The change was official earlier this week, but Mayor Jackson told council members in an executive session about a month ago of his plan to step down from the Planning Board and appoint Martin Schwartz.
Jackson, who reached out to Schwartz three weeks ago, says he decided to step down from the Planning Board to ensure Schwartz would continue to have a voice on the Planning Board.
Schwartz was previously a representative of the Environmental Commission on the Planning Board, but the Environmental Commission voted to have Keith Brodock become their new representative, which would mean Schwartz would no longer be a voting member of the Planning Board.
“Martin has been an important voice on issues, especially the master plan,” says Jackson, who adds that he was not required to comply with the EC’s recommendation of Broddick, but felt it was important to do so.
Instead, Jackson decided to step down and appoint Schwartz as his representative.
“I think that Keith and Martin will serve the Township well,” says Jackson. “I will continue to be very engaged in planning/development issues but will have more time to focus on our finances and infrastructure.”
Schwartz, a vocal presence at Planning Board meetings, has been supported for his impact on the Planning Board in the past.
“I’m honored the Mayor recognizes my views are important, to balance ratable enhancing growth while preserving the township’s character and unique historic architecture,” says Schwartz.
Did anyone ask about the pay-to-play developer stuff? I’m getting curious after reading the post at MDL.
kjaxs,
If you read that blog closely, the facts they provided show the Mayor was fullly compliant with NJ’s Pay To Play laws. They can post whatever opinions they like, but they were very purposeful in not making a link to the facts or the law.
I have and expect to continue to disagree with the Mayor on several issues, but I do not, or ever had, any doubts about his integrity.
The comments pumping all of these anonymous blog posts to try to drive traffic to them are starting to feel like the first three reviews on a Yelp listing – the ones that swear that they’re really customers who loved the food and not just the owner and his cousins self-promoting under screen names.
@dblespresso ^ YES.
This is very good news.
Too much of this.. https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/urbanisation-not-natural-or-inevitable-its-being-inflicted-upon-us-forces-capitalism-900 …has been allowed to happen.
Time for some serious damage control and to identify what has been approved that is in violation with the Master Plan in place. Hold them responsible. Reverse those bad descisions.
Put back in place the 75 yrs old building protection mechanism. Dismiss the current environmental commission for destroying Montclair’s quality of life.
frankgg,
You left us hanging! How is the current environmental commission destroying Montclair’s quality of life?
The prior Master Plan ‘density’ efforts fostered by components of the current environmental commission are completely incompatible and anti-preservationist with regards to the quality of life in Montclair. The public is finaly comming out to disaprove of the decisions being imposed by the current mindset. They have advocated excessive development and are completely flying blind as to the economic and environmentaly impact. They seem intirely underqualified to make such important decisions.
Thank you.
On a related note, I do find the Environmental Commission’s lack of input on light pollution to be a head scratcher of an omission. It does seem they are behind the curve on some current environmental thinking. Home Depot & Lowes are doing more than they have. I appreciate they might be under-qualified to even give any policy suggestions on a development-related pollution issue. However, I think they could have at least found 15 minutes to draft a request for a placeholder statement in the Master Plan and throw in a few definitions of terms/concepts they could Google. I know they each have their own pet initiatives, but they could have just asked a resident to give them a proposal to review.
What I don’t understand is how Montclair can have an Environmental Commission that originally supported high density tall building construction from the earlier master plan drafts…and that they are now coming out again in support high density for the township under the Master Plan. Why don’t they see this as being wrong and contradictory to the purpose of having an Environmental Commission? They are advocating more traffic and cars while deluding themselves that these taller buldings mean people will be taking the trains. Where is the guarantee? There is none. They are flying blind.
https://montclairlocal.net/2015/04/montclair-environmental-commission-discusses-master-plan-trees/#more-208564
Frank,
It is a municipal give and take. You support me on this and I’ll support you on that.
While the Environmental Commission has its own MP Element to cover their issues, this is one reason they also get to liberally populate the Land Use & Circulation Element with environmental issues they want to emphasize. The ground rule is simple and you will see it in the plan. They are given great latitude with specificity and space in the plan when it comes to public land & infrastructure and are limited to waving the flag of green development when it applies to private property.
Historic Preservation and Housing Elements also are prominent in the plan even though they too have their own MP Elements. So, the practice is the same, but their inclusion arises from their own set of dynamics and constituencies.
Frankgg that is a bizarre article. You can oppose urbanization but then you have to support much less savory things like population control. We can have density in Montclair without ruining the town.
How can you have more density without ruining the town if the present infrastructure of streets, water, schools and taxpaying possibilities by the current residents is already maxed out and a burden to the community?
I find it extremely correct and commendable that Mayor Jackson has entrusted Martin Schwartz. I am grateful and pleased!
I admit that this is not an issue to which I’ve given a lot of attention. I do just want to add one consideration to this, though.
We’ve just completed another cycle in the annual game of producing a school budget. While we’ve had a bit of a break for a few years, thanks to the surplus built up by Dana Sullivan, we’re now back to the normal situation of funding our schools with property taxes. Every dollar that goes to the schools comes from households in town with zero regard for those households’ income. For some, this is painful. For anyone with a conscience, this creates an untenable conflict: properly funding schools vs. pricing families out of town.
This is related to “planning” in that Montclair has very little commercial development in comparison to many other towns. Those other towns, therefore, are able to get at least some of their school funding from for-profit companies. I know that there are those in town that see “for-profit” as an anathema, but even Michele Fine has been forced to admit to her solicitation and use of corporate funding.
In those towns with nontrivial commercial development, funding the schools becomes a normal part of “the cost of doing business”. This is a very different situation from excessively squeezing residents.
I don’t know that there’s anything even close to a “silver bullet” that would bring more commercial property into the town. Nor would I advocate unbounded high density development even if it were commercial. Still, I would hope that any entity responsible for long term planning of property use within the town would take this glaring lack – a lack which harms both our schools and our residents – into account.
…Andrew
Montclair is not a commercial destination for ordinary shopping. Its more convenient to do business in surrounding commercial destinations like the local malls…. Rtes 3 & 46….NYC. The remarkable vintages houses and landscapes are the most valuable marketable features. There are great marketable and sustainable resourses for cultural tourism…. bed and breakfasts….concerts in historic houses…event hospitality and town wide antique sales on weekends… like Lambertsville… the Elefant Trunk in Connecticut… There are already lots of restaurants… The local economy could be successful if they finally realized the GREAT resourses that there are already…..without destroying them to build all of theses “what ifs?”
…meanwhile, those ‘Valley and Bloom’ buildings are remarkably coarse and ugly. ‘Two-baggers’, as Rodney Dangerfield used to say.
“The local economy could be successful”
Unfortunately, though, a successful local economy translates only indirectly to funding for the schools. The town receives 0% of the transactions that occur within the town.
The only variable that is relevant to school revenue is property valuation: commercial or residential. Restaurants are nice, but they tend to have relatively narrow margins as compared to many other types of businesses. This means that we can afford to value (and therefore tax) such properties only so far w/o driving them out of town.
On the other hand, I cannot disagree with the idea that “Montclair is not a commercial destination for ordinary shopping”, sad as that is (because absent transport issues, this is a nice place to shop).
“Commercial” doesn’t necessarily mean “shopping”, though. It can also refer to other forms of business. As someone that has had offices in Montclair, I can say that this is a great place to work (not least because of the wealth of restaurants and similar inducements).
…Andrew
Andrew,
Hello?? I believe that virtually all the development is accompanied by PILOT agreements which give the developer tax breaks, and the schools ZERO tax dollars.
Have you read: https://www.state.nj.us/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf
Andrew,
Cary is correct about the MPS not getting a dime…but, he didn’t say why.
The reason is that the district can not be trusted with the money as they will just spend it on this or that. They have no restraint.
As it is, the town has to pay down some $87MM in school debt..a big chunk for a new school that they only utilize 75-80%, scores poorly, and actually costs more per student than our other antiquated schools.
Further, the schools burned through a $14MM surplus in 3 years and still asked for 4% increases in their levy the last two years and telling the MEA to kick in a $1MM more.
No one thinks the district has any fiscal responsibility so a group of anonymous citizens (the State Legislature) got together and decided enough is enough. We’re keeping all of it. When the MPS/BOE/MEA/MCAS/MKF/MSW figure this out, you know where to go to change the laws. In the meantime, tell the MPS to invest in chalkboards. It was good enough for me, my father and my grandfather.
PS: I was wondering when one of you concerned parents would read a MT article other than about schools. A day late and $3MM short.
Agideon — you write about Dana Sullivan’s surplus as if it was a good thing. The issue for funding our schools is not better planning for more revenues. It’s better management.
Both sullivan and former supt Alvarez never saw a tax dollar they didn’t want to spend. First she told everyone we were in danger of closing two schools. Then we end up with $13 million in surpluses– over taxing everyone in the interim and only – as the Rubacky notes — to spend right through that surplus before going back to more tax increases.
Years before, Sullivan’s boss Alverez lied to the entire town saying our new underused school would be paid for 90% by the state. His claims kept the 35 million construction — plus now yearly bond interest — steamroller going — building up our town wide debt to nearly $ 250 million.
Rubacky is correct. The system can not be trusted and still is unable to manage itself – as shown now by this years deficit debacle of 11 million — seeming to come out of the blue.
No amount of new rateables would matter. They would just use it. I believe agedeon sat on some efficiency committe the BOE ran a few years ago to make recommendations for both new revenues and expense containment. They warned of a coming deficit this year if no action was taken during the surplus period. I believe not one of those subcommittee suggestions to contain costs were followed.
In the private sector, fiscal managers,CEOs even boards of directors are removed or resign if expectations move beyond a ten percent variation. In Montclair, we say sorry, I tried. Please don’t speak badly of me and hurt my feelings even though were now 11 million in the hole.
Yes, the political culture here needs to change.
spotontarget,
You made me laugh…in a good way. OK, you mentioned my name a few times, but that aside, it was pretty…oh, how should I say this…spot on!
PS: I forgive you for wrecking my board as it was a highly perishable accomplishment anyway.
“you write about Dana Sullivan’s surplus as if it was a good thing”
Sorry; that was not my intention. I’ve opined at length why this surplus was a problem.
“as shown now by this years deficit debacle of 11 million — seeming to come out of the blue. ”
Sorry again, but this is a part of the narrative that some groups would like us to believe. It is false. First, a deficit always occurs at that point in the process. It is the result of assuming a flat tax with increased expenses. That is, though, just the first step of the budget synthesis process.
Nor was the size of it unexpected, as this was the first year that the surplus could contribute essentially nothing to the budget.
“They would just use it.”
Well, that’s rather the point. Smaller class size, actually attaining 3:1 device/student ratio, etc., there are plenty of good ways to invest dollars on educating our kids.
“I believe agedeon sat on some efficiency committe the BOE ran a few years ago to make recommendations for both new revenues and expense containment.”
AGedeon? Pfft! Plenty of people here would tell you that he’s not to be trusted. He’s a socialist capitalist weakling strongman dictator Kenyan. Oh, wait, that’s the wrong set of baseless personal attacks. He’s a broad reformer anti-union pro-charter corporate shill. Oh, no, that’s a yet another set of baseless personal attacks.
Sorry; it’s tough to keep them all straight.
More seriously: Some of the recommendations from the committee on which I participated were followed. Some were not. None of them, though, would have magically resolved the problem you see as the “deficit this year”. In fact, were I the strongman dictator, we’d likely not even have had that tax reduction followed by a couple of “flat” years as I would have more tightly limited how the surplus had been “spent down”.
That said, I cannot say that I don’t understand the BOE’s logic in that case.
There were other “budget” groups operating at the same time as the one in which I participated. One that actually did hold out the promise for some shifting of the revenue burden away from residents was the “revenue” working group. They’d some interesting ideas for how the district could actually bring in dollars from sources other than the residents.
I was sorry to see none of those ideas pursued, but from what I knew, none of them were without some difficulty. Still, I hope a future BOE looks back at that possibility. Absent some structural change at the state or federal level, we’re in for some serious long term pain with respect to school spending.
…Andrew
“I believe that virtually all the development is accompanied by PILOT agreements …ZERO tax dollars.”
That reminds me of:
Patient: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.”
Physician: “Stop doing that.”
…Andrew
“Further, the schools burned through a $14MM surplus in 3 years and still asked for 4% increases in their levy the last two years and telling the MEA to kick in a $1MM more.”
It “burned through” the surplus by reducing taxes by 3.6% one year and then leaving them flat for another two years. Meanwhile, expenses were rising at least 2% each year (contracted salary increases alone were over 2% for each of those three years).
Loosely: That’s at least M$6 in increases in expenses with M$3.6 reduction in revenue. That accounts for at least M$9.6, and doesn’t even count the decreased K class size, the return of foreign language, the investment technology which had been ignored for years, etc.
…Andrew
“Have you read: https://www.state.nj.us/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf”
No. I had not realized just how badly PILOTs treated the schools. I wish I’d known this a couple of days ago, as I spoke on the scarcity of commercial development before the BOSE – that is, before the Mayor and a couple of councilors while school funding was the topic on everyone’s mind.
It would be interesting to know precisely by what amount the district’s revenue is being reduced by PILOTs, given that that number is simply added to what the residents pay. Is it safe to simply apply the district’s tax rate against the value of properties subject to PILOT agreements to determine that number?
…Andrew
Agideon,
According to public statements by the mayor, the amount and availability of tax money collected for the local schools will not be impacted by PILOTs in Montclair. One key part of this is that the township adheres to the mayor’s position that every PILOT will be negotiated so that taxes collected are equal to whatever the redeveloped property would generate without the PILOT. Another key is that the council continue to divert tax revenue to the schools at basically the same rate as prior years.
What sometimes confuses people is the way PILOT payments are made. Unlike typical tax dollars, which flow to the county and then back to the municipality, PILOT payments are collected and held directly by the municipality. Towns can get into trouble when the PILOT value is set lower than the new property’s value – that’s the abatement scenario – and the redevelopment’s actual impact (on infrastructure, increasing the public student population, etc.) is underestimated, creating new costs that a town can’t afford.
Whether the council adheres to the mayor’s vision or not, no one can say, but the PILOT plan has merit. Assuming, that is, Schwartz and company make sure development itself is appropriate to town needs, that the PILOT is properly set, that the project fixes or enhances the lesser parts of Montclair, and builds rather than erodes town character.
The Planning Board does not negotiate or consider PILOTS/tax abatements in any of its decisions. Those are handled directly by the Council with the Township acting as a Redevelopment Authority.
The Planning Board considers a project’s site plan and compliance with State’s the Municipal Land Use Law. If there are zoning code variances impacted, a project is heard by the Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, who also then reviews the site plan – applying the MULU in the same way as the planning board.
The decision which Bd. hears a project to start with is made by the town’s head of planning, Janice Talley, who determines if the zoning code is being impacted, based on what an applicant has proposed.
Consequently, PILOTS are a “business” and therefore legislative political decision. They are handled by the Council (with ostensibly input and evaluation from the Manager and Montclair’s financial staff).
The issue described above, is whether PILOTs either “short-change” the township, or are being used intelligently when expectations are few students will be generated from a new project.
The Mayor has advocated publicly that some projects provide sufficient economic benefit to Montclair and are therefore worth effectively giving a County tax reduction to developers. The purpose could be further encourage redevelopment, or to encourage a project’s expansion so as to further generate even more local tax rateables. His position, which he’s made both publicly and privately to many, is that while some Montclair PILOT agreements in the past were not well-structured and may have under-taxed developers, new agreements being signed today accurately reflect both the real estate value assessments, expected taxes over the 30 year life of the PILOT, and the expectations of school age children being generated.
Regardless, the decision to offer economic development tax inducements remains with the Mayor and Council/Manager, even though the Mayor is now officially off the Planning Board.
Andrew,
The Mayor, Judge and Jury & Martin Schwartz have spoken. You’re not going to get you hands on the PILOT money, Public Good or no Public Good.
Wow Andrew, you even found a way on something off topic to bring up Michelle Fine. I’m both impressed and dismayed at how this has become somewhat of a sport for people on these and the anony-blogs. This post is not about the schools as far as I can see, maybe I missed something and need to look again. Frank R- I was very interested in following this, doesn’t have to be about schools for me to be interested and read up but as soon as I hit that part of Andrew’s comment I kind of lost interest because it seems the focus is shifted once again.
Not sure I follow and therefore agree wih your last comment Frank R. The mayor has argued that his structuring of Pilots is a wash for the township with the tax reduction inducement coming off the county side.
Without commenting on this, if so, I don’t see how that necessarily negatively impacts our schools or the “public good”.
I wouldn’t want you to agree with me.
In all the years we have talk about PILOTS, all the millions of potential new revenue, have you ever seen an analysis by the Township, by a developer, or for that matter, anyone even referencing such an analysis?
Do people know the difference between the land and the improvements in PILOT agreements? What exactly is the County’s share of each? What happens to school levy dollars we used to get from the the car dealership and Hahne’s? What happens to the Lackawanna Urban Renewal lots? How do we collect a PILOT on our own municipal complex?
Do people know that we will double the school levy in 16 years, based on our trend….and the PILOT fees won’t come close to doubling over their 30 year life?
All things considered, I see the Mayor’s point not to give any of the money to the school district and use it to pay down school debt. After this year’s school levy increase – which going forward will remain at this% level or higher – giving it to the district would just add to the tax burden.
This was, in theory, all being done to actually reduce the total rate of tax dollars coming out of our wallets. That was the whole point of all of this. That is why you are on the PB. The problem is that as your master plan vision unfolds over time and our revenues increase from non-taxpayers (PILOTs), the spread will steadily increase. That is until a political constituency decides that PILOT revenue should be shared for new programs and initiatives.
Frank R.,
Time to celebrate…and break out your pencil sharpener: word is that the council is seeking a PILOT financial analysis from an independent third party for the various properties in play. Let’s keep an eye out for that.
J&J,
I’m having a Brooklyn Local 1 and a fresh-baked pretzel infused with a nice artisan cheese. Does that count as celebrating…or the wisdom of just enjoying a beautiful Spring evening at an advanced age?
Most definitely and most definitely.
Good…because the Moon is moving into an excellent phase that is dark sky friendly. I might grab a glimpse of the International Space Station passing over or a quick binocular view of Venus, Jupiter and the four Galilean Moons, or the bright beehive star cluster just to the right of Jupiter in the constellation Cancer.
OMG that pretzel sounds REALLY good.
Frank – I said before that I was “not sure” that I agreed with you because your comment was not clear. However, you last comment is. You’re right. There has been no analysis done on the PILOTS, the redirection of funds, loss of certain types of revenues, impacts etc. etc. Which is why I said I was not going to comment in effect on the substance, only the facts, statements and positions expressed by others within the process.
Hope I’m now being fully clear.
Get rid of all of those who are mis shaping the downtown RIGHT NOW!!!! Those buildings are way too tall and unsustainable. A failure!!
Martin,
I’m still full from my literal pretzel and I’ll pass on the figurative pretzel.
Bottomline, PILOT revenue is not subject to the school levy cap. Hope this helps.
Yes, frankgg, the more those buildings emerge, the more horrendous they look.
I’m only reacting to the height and the bulk. Its all wrong and 100% out of character as is actually in the current Master Plan language, devised to protect against this kind of out of character construction. This was pushed through without respecting the Master Plan. Something should be done. Saying the “ship has already sailed” is no excuse.
A good conversation here on various subjects. PILOTS – we do need someone to look over this concept and whether its turning out well for the town going forward. I found the comment on infrastructure studies to be the best. We have development but what are the costs going forward on our water, sewage, streets and anything else of concern on our infrastructure. We need to understand the effect development has on the real costs to Montclair. Nothing done to date on this!!! Second, I find that its interesting that Pinnacle has purchased buildings across the street from Valley and Bloom and I am sure they want the Police building when the city decides to move. Now to Lackawanna, Pinnacle is also involved here. Why is this company the only developer that seems to be involved in everything the city wants to do? I have a big issue with this. It is too inbred for good government.
frank, we met some friends for dinner few weeks ago in Montclair in the Midland Ave vacinity and the first thing each couple said as they arrived was along the lines of “what’s up with the gigantic buildings” and “I didn’t think Montclair would allow that kind of monstrosity” and my favorite “it blots out the sun”.
Bloomfield Center has the same thing but worse. Ours is a full block and there will be more nearby.
I am out and about and most people who approach me are horrified about the size of the buildings and ask how it is possible. Montclair needs a new planning mechanism RIGHT NOW.
@State Street…”it blots out the sun”….then we will raise your taxes in the shade….Apartments mean more people….more people means more need for police and firemen, more infrastructure, more kids-more teachers….more taxes.
We’ve now come full circle frank g back to bulk and height here. My position on the centre verde — now valley and bloom residential and hotel development is well known.
I believe the town planner and jerry fried run planning board at the time drafted the redevelopment plan language there to allow far too much bulk and height for this site with far too limited setbacks for such bulk. Then in my opinion, the board compounded it’s errors by even ignoring its own language requiring sufficient detailing to have the final site plan more effectively blend in with the downtown neighborhood. The board then did not sufficiently adhere to the “character” language in the plan in granting site approval on the residential side from my Pov.
The proof is in the pudding for what’s now being built.
However, once voted on and approved, unless someone undertook legal action under the Plan within the statutory period — “that ship already sailed”. Those approvals and language were voted on during the recession unfortunately when few residents were paying attention. You too frank g were preoccupied with some personal issues as I was.
One can not reverse planning board votes really which developers then rely on to proceed short of showing corruption or some total improper distortion of the process. Here it was just bad calls by appointed and elected individuals for Montclair who continued to make bad decisions and whose views now need to be marginalized. I’ve said this publicly. I’m prepared to debate those defending their calls and I will continue to push for limiting their impact into the decision making process long term.
On the hotel side the board was about to make the same mistake a few months ago on — lets call it detailing and character. However again — the building footprint and thus bulk were previously agreed to under the original redevelopment Plan. Yet here, because the site plan vote came up much later, we were now able to stop the design train and get the developer to more effectively adhere to the character and detailing needs of the township as noted in the plan using a planning board subcommittee. The first problematic hotel design has been reworked and is much better as you know.
Nonetheless, this is all still problematic from a process standpoint for long term policy. I’ve said all this publicly before and will continue to do so.
That’s why the problem with our land use decisions in the past has been completely political and from a lack of expertise by too many then and some now still in decision making positions.
The results are now right in our face. Some decisions by both those on the board and in previous Councils have just not served the town well. They applied POVs and criteria which did not sufficiently protect our character and our Architectual assets in the process — even our economic interests in some instances. My positions on this are well known.
Yet per this announcement which you complimented frank gg — things are now changing with some new people in place on the board. There is also more awareness and public pressure to help protect township character needs — not just give away the store in approvals while also trying to generate new rateables.
“I am out and about and most people who approach me are horrified about the size of the buildings and ask how it is possible.”
—ah, scientific research! so, people “approach” you and spontaneously raise the topic of building height, without any prompting from you?
“my favorite: ‘it blots out the sun.'”
—thank goodness discussions on this topic aren’t filled with over the top nonsense!
“However again — the building footprint and thus bulk were previously agreed to under the original redevelopment Plan.”
I just wanted to point out this is not true.
Frank R – your pointing out of “not true” is not clear or I believe not correct.
Residential side: 6 stories. Built Up to the street line for lot coverage. 5 foot set backs (instead of 8) in the plan document — all a done deal when I arrived at the board.
Which means between the Plan and the board site votes to date “that ship had already sailed” with bulk and height approvals.
Similarly, the hotel building footprint: height 8 stories and same 5 foot setbacks were already in place with approval to be built up to the street line. The only change was the 1/2 story roof top bar and a technical correction for “use” for a portion of the agreed to sized building footprint.
This is what I mean and meant when I say “that ship already sailed”.
If its remotely possible that it “is not true— the building footprint and thus bulk were previously agreed to under the original redevelopment Plan.”
– than that must be brought to light and addressed.
The “ship that sailed” is just to big and wrong to not require damage control, as well as for other bad decisions like the Assisted Living location approval and the unaffordable and usleless South Park Project. It seems that its not only the Planning Board but also the Environmental Commission that has been completely political in the past and has lacked proper expertise in the decision making positions. The results of their poor decisions are unacceptable.
Martin,
While it the hotel design is a done deal, your statement bothered me because it indicates you have not read the original Redevelopment Plan closely. Section 4 has been the most problematic section of the plan for the Council, the Planning Board and the Design Subcommittee – and I think I understand why.
A highly regarded professional planning firm wrote the plan and our volunteers, charged with following it, chose to deviate from it – both with formally approved changes by the Council and/or in several cases where it appeared they just ignored or downplayed in the impact.
I get it – we wanted a hotel and we were going to do everything possible to make that happen. But, really, do you think setbacks was a major issue?
The original concept was to make Valley & Bloomfield “The Gateway” intersection. Once we moved off this principle, it started a series of compromises that cascaded into the evolving “it is better than it was” narrative we have today. Lackawanna is going down a similar path with the Municipal complex principle. Yes, the Gateway 1 Plan was full of inconsistencies and contradictory language and I expect the Lackawanna Plan will reflect those lessons learned. I hope you are right that we will not forget the biggest lesson.
frankgg,
The big procedural mistake the Council & the PB made is that they never included lot 1.02 (building 2) in the many plan revisions. Now they will have to go back and fix that. Sloppy.
frankr…Not that I ever find what I’m looking for on the township building dept website… but do you mean 12.01? Isnt that the lot # for building 2? Please help me to understand the building that you are refering to.
What really made me think that the whole concept was going to be a failure was the language in the introduction regarding the total ignorance to Montclairs most promenent townscape feature…the VIEW… VIEWPOINTS and VIEWSHEDS because you can SEE most of the downtown from this area (the existing streetscapes of the downtown as well as NYC) and this project is SEEN from most other viewpoints.
In my opinion, the language is wrong and no one caught it….
“However, the sense of place created by the mix of uses and historic architecture in the heart of Montclair Center is nonexistent in the Gateway area. Here, the vitality and aesthetic character of Montclair Center is diminished by a fragmented jumble of aging single use commercial properties, underperforming surface parking lots and a few relatively isolated retail uses. Given the prominent physical location of this area as the primary entrance point to Montclair Center, its existing condition has prevented Montclair’s downtown from realizing its full potential as a node of urban activity within the New York Metropolitan Region.”
….Its as if the person who wrote the evaluation had never actually been to Montclair, but instead, just did the report by looking at photos.
No, Lot 1.02 (& lot 11) is the land under the mixed use building, V&B #2, on the corner of Valley & Bloomfield.
An off-putting aspect was this lot was created 3 months before the Planning Dept published the draft of the Redevelopment Plan and 6 months before the Council approved the Plan. The new lot was never included in the Plan. The final version of the Redevelopment Plan on the township site doesn’t acknowledge its existence.
Everyone just kept referring to the old lot. The Council did get around to acknowledging the new lot the following year when they had to sign the redevelopment agreement (and maybe the PILOT agreement is correct), but that’s it as far as I can tell.
Section 4.1.4.2 on pg 16 that offers 2 additional stories now makes sense to me because the grade change would have partially offset the increased height.
thank you Frank.
Ohhh…now I understand.
and Thank You Martin
I am extremely grateful.
Frank R. — we are saying the same thing. The plan itself had issues allowing too much bulk and mass for the site. The board and council back then further compounded the problem by not even requiring full adherence to all the protections and “character” requirments within the plan for enforcement.
This all happened before I got on the board. The only thing which has been impacted for the better I believe since I’ve been there has been the hotel design and detailing. This was only because their final site plan came to the table late in the process. We almost blew that one too based on the initial proposed design which the board chair announced was “good”.
I was in the hospital or recuperating at the time of that initial board meeting.
At the next session, Publicly calling for more adherence to the detailing terms in the written sections pushed both the developer and current board to better follow the architectural and town character language terms found under the plan.
Martin,
You were on the Board when the Council passed O_13_013.
Frank r – I’m out of town and not in front of the Plan. However I have read it carefully. I used it years ago when I was not on the planning board to argue in front of the Hpc reviewing the Centro verde project. I testified then that the original residential portion of the buildings were not in character with the downtown area as stipulated in the Plan. I then used various Plan section points later to argue again (while now sitting on the current planning board) that the town was required to adhere to its “character” sections and compelled to pass the hotel design over to the Hpc for another review. It was this effort (that no one in the board supported until I found the section compelling by statute the hpc review) which pushed everyone to stop the rush to approve the first hotel design not well received. And this is what ultimately forced the creation of a combined Hpc and planning board sub committe to try to rework that design — which I ended up chairing. So I think I have to dispute your point that I’m not familiar with the sections of the Plan.
However the bulk and footprint of all the buildings there were effectively a done deal under the Plan and before I got on the board. See the below story link. The only near term planning board and then council modification to the already agreed building footprint was the “technical correction” to the “use” of the hotel building — not the size itself but for the added 1/2 story roof top bar.
I specifically asked the Planner if we were changing the agreed footprint and was told “no”.
That is why I say the “ship already sailed”. The Planner, Fried board and council then agreed to the cento verde Gateway footprints. They agreed building out to the sidewalk line with no off set and/or no reasonable setbacks at say the 3rd or 4th story instead to minimize the feel given the amount of bulk on that site. The effect of what they approved originally both under the Plan and in subsequent residential site approvals is what has been described as a “canyon” by some. It’s this out of character impact which frank g responds to so unfavorably.
If you are referring to something other than the below modifications – please be more specific.
https://montclairlocal.net/2014/02/first-reading-ordinance-passed-council-expands-allowed-linear-width-centroverde-hotel-planning-board-review-february-10/
Let me understand what you are suggesting because it seems contrary to my perception of developers.
So, the effect of the technical correction requested by the developer was to reduce the 8 story zoning to 6 story zoning…on the existing, larger, better site… and move the right to build 8 stories to a less desirable site that is a third smaller? Further, you didn’t find it odd at that time that LCOR, the new partner just brought in the previous Summer, was supportive of this as it was somehow a net gain for their investment?
Or did you note the coincidence, shortly after this down-zoning was approved, of the Council introducing the idea of adding 2 more floors to the exact same lots they just down-zoned? Or, that maybe a hint of their thinking when, during the Planning Board review, the testimony from the developers included how this made sense as the property was now bracketed by the 8 story hotel parcel on one end and the 7 story cater-cornered Leach Building.
No, my cynical nature says it was unlikely that LCOR was brought in, nor had any interest to develop a combined hotel & mixed use site. Rather, it was a straight up investment in the North Jersey market with a potentially very nice – albeit speculative – upside return if 2 stories were added to the development plan.
The idea that the ordinance I cited could be accepted then, and now, as just a technical correction (in the middle of a $100MM development) is hard to justify. It suggests to me the Planning Board either accepted this is at face value or some possibly understood where this was really going. This is my point. How you perceived it at the time is only pertinent to how you are positioning yourself today.
Frank – one would have to be the developer Pinnacle to fathom your thinking above. I am not and I can not. Pinnacle apparantly sold off their position in buildings one and two with some unknown participatory position to LILCOR. Who owns what is their business. The same could be speculated for the hotel.
However, this is not relevant to the site approvals. The Plan and prior approvals established the building footprints. When a modification was requested and described as a technical correction, I specifically asked and was told it was just a correction to the existing approvals — not an expansion and not a new decision.
If you know or believe it was not and have specific information, facts or a logical perspective as such to review or to support which will show something to the contrary other than the speculation presented above, please advise. Put it on the table for review. Otherwise, the question was asked and the Planner answered.
My “perception” was and still is to review the facts as known. Then to make decisions accordingly based on the development and preservation philosophy consistently espoused.
Martin,
I am glad you are posting facts supported by reality.
Signed,
A Fan
It would seem that Building 2, that is already in construction phase, did not pass through proper approval proceedure. Please help us to understand.
frankgg,
It’s just my opinion, but I think proper approval procedures were followed. The technical mistakes go to the various uses allowed for Building #2. There could be other conflicts, but I don’t know all the documents that have this mistake.
If the ordinances were flawed, there are two options: leave as is and existing C-1 zoning would apply or go back and pass a new ordinance to properly allow the additional uses in this zoning overlay area. The problem with the first option is the building department wouldn’t know which to follow if one of the non-conforming uses came to be.
Martin,
I realize my comments are heavy with opinion, but I believe the facts I do give are accurate and my thinking follows a logical progression. I think you have done likewise. We will just disagree on how it should be perceived, 20/20 hindsight and all.
I do have one question for you….
Were you aware of any discussions at the time the Planner told you this was just a technical correction whether the Township was considering a development rights transfer involving the previously approved massing?
“Pinnacle apparantly sold off their position in buildings one and two with some unknown participatory position to LILCOR. Who owns what is their business.”
Martin,
I believe it is actually our business.
If I’m reading N.J. Stat. § 40A:20-1 correctly, MAP is legally required to file annual disclosure statements of all parties having an ownership interest. This does not involve the Planning Board, but I didn’t want what I believe is a misstatement on your part to mislead other readers here.
Frank R – you’re right. I was speaking figuratively when I said it’s not “our” business. I meant to the planning board for who was the legal owner or who had what percentage of what profits. Obviously, it’s the township’s concern to know proper ownership in title. Nonetheless, it’s not the planning board’s issue to worry about the name of the owner, just what was or is being proposed on the site.
To answer your question, I had no knowledge of, nor did “the Planner (tell me) told you this was just a technical correction whether the Township was considering a development rights transfer involving the previously approved massing?”
It appeared and was presented as an isolated “correction” to what was already agreed to at the time. Why…what are you thinking here, even in speculation?
On your other point Frank R – I believe the confusion over Building 2 is maybe because it was switched with the original hotel site? You can check this with the planning office if you want. If so, this happened before I came on the board. It occurred in the interim period after I had testified about the project early on – really over the character and bulk issues as an interested resident. Then, like most, I did not follow the project in specificity during the economic recession, preoccupied with other personal issues. Indeed, but not for this recession, I think there would have been much greater on-going resident interest in the Centro Verde approvals and site issues. You saw this later for instance when the two additional stories were proposed for the residential buildings after the footprints and site plans were approved. The public was more involved then once their personal economic finances started to recover.
Martin,
Never mind. You will never, ever get it.
No, I get it Frank. I’m just asking you to stop being so obscure and obtuse. To instead say things directly so everyone can understand your intent instead of trying to impress everyone with how much they don’t know and you do.
We need both of you while moving forward….please don’t fight. Frankr your posts are always important info for me. They are not really in plain language and very hard to follow…so many abbreviations and problematic for people with dyslexia (like me)….i want to fully understand your statements… you seem antipreservation most of the time….but very well versed in correct process and its so helpful.
Martin,
I have posted on this thread 3 issues – light pollution, PILOT revenue and Gateway 1. It seems your issue is with this last one.
My issue is you are doing a hindsight – and not well. The township is never going to do a transparent hindsight review of Gateway 1. What worked/what didn’t work/lessons learned. Fine. So, places like Baristanet are the only venues to do this. Suits me perfectly. You represent one view point. It is not mine. We’re still good.
One area it is not fine is when we are using this forum for the hindsight, you continually try to elucidate -using your PB positions – on things you don’t understand, or don’t care to convey about the people, processes, etc., or put you in a best light, at time elevating yourself above the common folk, in your hindsight narrative.
Just like we saw with the Sienna and the Master Plan, the Planning Board – with all of its education, experience & town knowledge – has an inconsistent record of “getting it” on big projects.
PS: and off in the weeds, would love to see the new hotel rendering…especially the detailing of additional floors (7-8-9) granted. Not the halo….that was a right regardless of how may stories.
frankgg,
I assume you mean preserving man-made formations.
I’m not an anti-presevationist. I have shifted my focus to private preservation efforts as preservation public policy is in an accelerating decline. My ability to change it would require a significant amount of effort just on a local level with a very meager return. I would rather channel my efforts to address light pollution and the steadily increasing (& unnecessary) illumination of the night sky.
New Urbanists & Preservationists both say more lights will give us more vibrancy. We can even light up the facades of the remaining historic buildings to be seen from miles away. This is the side of preservation that irks me. But, its like being a vegetarian among carnivores. I’m assuming you are a dedicated carnivore.
Frank G writes:
“Frankr your posts are always important info for me. They are not really in plain language and very hard to follow…so many abbreviations and problematic for people with dyslexia (like me)….i want to fully understand your statements”…
And therein lies your problem Frank R. It’s not Frank G’s dyslexia which is preventing him from understanding what you’re saying…it’s how you say it.
While you think “I’m not getting it” or speaking enough “on things you don’t understand, or don’t care to convey about the people, processes, etc., or put you in a best light, at time elevating yourself above the common folk, in your hindsight narrative”…..the reality is both I and I suspect most here are just not following YOU.
You are lost in detail…frequently interesting or important detail…but you are still not conveying your main ideas or points which may be there, but are tucked hidden away among the nuance.
The fact is I do get it, know full well what the problems of the town and planning board have been with our major site developments here over the past ten years. Unless you’ve been blind, I’ve been the one leading opposition frequently to try and change many of those land use decisions, votes or perceptions – now overtly debating some of my hold-over current board colleagues and members of past township councils.
So while you keep howling how I’m “missing something” or don’t want to “disclose the processes”, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m putting out more real politik here than I should – because I think it’s important people know the actual backstory.
Instead, what we are missing is being able to follow your thinking – because it’s not clear. That’s all. No major disputes on points which we do pick up. But too often, you do not express your core ideas first, then back it up with example or details. Instead you put out lots of details which seems to surround or tie back into POVs or positions…but only in short hand which you seem able to follow. Frank R is entirely correct.
My suggestion, stop looking outside and criticizing others like me actually on your side for “not getting it”..Instead look within to why you are not more clearly “conveying it”.
Martin,
We have a part-time Council and a part-time bunch of volunteers on the Planning Board – all getting their rearends kicked by a frontline band of full-time professional developers & investors. And your point is what?
and Martin, you assumed you knew what I meant about not getting it. Sorry, you just proved my point. Hint – take a moment and look at the finacials. Cardinal rule: It is always about the money.
Montclair is a town characterized by fine century old residential architecture and the first master plan, the Nolen Report of 1909, was used to establish Land Use Legislation in the US. It was considered the finest residential community in the United States and used as a model by the most important architectural publications of that time. This is what Montclair is known for. This is important American History and irreplacible with new construction and new materials that only have a warenteed life span of about 20 years.
Montclair is not an empty green space it is a complete built condition, therefore removing the focus of preserving the buildings and shifting ones focus to light pollution issues is “antipreservationist” in my opinion and ignoring an important responsibility, especially an economic responsibility for a community. With all due respect, I appreciate the time you give to the community and I do much admire buildings in your history Frankr, that have been repurposed for public use. Most of the time, I don’t easily understand your comments but I also think that regarding preservation, you don’t really get it’s importance or that its just not important to you personally.
Montclair was once an empty green space – the kind of space that was typically the subject of the Hudson River School of landscape painting. As you know, one of the most famous practitioners of it, in his latter years, is associated with Montclair. Preservation is not just about bricks and mortar. This is why we also protect the land on these sites and not just the buildings themselves. I think you even made this point regarding the approval of the new MKA field house.
Our national parks are America’s best example of preservation. The night sky is as much a part of the natural beauty of our national parks, and of Montclair’s beauty, as any industrialist’s vacation mansion on First Mountain. The awe inspiring night sky is worth protecting and it belongs to everyone, not just the people with property title. Further, like most pollution, it doesn’t confine itself to property boundaries.
Historic preservation is defined by periods of significance. All of the built world has multiple periods of significance. Look at what is happening in NYC. We place some arbitrary 75 year cut-off to what we can consider that causes us to lose some of best examples of these later, developing periods Mid-century modern is an example of one period of significance for Montclair’s built environment. Look what happened to the Pan Am terminal at JFK.
Lastly, historic preservation public policy has been subjugated by dominant interests that want a government design police above all else. If you look at the history of the NYC Landmarks Commission, one only need to see when – and why – they belatedly designated New York’s most famous landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building.
I appreciate your focus, if a little narrow for my tastes, on preservation of our late 19th century period. However, I hope you can give me a little room under a corner of your tent for my unconventional views, too.
You are correct to give attention to the preservation of Montclair’s natural landscape and horizon. It is fine architecture in itself as a natural condition but the most valuable and characteristic feature of the town and the principal economic value is the existing built form and real estate. The community has invested interest in their real estate, land + buildings. Taxes from Land + Buildings is what generates the tax base and worth about 5 – 6 billion dollars. It is irresponsible (in my opinion) to ignore the buildings and only to consider the natural environment, especially when the buildings are so valuable and are what characterize Montclair.
Yup. As I said earlier… It is always about the money.
Frank R said: “and Martin, you assumed you knew what I meant about not getting it. Sorry, you just proved my point. Hint – take a moment and look at the finacials. Cardinal rule: It is always about the money.”
Same thing here again Frank R…I agree with you. It is about the money…but you are not saying how…or for whom exactly…you’re talking in your “I know these folks are spinning and getting over code”…but without stating what you mean directly so we can follow..agree or disagree. Who is getting over..how and who is allowing it and why? This you only hint and dangle.
Without specificity..which you do not give …your analysis is really only good as a general conspiratorial ‘the Board and Council are blind….the $ players are getting over’ type shorthand view. Which is why I keep telling you to be specific..say what you think directly for each project. Put yourself out there.
Who, what..why…where and how? You do not ever really give this..only hints and snippets…then you believe I and everyone else are not getting it.
What we’re not geting is YOU.
Conspiracy? No, no, not at all. In a way, I wish it was a conspiracy as it would suggest a level of comprehension of what it takes to properly do the large scale projects like redevelopment areas that our Councils are so committed to. No, it is this and previous Councils – as a collective body – over-reliance on ANRs with a lack of comprehension & sound stewardship that bothers me. Some recent council members have admittedly brought their strengths to the table. But, I am focusing on the overall body of work. The Planning Board is just an exacerbating factor in their role of providing the planning expertise and guidance. My issues with the PB are secondary.
Montclair does not have a distinguished record in regard to redevelopment areas – specifically the financial aspects. We say we getter smarter with each project, that we have institutionalized the important lessons learned, and then we rationalize the sub-par results with (take your pick) “well it is better than before”, “it’s better than what could have happened”, “look at all the money we’ll get”, it’s not a money, it’s an investment”.
Gateway 1’s main issue derived from our focus. We wanted revenue and a hotel. We wanted both badly. Bad enough that we appeared to compromised -knowingly and unknowingly – standards, planning, processes, & some basic common sense. The fact that you, I and others – as laypeople & outsiders– continually pointed out glaring basic deficiencies could argue against this premise. Maybe these lapses just reflect all those other stated standards were peripheral and inconsequential.
Well, we seem to have the hotel. In fact, it is 40% larger than originally planned. More money. Trade-offs? Minimal?
The Valley & Bloom part. The ship has sailed part that hasn’t changed. How much money did we originally project? How are we doing now? Less/more/same? Building 1 is almost complete. Building 2 will top-off shortly. Garage almost done. We’re 4 years into to it. Maybe we’re due for an update? That is what I meant by looking at the financials. After all, this was the point of the whole thing.
FrankR, Martin, and frankgg- please get a room- (maybe in the new hotel- if you can wait). The horse has been dead a long time and probably cremated by now. Time for a break.
Dare I suggest they request a high floor?
I don’t see that a break is needed. Considering how off point things can get around here, apart from a little friction between the parties, I think it’s a pretty good discussion.
I thought Frank R’s statement was particularly on point…
“We have a part-time Council and a part-time bunch of volunteers on the Planning Board – all getting their rearends kicked by a frontline band of full-time professional developers & investors.”
Damn skippy.
This would apply in Bloomfield as well. We’ve allowed bulk development with little thought given to the true costs to the town, the schools, and the taxpayers.
“Conspiracy? No, no, not at all. In a way, I wish it was a conspiracy as it would suggest a level of comprehension of what it takes to properly do the large scale projects”
Love that thought, Frank.
“…. I wish it was a conspiracy as it would suggest a level of comprehension of what it takes to properly do the large scale projects”
FABULOUS!!!.. so true…. me too!!!