Montclair Planning Board: Development Versus Historic Preservation?

There’s been more turnover at the Montclair Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and it’s raising questions about the overall relationship of the HPC with the Planning Department, and whether a sense of historical continuity in Montclair will be maintained as the township undergoes the most ambitious redevelopment plans since the 1980s.  Following Peter Primavera’s recent dismissal as the HPC’s consultant after Planning Director Janice Talley cancelled his contract three months early, Montclair residents who have been involved with planning and with approvals of new construction projects are voicing concerns over what they view as the marginalization of the HPC’s role in redevelopment.

Montclair Planning Director Janice Talley
Montclair Planning Director Janice Talley

Primavera received his dismissal notice in an e-mail from Talley on September 29, which simply said his services were no longer needed.  Talley did not explain to Primavera her reason for the premature cancellation.  Talley would also not comment on any reason for the cancellation to Baristanet, because she cannot offer comment on personnel matters.

Primavera is the third consultant to have served the HPC since Talley became planning director in 2010.  The township began issuing annual requests for proposal (RFPs) for an HPC consultant a year into Talley’s tenure after former HPC member Christie Rule quit that post.  (Talley said Rule left to pursue a nursing degree; others insist that this is not true.) With Barton Ross having been retained for two years and with Primavera’s dismissal after less than one year, there are concerns that the HPC is becoming less of a factor in Montclair’s redevelopment projects.  Also, according to Primavera, recent commission appointments have appeared questionable with regard to absence of vetting and qualifications.

Mayor Robert Jackson said that he was open to looking anew at how HPC appointments are handled by the Township Council.

“Mr. Primavera is certainly a known quantity in the world of historic preservation.  If he indeed believes that our selection process for members on the HPC is lacking, the Council will eagerly receive any recommendations.”

Over the past couple of years,  a growing sense of friction has developed between the Planning Board and the HPC over applications.  Talley’s practice of reviewing applications differs sharply from that of her predecessor Karen Kadus, who, unlike Talley, would regularly allow the HPC to review applications, both large and small, before the Planning Board did.  Talley also got the Montclair Township Council to approve the December 2012 repeal of an ordinance, passed in January 2008, that had required the historic preservation office to determine the historic, aesthetic or cultural significance of a structure 75 years old or more before it could be altered or razed.  But Talley’s most notable policy dustup, ironically, concerned a requirement in the Western Gateway redevelopment plan, which includes the planned MC Hotel on Bloomfield Avenue and Orange Road, that she herself was involved in drafting.  She did not initially allow the HPC to review plans for the hotel but relented at the last minute only when it turned out that the redevelopment plan and the historic preservation ordinance required it.  She let the commission review the hotel application after Planning Board member Martin Schwartz had sent – two weeks earlier – an omnibus e-mail to her and other Montclair officials alerting them of the requirement for the commission to review the application.

“Clearly, there is a feeling by many residents that our planner does not really support a preservation-directed, neighborhood character approach to redevelopment,” says Schwartz.  “Based on the excessive heights and bulk parameters originally proposed in the first master plan draft which put people up in arms, and the mass and density she didn’t stop for the first CentroVerde project [Valley and Bloom] while the redevelopment terms required the project to blend in with our downtown, it appears Ms. Talley is really in favor of opening the floodgates for unbridled development here.”  Many Montclair residents themselves have directly demanded more municipal preservation and protections of historic structures, both publicly at meetings and in research Talley herself conducted through public feedback for the master plan.  Talley, though, defends her stewardship of redevelopment projects in Montclair.

“My role is to facilitate the development of plans through coordination of consultants, subcommittees, the Planning Board and the public, ” Talley tells Baristanet.  “I am not a decision maker, but a facilitator in this process, and the plans that have been prepared over the past four years are the result of many different voices.  Recent redevelopment plans have included extensive design standards which were not a part of previous redevelopment plans.  The purpose of these design standards is to help ensure that new development fits in with the context of existing neighborhoods.”

Mayor Jackson was more direct in response to Schwartz’s observations.

“I consider Mr. Schwartz a friend and I respect his opinion on matters of planning and development,” the mayor said.  In this instance, however, I have to characterize his comments as facts-challenged, bad form, and perhaps [having] a touch of demagoguery.”

Architect Ira Smith, who served on the commission for ten years (2002 to 2012) and as its chairman for three years beginning in 2009, says that the HPC’s role in redevelopment has yielded positive results in recent years, such as its involvement with the remodeling of the old Olympic store on Valley Road in Upper Montclair,  and that process of review by the commission still works well when the HPC is allowed to be actively involved.  But Smith also says that when it’s left out of the discussion, the township gets less than it deserves.

Primavera witnessed firsthand Talley’s lax attitude toward historic preservation and her efforts at micromanaging the process in favor of expediting development.  She has been selective, Primavera says, in deciding whether to approve or reject applications that come before the Minor Applications Subcommittee, a four-person group including Talley, the zoning officer, and two HPC members, and she has on some occasions normally issued approvals or denials without input from the two HPC members.  She has even interfered with the HPC’s authority to issue violations against work done on historic buildings without HPC approval, one example being when she stopped a violation from being issued against a local club.  Primavera remembers it involved signage and/or painting on the clubhouse building, and the reason given for the blocking of the violation was because a highly-ranked local elected official was a member of the club.

Primavera was especially frustrated by Talley’s handling of the MC Hotel application.  HPC members had repeatedly asked him throughout 2014 to ask Talley when they would be able to review the application, only for Talley to insist that it wasn’t their concern. Then, on July 17, as Primavera was preparing packets for the July 24 HPC meeting, Talley came into his office and had him include the hotel on the agenda at the last minute.  Talley left for a family vacation the following day, and Primavera spent two extra days in Montclair for that week getting the information on the hotel together and sent to the commissioners.  A secretary had to hand-deliver the information to each commissioner so they would have enough time to review it, and Primavera had to skip a planning conference in Philadelphia because of the work in assembling the information.   He had to rehearse with Township Attorney Ira Karasick the legal explanations to the HPC that it was in fact required to review the hotel, and that Talley’s own redevelopment plan required it. Talley insists that her failure to comply with the requirement in the redevelopment plan was an oversight.

“I think there’s a pattern of marginalization of the HPC,” Smith says.  He adds that the HPC can play an integral role in recommending guidelines for new construction where there’s an impact on local historic districts, in order to get new buildings to honor and respect, not necessarily copy, architectural styles of the past. An active commission, he says,  can help assure that designs for new buildings and building additions that honor a town’s historic character and lessens and minimizes delay of projects due to the lack of clarity concerning what the township expects in terms of aesthetics.  The ordinance under which the HPC operates also allows the commission to work with owners of non-locally designated existing houses and buildings, at no cost, to help maintain the historic value of their properties and complement the character of the street when they seek to remodel them.

Smith points to the revisions made to the MC Hotel design just prior to its final site plan approval as an example of how the HPC could have played an integral role in resolving outstanding differences.  There, he noted, the process “fell apart,” because “the HPC was seeing the project at a later stage than usual, and the developer was caught off guard at having to possibly revisit numerous design decisions.”  The last-minute July 24 HPC meeting for the MC Hotel finally gave the HPC the opportunity to look over the hotel design, but commission members were vocally frustrated at not having been involved earlier in the design process, and the developers gave inconclusive answers to how the hotel related to Montclair’s historic character.

Soon after that meeting, a subcommittee consisting of Smith,  Schwartz (who chaired),  Planning Board Chairman John Wynn and Stephen Rooney, a member of both the board and the commission, was subsequently formed by the Planning Board to look over the basic hotel design and make revisions.  Smith was pleased with the final design, but he was unhappy with the acrimony over the controversies during the process caused by the Planning Board’s apparent disregard for and a lack of involvement with the HPC, adding that design subcommittees formed toward the end of such a process to “save the day” can “be avoided if there is better up-front communication between boards and relevant commissions.”

When Primavera, who was actively recruited by Talley to bid for the consultant’s job in November 2013, won the job the following month, he was initially pleased to be working with one of the most reputable historic preservation commissions in New Jersey.  Instead, he “walked into a mess,” as he puts it.  He found himself spending more time creating standard procedures for reviewing applications than actually reviewing them – he estimates that 60 to 70 percent of his work for the township was secretarial in nature.  And the frustration goes far behind the HPC.  Primavera found Planning Department members  demoralized, in a very tense work environment, and lacking any form of management-driven communication with each other.  He reported that there are no regular department staff meetings, and that some staffers sending out resumes elsewhere.

The Montclair Planning & Zoning Department
The Montclair Planning & Zoning Department

Primavera is not now surprised,  as he is aware that two HPC members resigned from the commission  before he started, and that a November 2012 ordinance prohibiting architects with clients who have applications before the township from serving on the HPC forced the respected Smith to resign the HPC chairmanship.  But his first indication that something was wrong came when he telephoned Barton Ross, Primavera’s friend and predecessor, and told him that he, Primavera,  had gotten the job as Montclair’s HPC consultant.  Ross, who had actually bid lower than Primavera for his own re-appointment, hadn’t been told of the result of the bids.  In other words, Primavera inadvertently informed Ross of his dismissal.  Talley had never bothered to tell Ross herself.

“I at least got a letter,” Primavera said.

Primavera is not disappointed about his dismissal.  In fact, he says that if he knew how much strife, secretarial work, and dysfunction the job of Montclair HPC consultant involved, he never would have taken it.

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

34 COMMENTS

  1. Shocked! HPC marginalized? Old news.

    But, the HPC needs to get a backbone. They are institutionally submissive. It is their fault alone that they did not make the MC Hotel an issue. All any one of them had to do is speak out publicly . Ask why they didn’t. They should take a page from the MAWAC.

  2. As I recall vaguely from the August HPC meeting, Peter had a running list of 300-350 code violations, to date, related to the HP ordinance. He suggested some of violations apparently disregarded legal notices from the court. I’d imagine that makes the Court unhappy. So, yes, the HPC is marginalized to the point of a joke and their responsibilities should probably be absorbed by the Planning Board. At least this would force the PB to have some accountability to historic preservation…of which they have none now.

  3. Ah, Montclair, where your tax dollars get used to destroy all the things you love about the town!

    Does anyone know who the town is actually being run for? It certainly isn’t us.

  4. Boy, am I angry.

    Just to be clear about a few important details. NJ Law is quite unequivocal in matters of Land Use and Rehabilitation Law:

    -The Council owns the Redevelopment Zone

    -The Council owns the Redevelopment Plan

    Also, the Council has a designated liaison to the HPC

    The Council did not follow its own document. So, it is not a question of any decisions the Planning Director or the Planning Board made. The question should have been referred to the Council. I think the Planning Director was remiss if she did not advise her boss, the Township Manager to advise the Council to the issue. That is why the Council has an attorney versed in Land Use Law. The attorney for the Planning Board should also have picked up on this in a heartbeat, but didn’t for some reason. I want to recall this document was approved and published in late 2011, early 2012. So, everyone including the HPC had ample time to digest the requirements.

    I think a contributing factor is the Zoning Board and the Planning Board’s importance and roles are reduced when the Council assumes zoning control in Redevelopment Zones. I also think the Planning Board key role was reduced to design oversight which they are ill-equipped to handle, much less share with the HPC.

    In hindsight, the PB probably was wrong to support the Redevelopment Plan as written. I saw a lot of incompatible requirements in it as a layperson, and several of the members are professionally trained. The HPC angle is just old news.

    Hopefully, the Council will learn from their mistake and get it more right in the redevelopment plans coming into the pipeline.

  5. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Glen Ridge Historic Commission has any paid consultants on board. It is basically just residents of the town who have an interest in historic preservation. Hopefully they aren’t a rubber stamp for developers, especially with the Mountainside school of nursing redev coming up!
    Does Montclair really need a paid consultant?

  6. Montclair outsourced the administrative role of HP official and HPC Secretary. It used to be handled in-house by an Assistant Planner. The consultant does not vote on applications before the HPC. As an HP official for the Township, they have certain administrative authority.

    Technically, the MHPC is classified as a “strong” commission based on the ordinances, etc, etc. I believe GR is also. There is little leeway in NJ Land Use Law to customize formal powers, so GR’s is not any different….technically.

  7. During planning board meetings, it has been clear that our Montclair’s planning director is not working for the good of the town. Much too often, during discussions of a new development proposal, due diligence for the town is ignored, circumvented or even openly stated that it will slow down the approval process for the developer.

    Montclair’s historic business districts and neighborhoods are the sum total of our town’s the basis for its economy and attraction. People pay more to do business here or live here because of that reality which must be preserved. Residents have had to consistently express that preserving architecture and the character of the town is essential? No one has to actually attend meetings to observe that development in recent years is completely out to character in size and architecture.

    In past decades, master plans preserved neighborhoods and protected property values from with density and height restrictions. The 2013 version written by our planner did not do this. Increased density and heights opened Montclair for massive development in business districts and parking lots. Public outcry was required and is still required to stop this misuse of authority.

    Residents should not have to police our own town planner. Montclair needs a planner who works for us and appreciates and understands why its essential to preserve our town’s historic architecture and character.

  8. Montclair. Why am I not surprised? Over 10 years to develope the empty Haynes building, and we have The Siena now. How long for Marlboro Inn re-developement? Affordable housing on million dfollar Wildwood Ave property… no buyers, apparently. In eptitude alone prevents things from happening in a timely manner. I suggest a new name.. Montclair to Miracle. If it’s a destination town, it’s a Miracle. And, historic preservation? Preserving gas stations, derelict housing, zoning with no enforcement? Send a SASE for my list of examples.

  9. Well then, I expect Save Upper Montclair gives the Township its full support in addressing the numerous HP violations in Upper Montclair. That would be a good start.

  10. I have attended numerous Planning Board meetings and at all of them there is a consistent theme amongst the people that line up to speak — people moved to Montclair because of the town it IS, not the town that the current draft of the Master Plan would allow it to become. Every time I have personally seen projects that would radically alter the nature of our town get presented (i.e. high density, strip-mall type stuff), there is a very vocal crowd on hand to speak out against allowing Montclair to move in this direction. I personally believe that Montclair is a town far more suited to thoughtful, adaptive reuse as opposed to massive new development of “Anytown USA” mediocrity like the Sienna (and forthcoming Valley and Bloom).

    For better or worse, it is human beings that manage departments, processes and the creation of Master Plans. When judging the performance of those people it is vital to ignore the words and look at the actions and results of those actions. How well has the process worked with the Western Gateway? How well did the draft of the Master Plan relate to what we as citizens of Montclair want for the future of our town? From a managerial perspective, our leaders ought to at the very least be asking themselves these important questions.

  11. The title of this article is:
    “Montclair Planning Board: Development Versus Historic Preservation?’

    The Planning Board. Not the Planning Department. Two separate entities.

    Yet, the content is mostly about Ms Talley, who is the Planning Board secretary and a non-voting PB member, and how she runs the Planning Department.

    There are no quotes, or the indication they were solicited, from the Chair or other appointed members…other than Mr Schwartz’s.

    Oh, the Planning Board owns the Master Plan. Not the Planning Department.

    There is no ordinance that required HPC review of Gateway 1 (there is no Western Gateway).

    The Mayor comments had it right.

  12. Since we cannot recreate many of these older structures, they are worth preserving. At the very least, they tell us the history of our town. Likewise, well designed new buildings point to the future – they illustrate how humanity is slowly urbanizing and coming to grips with depleting resources. It takes a certain amount of mastery to balance the two, and I for one hope the powers that be in Montclair do something about it.

  13. Frank Rubacky..why do you say the mayor has it right? I went to the Gateway Redevelopment Plan. It clearly says the HPC is supposed to review all site plans for this huge project. That means both the residences and the hotel. So if the facts in this article are correct, it seems the Planner purposely didn’t send the referral over to the hpc to look at the hotel design. Do you remember that ugly design they first started with? Everyone except the Planning Board hated it to start. The planner supposedly drafted that Redevelopment Plan. So she was now preventing the town from being able to make the hotel better when we had the legal right to do so. There were articles before saying the hpc did look at the residential portion of that project. So is this really now just another “oversight” on her part? What about the time the planning office allowed that mka older field building to get knocked down. That home was on a state historic register. Here above it says the Planner also purposely had this Council overturn the law from 2008 protecting our older homes from immediate knockdown. More oversight? I don’t buy it. The impact of all these points, including the higher heights of the buildings she originally put into the master plan, show it’s not an “oversight” — it a pattern like Ira Smith says. That means intent and reason..therefore supporting the various claims made about her actions. Consequently, the Mayor (and it seems you by extension given your supporting comment) don’t really have it right. In fact, you seem to be missing the main point what’s really going on here.

  14. Unless the whole town had a unified look, how can we logically work to preserve isolated structures done over decades with wide ranging styles and skills, in the name of some vague aesthetic? We have ugly utility poles in the front of houses on many streets. My sensibilities are offended more by this feature than any other. A new hotel on the primary commercial street in town is fine with me. Raze and build on New nd Mission Sts is fine with me. Remove the warehouses on Bloomfield Ave next to the police station, fine with me. Frankly I will stack my sense of beauty and worthiness against anyones. Let’s face it, we have a patchwork of changing urban design, some done without a care and some overdone with much ado about nothing. If we can’t wipe it clean and start over, the town like all towns in America must change slowly. Considering the life span of us humans, I will settle for uniform set backs, curbs and sidewalks maintained, if possible removal of front-line utility poles with ever increasing wire and cable loads. And since it is across the street from my house, the clean up of the town lot.

  15. Set backs. The house at 476 Grove was re-done, a 2-family beauty most will agree. But the opportunity to enforce the present set back was not done in the interest of too much burdon on the new owner to rebuild from the ground. I guess it is reasonable to not enforce, but we seem to value the overall look of a new facade, dressed up nicely compared to the delapidation before, with its orch falling of, for example. We have a rule that new houses have no gaping garage doors facing the street, yet we allow exceptions all the time, I guess because no one really cares about the gaping look after all? I’ve got more.

  16. In this era of ANRs….

    The HPC needs to go away.

    The Planning Board should assume their historic preservation responsibilities (separate out the design police stuff).

    The Council should assume the design police role via some pretense of a Form Based Code advisory committee.

    Enforcement…well, that’s enforcement. Get in line. No special treatment for HP.

  17. Frank: I read your comments and reread the article. Don’t see what the Mayor has right at all. He doesn’t seem to get there’s intent here if you actually read this story which has allowed the township to move in a development direction most residents don’t want. The appearance of our community is being degraded by poorly designed, heavy cheap looking new construction. But you are being way too obscure. What does the Mayor have right? I don’t see any need for balance between new development and ugliness. We just need attractive development that works with the township. The Planner doesn’t seem to care about this or support it based on what’s gone on to date. Not what she says her role is. The facts on the ground.

  18. Regarding “What does the Mayor have right?”, this is the part of the story I was referring to:

    “I consider Mr. Schwartz a friend and I respect his opinion on matters of planning and development,” the mayor said. In this instance, however, I have to characterize his comments as facts-challenged, bad form, and perhaps [having] a touch of demagoguery.”

    Yes, everyone knows the HPC has been marginalized. Everyone knows the Master Plan was badly screwed up. Everyone knows the Fried Council was responsible for the scale & mass problem with Gateway 1. Everyone knows the Jackson Council is just as culpable as the Fried Council because they were seriously entertaining even more mass with the 2-story debacle!

    I know Janice Talley a little and I think you are naive to think she has manipulated all the poor hapless souls on all these councils, boards, commissions, property owners, business owners, etc, etc.

    This article is not historic preservation. It’s about a bunch of stakeholders scrambling.

  19. Frank you said:

    “…everyone knows the HPC has been marginalized. Everyone knows the Master Plan was badly screwed up. Everyone knows the Fried Council was responsible for the scale & mass problem with Gateway 1. Everyone knows the Jackson Council is just as culpable as the Fried Council because they were seriously entertaining even more mass with the 2-story debacle!”

    So how is the Mayor right? You don’t make sense. On one hand you support most of the facts and points of the story from your comments. But both you and the Mayor don’t seem to get the main point. That this is intentionally happening by designs and it seems the Planner has at least been aquessing if not encouraging some of these policy directions despite attempts to present herself as just some hapless functionary. You completely substantiate what Schwartz says is going on…but then illogically say the Mayor is right in criticizing that. Can’t have it both ways.

  20. The Community is rejecting the Planner’s and Township Government’s Big Development/Bash & Build Agenda.

  21. OK, I’ll count myself with the Mayor on our view of Mr Schwartz’s antics. Mr Schwartz is getting tiresome, and he hasn’t even announced yet. I suspect that was part what the Mayor was saying was bad form – the throwing the people under the bus beforehand.

    The fact is there Montclair has no clear historic preservation vision, policy or strategies – much less any execution or accountability that flows from this. Go attend just one….just one HPC meeting. Any HP passion will get sucked out of you by morning after.

    Ask Mr Plofker his opinion about the recent Label Street referral by the PB.

    What ever did come out of the MKA Field House issue. I can assure you spotontarget you do not know.

    What I am saying is the HP public policy in this township is broken. It is broken, in a large part, because the residents don’t want a strong HP public policy.

    So, I just wish those local voices advocating HP by firing a planner would step up a little bit and try to educate themselves.

  22. Frank R, please excuse me, your statement about how for the large part most residents don’t want a strong HP public policy is no longer valid. That was the general opinion of our parents’ generation about 20 years ago. Eleanor Price did an excellent job of creating an inventory of historic resources…. and was given a really hard time. They were afraid that HP would interfere with their real-estate investments (not true) so they continually shot down preservation. That mind set lead to ten years of redevelopment failures. That generation of property owners is no longer here and our valuable vintage atmosphere is a very big draw for the new property owners who are willing to speak out and defend preservation.

  23. FrankG is right. People no longer want the town made ugly anymore which is still what’s happening. FrankR you come off like one angry dude. Why do you put the people down(stakeholders) who stand up to stop these bad policies or stop those pushing them? Didn’t you use to be on the Historic Commission? Get off this page man and get back in there. Help turn things around. You know the details. Now you’re coming off just frustrated with everyone.

  24. It’s weird to me how you and montclairmommy get so unsettled by anger. I clearly said I was angry…she downgrades it to annoyed and you are just coming to grips with the possibility.
    Just weird. As long as I’m clear about my anger, I think I’m doing ok.

    Anyway, I’m still doing the preservation thing…just focusing higher – literally and figuratively.
    Whining about Dark Sky, light pollution/trespass, etc. Tonight should be a very decent night for star gazing. Take the family up to Highland, Lloyd or higher if you can. Give your eyes some time to adjust. Look East.

  25. frankgg,

    I really want you to be right. I’m tHIs close to throwing out logic, evidence, & just plan common sense so I can believe you are right. It is just not in my nature. I’m not close to your level when it come to HP, but, conversely, I am far ahead of you in the assessment & analytics of Montclair’s current state.
    Maybe we are confusing preservation with design police. I think there is a lot of the latter.

  26. OK FrankR, thank you,
    Assessment and analysis of Montclair in its current state may be your skill-set but I feel that HP and economic solutions of HP for re development may possibly not YET be within your experience and understanding.
    So please by all means, for now, throw out logic, evidence & just plain common sense when it comes to the economics of HP and re development until this dynamic is within your understanding or abilities.
    It is quite obvious and proven dangerous for the quality of life of residents, that decisions are being made by individuals who do not have the proper skill set to operate on the 5 – 6 billion$ remarkable vintage real-estate stock that characterizes Montclair and that is why there has been ten years of failed re development projects and disappointment.

  27. frankgg,

    I can accept your criticism to a degree. BTW, I think Spiro T Quayle’s post summed the issue up nicely…and concisely.

    However, less than 5% of Montclair’s properties fall under the HPC’a authority. This is the segment (essentially the commercially zoned) that people are speaking of in the HPC marginalization discussion. When people talk about preserving the beautiful homes & many public institutions of Montclair, they need to understand our HP ordinances don’t apply to them or the smaller Walnut St, South End & Valley/Van Vleck commercial zones. They don’t even apply to Township-owned properties!

    So, the bottom line is that redevelopment areas are only capable of tearing down a very small part of Montclair…parcels that arguably have little historic value. Homeowners and public institutions are a far greater threat to historic preservation. So, it is not so much a HP issue as it is a fight over design control cloaked in HP.

  28. Spiro Q. Quale’s post underlines the best solution – preserving what is old and familiar while re developing to fullfil current requirements, however to succefully find the correct ballance people with the proper skill sets are needed and there seems to be a too few capable individuals on the decision making end, to the point that it seems that the public is more qualified and experienced (and being ignored)

  29. Talley’s gotta go!
    Far to many problems with her being here. If we wait till the lawsuits start, then it’ll be too late.
    She needs to go NOW!

Comments are closed.