here to help guide property owners in preserving historic assets. Guidelines primarily are concerned with preserving the frontal exterior which is seen by the public from the street. Historic Preservation takes big steps forward.Thanks to conscientious members of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Board, Montclair now has a much stronger guideline for protective procedures in place than the previous 1993 document. This however still means vigilance from residents is required to see that elected officials continue to appoint board members who represent most residents’ wishes and interests and follow this approved framework. The Council appoints the board members except in the case of the HPC which are now appointed by the mayors in State of New Jersey. Mayors are considered to be more interested in development and state legislation generally favors development.
The planning board recently approved the newly written Historic Preservation Element for the Master Plan. The Land Use and Circulation Element was approved last year. This was an extensive effort by members of the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Board and town Planning Department staff working with a consulting firm to strengthened protective procedures for our town’s historic assets. The following is taken from the Element’s Introductory text to explain more. The 2016 HP Element advances the many benefits of historic preservation. Historic preservation is the identification, evaluation, and protection of significant historic and archaeological resources. It is an essential tool by which a community bolsters sustainability and achieves broader environmental, social, and economic goals. It promotes the conservation of environmental resources through the retention of existing structures and infrastructure. It creates vibrant downtowns that draw tourism and cultural institutions. It fosters public appreciation and investment in neighborhoods and in the broader community. It also stimulates the local economy through the growth of heritage tourism and the creation of jobs associated with the rehabilitation and revitalization of historic structures. Historic preservation substantially contributes to the quality of life and economic vitality of the Township of Montclair. This HP Element advances the historic preservation standards and guidelines established by federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The 2016 HP Element builds on these past achievements and envisions the future for historic preservation in the Township. As guided by the MLUL, the HP Element: 1.Provides a framework for protecting historic resources in the preservation, development, and redevelopment of Montclair. 2.Identifies the ordinances, laws, and planning documents and policies that impact and guide historic preservation in Montclair. 3.Identifies the location and significance of the Township’s historic sites and districts. 4.Communicates the standards used to assess the significance of historic resources. 5.Provides a historic preservation goal, a set of preservation objectives and recommendations, and a prioritized action plan for achieving these goals and objectives. 6.Reflects public engagement and participation in the development of the preservation goals and objectives. Here is a link to the townsite HPC page to view the current document which will still receive some edits. PLEASE PASS TO RESIDENTS TO JOIN US ON WWW.SAVEMONTCLAIR.ORG TO RECEIVE EMAILS ON DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK. A public presentation of this draft of the Historic Preservation Element will be made at a special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Thursday October 20 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers of the Montclair Municipal Building, 205 Claremont Avenue. Public comments and feedback will be welcome at this meeting. This is the opportunity to contribute to Montclair’s historic preservation vision and guideline.
The final draft of the Historic Preservation component for Montclair’s master plan is now available for public review on the town website at http://www.montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/HP-Plan-final-draft.pdf. The Master Plan is a state mandated process for for NJ municipalities to periodically update planning guidelines for their future. Master plans may have several components to update town guidelines for decisions; some may include Housing, Conservation, Historic Preservation, Storm Water Management, and Land Use and Circulation. Montclair’s past adopted components are on the Planning Board page at http://www.montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=256&Itemid=873. Montclair’s Land Use and Circulation component draft was highly controversial in 2013 when it became public. The initial draft provided for increasing zoning heights in business districts allowing for 10 stories on Bloomfield Ave, 6 on Walnut Street, 5 at Watchung Ave and 7 stories in Upper Montclair. It also provided for additional stories if the developer gave prescribed incentives to the town. SaveMontclair worked with residents and officials to lower heights in the Land Use component. Without residents speaking out against it, that proposed zoning would have been approved. Should you have any questions or comments on the HP component draft please address them to historic@montclairnjusa.org. |
Links:
Details of Redevelopment Area Proposals Council Email addresses, Meeting Agendas and Minutes HPC Meeting Agendas Planning Board Agendas Archives
March 2024
Categories |