Last night, residents came to voice questions and concerns to the Montclair Planning Board, at the first public hearing for the proposed master plan.
Planning Director Janice Talley explained that New Jersey state law requires municipalities to prepare and periodically revisit master plans so that they can pass zoning ordinances. Montclair adopted its first master plan in 1909; the last adopted master plan was in 1978, three years after the State of New Jersey adopted the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) which established basic requirements for land use and development in New Jersey, including master plans and zoning.
“This is a draft of the plan,” said Planning Board Chairman John Wynn. “We’re looking for public input; this plan is not written in stone at this point. I think the rest of the members of the board up here consider this the last phase of the public input, really. This is a concrete proposal that has been prepared by our consultants with input from the group that has been working on this over two years, but it is not a finished product.” Wynn said that he hoped feedback would allow the board to fine-tune the plan.
Consultant Ben Bryant of the firm Group Melvin Design gave the public a presentation that provided a general overview of the draft plan. As currently written, it tries to direct future growth to transit-oriented and mixed-use centers that will allow Montclair residents to live close to the township’s six train stations or numerous bus stops and be able to walk to shops and restaurants, easing the need for parking. Such “transit villages” would be centered on the Upper Montclair business district, Watchung Plaza, and the Walnut Street train station, along with zoning revisions to create a mixed-use district along Valley Road just above Bloomfield Avenue and support more business activity in the South End commercial district.
The plan also envisions shared parking – in which an office worker or retail employee uses the same space in the daytime that residents use in the evening – and zoning that creates a transition from high density to low density radiating out from the center of a major transit stop.
“Throughout the plan, it’s about that land use and transportation balance,” Bryant said, “and it’s about making sure that transportation estimates are supported with the right types of land uses, and vice versa.”
Some of the questions asked by the public generated answers from the consultants that led to detailed follow-up comments. When Gail Goodman of Upper Montclair asked how the master plan would affect that section’s historic district, Bryant attempted to address the issue. He said that the plan would not change existing regulations governing the historic districts.
Goodman was still unsatisfied. She noted that the draft plan map allowed for structures of five to six stories for the Upper Montclair business district. “I understand that the ordinances are in place, she said. “Since you said that this was a master plan, and that the Planning Board would kind of feed into that…shouldn’t we address that in the master plan?”
Bryant said that future development could be on select lots and that it would not be exclusively five or six stories, but Goodman was still unsatisfied with the answer.
Board member Martin Schwartz then joined in to repeat the question as a form of clarification. “How do you propose to resolve, or do you see the need to expand, the commercial historic district in those areas, given the conflict of goals of maintaining the character of the neighborhood and at the same time seeking increased growth and development?” he asked. “Because the two do not necessarily hold as a complementary goal.”
Bob Melvin, Bryant’s boss, explained that the goal would be to create a form-based code that would allow specific design elements and set up appropriate densities to make future development in the area work out. “You can control the built environment a lot more with the type of code ordinances that we’re suggesting in here,” Melvin said. Such codes, he added, could end up in the zoning ordinances.
Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville noted that two train stations in the First Ward did not include space for affordable housing, upsetting the objective of distributing affordable housing more equitably throughout the township.
“Did you at all consider the missed opportunity for creating situations at all of the stations that would allow us to more equitably distribute our affordable housing throughout Montclair?” Baskerville asked.
Bryant, who earlier noted that the plan was based on workshops with residents and civic organizations, said that there was little desire for such housing near these stations, and areas such as Valley Road and the South End had more amenities for local residents in addition to other transit opportunities that could easily be compatible with affordable housing. Dr. Baskerville maintained that this could be a lost opportunity for such housing, in the First Ward, especially for Montclair State University employees (adjunct professors, et. al.)
Other questions included concerns about rezoning neighborhoods like the area between Valley Road and the Van Vleck Gardens, which Talley said could be modified later to the benefit of local residents. She said changes to zoning would not “necessarily” affect homeowners.
Resident Adam Grace questioned the concept of both managing a growing need for parking while encouraging transit-oriented development. Janet Jenkins of the Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, tried to explain. She said the plan was to strike a balance between encouraging more mass transit use while accommodating the inevitable use of cars brought on by growth, while suggesting that development lessening the need for cars would lead to commuter rail use within the township.
“I would hope someday,” she said, “there is, for example, weekend train service that’s implemented throughout here so that people could actually travel from Upper Montclair to Montclair Center, using the train, and doing some of their daily activities in that way.”
Board member Paul Rabinovitch looked forward to helping to create a plan that could respond to changing conditions. “Great places are dynamic,” he said. “They change, they prone to change, they’re capable of change, sometimes changing quickly, and they’re resilient in that factor, and that’s why they grow.”
The next public hearing for the draft master plan is at 7:30 PM on Monday, May 13.
“I would hope someday,” she said, “there is, for example, weekend train service that’s implemented throughout here so that people could actually travel from Upper Montclair to Montclair Center, using the train, and doing some of their daily activities in that way.”
Do you really expect this to become a reality? Is there ANY indication at all that people commute in town this way during the week? My husband and I have ONE car, I rarely drive in town, I use the train daily – but honestly, if I want to go to Church St. or Whole Foods or any downtown location I’m not going to check the schedule, go to the station and wait for a train and hope there’s another one on the way back close to the time I want to return when I have a less than a 3 mile drive and can come and go on my own schedule.
“The plan also envisions shared parking – in which an office worker or retail employee uses the same space in the daytime that residents use in the evening – and zoning that creates a transition from high density to low density radiating out from the center of a major transit stop.”
So the same resident that is going to use the train, and presumably leave the car at home, is going to share a space with someone who works in town, and will presumably leave in the evening?
Other than cities like Portland, Philly, NYC, Chicago — is there any example of a suburban town to which they can point to as an example of how this actually works in a setting comparable to ours? Does it work in White Plains? Or Stamford?
So if the day time parker works a little late and the resident comes home early there is a parking confrontation. As JG sates, this is not real-world stuff. Does the consultant live in Montclair–for that matter does Janice Talley? This sounds like Utopian thinking based on planning “concepts.” Let’s get real. And is growing the population of Montclair a goal? It seems to be with all the dense projects proposed. Why?
Shared parking is real-world. It has been implemented all over the country, in communities ranging from metropolitan centers to suburban communities. There are ways to structure these things so that the potential conflicts are ameliorated / avoided.
ome aspects of stanford are comparable as it does serve the surrounding suburbs as a commuting hub to the city. At the same time it is also a major destination for a lot of main/back office employees who head up there from nyc. I’ve been working up there since this summer and it seems most local residents (in the newer developments) leave their cars and train it to nyc. But also note the target and mall are centrally located among multiple developments and I’d expect their garages are cleared post 10pm.
Willjames is correct. I’d expect some of our future developments to have the turnover, but it also it is the developer/owners decision to allow public parking in their garages (pending expectations outlined by the township during the approval process). This bust happen before things are approved. rather than build a garage and “try” something out.
silentnomore said: “And is growing the population of Montclair a goal?” Exactly. This is certainly the goal of the current mayor and council people with whom he was elected. He was very up front about this during his campaign claiming that the revenue generated from this development would keep our taxes from going up. Of course, he never discussed the expenses for increased services coming from this development nor did he want to consider outsourcing any services but, rather, he wanted to increase the township’s infrastructure and staff so we could sell our services to others. The voters who elected this slate evidently agreed with this approach. Now that this council is implementing this approach, it’s interesting that their supporters are aghast at the prospect of putting multi-story apartment buildings in their neighborhoods. What did they expect? I don’t want a 60,000 resident Montclair, a multi-story apartment building in my neighborhood, more police, more fire, more schools, more municipal employees and more cars. I don’t believe that, given our geography, Montclair can develop its way to lower taxes.
Based on the baseline numbers, the growth projection and the policy goals discussed last night, I think it is very reasonable to project the need for a new school.
What I heard was that the 3,500 projected new housing units (5,900 people) will result in 175 school age children. I also read that owner-occupied housing household size is currently pegged at 2.82. I assume this is a blended number of condos/co-ops, single family and multi-family that owners reside in.
Considering Montclair’s single family zoned housing stock, the current single family household size is likely to be distinctly higher. So, if our policy goals are to offer more appropriately sized housing options to allow for aging in place, downsizing, etc., we can expect some minority number of current residents owning single family homes to move into the new units. This opens up the existing, larger housing stock more suitable for larger families. If only 10% of current residents downsize within Montclair, and using an arbitrarily determined single family household size of 3.25, having 600 additional school age children seems an appropriate number for policy planning purposes.
Using the Net Present Value method and Montclair’s current 4% cost of capital, the new schools will cost well north of $50MM. Furthermore, if a majority of the new housing is developed under PILOT agreements, the burden of the new school costs will primarily fall on the current households – all other things being equal.
The circulation component of the plan is the least developed, both in what is envisioned and the baseline conditions. For example, there is not a current mass transit map showing the various bus route overlay to show the link to the train TOD, or current ridership numbers, or ridership projections. Last night, the statement “…that mass transit was growing” was accepted as fact and with no elaboration. Since 2 of our 6 train stations are at risk, the circulation component, while a very welcome addition and a good start, is still lacking some basics.’
Another example is that almost all of Montclair’s mass transit routes are either inter-neighborhood or oriented, like the Township, on a North/South axis. Bloomfield Ave & the Central Business District is the major exception. The plan, by omission, seems to cede East/West travel (with our geographic elevation change) to cars, bicycles & walking. With the stated objective of Montclair as a sub-regional destination, there is no mention of a specific mass transit opportunity to bring adjacent town residents from the East & West into Montclair neighborhood commercial districts via mass transit.
I demand an apology from anyone who voted for Jackson.
What is the cost of 600 Premium subscriptions to Khan Academy?