On Monday the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling that could be a death knell for the proposed Assisted Living Facility (ALF) slated for construction in downtown Montclair.
The Court ruled that public officials in New Jersey who also serve in leadership positions in churches or organizations are barred from voting on zoning applications for sites within 200 feet of their church or organization, according to NJ.com.
The decision is a victory for Montclair property developer Dick Grabowsky’s efforts to block construction of the ALF by Fountain Square Development. Grabowsky claimed former mayor Jerry Fried and councilman Nick Lewis should not have voted on an ordinance (which passed by a 4-3 vote) amending the township’s redevelopment plan to allow construction of the ALF because both Fried and Lewis were leaders in the Unitarian Universalist Congregation Church located next to the parking lot to be redeveloped.
In her 7-0 ruling, Justice Anne Paterson of the State Supreme Court said “…for purposes of determining whether a public official is disqualified from participating in a zoning application because of his or her affiliation with a church or other organization, that organization is deemed to have an interest in the application if it owns property within 200 feet of the property that is the subject of the application. In this case, by virtue of the Unitarian Church’s status as the owner of property adjacent to the Church Street Lot, it clearly held an interest in the Fountain Square application to amend the Ordinance. “
The decision cited that “Fried and Lewis had been selected to occupy positions of leadership in the Unitarian Church” and “is understood to share its interest in the outcome of a zoning dispute. If the organization has an interest in a zoning application, such an official has a disqualifying indirect personal interest and should refrain from deliberating and voting on the zoning application.”
“This is an extraordinarily significant win for residents of Montclair who want to see their downtown protected from irrational development,” said Grabowsky.
Grabowsky’s complaint was dismissed by a trial court in 2012, that decision was upheld by an appellate court in 2013, but the developer appealed to the NJ Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to a trial court for final resolution.
I am no fan of Grabowsky. He, more than any developer/landlord in town, has kept huge swaths of our downtown vacant for years. He holds a liquor license hostage and has fallen far short on his promises for filling his storefronts with tenants.
Still, this decision is great for Montclair Center, and I applaud Grabowsky for seeing his lawsuit through to the highest court.
Seniors need affordable housing, but this facility would not have filled the need. It was planned as an extraordinarily expensive warehouse for the elderly and infirm. The building would have occupied a prime location that should be filled with housing density and retail.
As a community, we should press our leaders to consider aging in place as part of any development project. But for now, congrats to Grabowsky for taking on the seemingly quixotic task of blocking this ill conceived project.
what Relax People is saying is so true and i fully agree….
“this decision is great for Montclair Center, and I applaud Grabowsky for seeing his lawsuit through to the highest court.
Seniors need affordable housing, but this facility would not have filled the need. It was planned as an extraordinarily expensive warehouse for the elderly and infirm. The building would have occupied a prime location that should be filled with housing density and retail.
As a community, we should press our leaders to consider aging in place as part of any development project. But for now, congrats to Grabowsky for taking on the seemingly quixotic task of blocking this ill conceived project.”
This is such GREAT news and this positive decision lifts such a burdensome roadblock from GOOD re development thinking that Montclair Center deserves.
Bravo and Thank you, Dick Grabowsky!!
When Mr. Grabowski filed this suit, I said three things: (1) I strongly agree with him that the assisted living facility is a bad idea for that site, but (2) this suit wasn’t a good idea because all it would do is cost the Township legal fees, and (3) the courts ultimately would reject the suit. I was clearly wrong on the third point and I owe Mr. Grabowski the courtesy of saying so publicly.
So what, in my personal opinion only, should happen now?
The current Council, which has no conflicts, should hold a hearing on the ALF and vote on it, up or down. I hope they vote no. Whichever way they vote, that should be the end of the matter.
What should NOT happen is a year-long discovery battle trying to learn from a local church what leadership roles Messrs. Fried and Lewis did or didn’t have at ar around the time they voted for the ALF. That would be an expensive sideshow, especially because they’re both off the Council.
So, congratulations to Mr. Grabowski and his legal team for a surprising win that gives the Township another chance to avoid what he, I and many others think would be a huge mistake.
If you see what catastrophe is taking place at Valley & Bloom, this would only take it a step further! 21st century architecture in Montclair don’t mix. Thanks, Dick.
Well, at least there will be more space for bike racks…..
But is it true that the Court also ruled unanimously in favor of keeping the bike rack portion of the plans in place ?
“The current Council, which has no conflicts, should hold a hearing on the ALF and vote on it, up or down. I hope they vote no. Whichever way they vote, that should be the end of the matter.”
Assuming this Council decides on the latter and Fountain Square does not contest the matter, then the Council should also refer to the Planning Board for a recommendations on:
1. Revisions to the Hahnes Redevelopment Plan that is now out of date, has deficiencies, and does not align to the new Master Plan.
2. Whether to fold this parcel into the Gateway 2 Area in Need of Redevelopment (ANR)
3. Designating a new redeveloper in light of this lot’s redevevlopment history prior to Fountain Square acquiring the property.
This is far from over…but, at least we’ll have a parking lot back for the next five years.
Congratulations Montclair. I live blocks from the low income senior place being built in Bloomfield and wow is it hideous already. Crammed into the location and in the center of an area we are trying to develop into a destination spot. Because low income seniors and people willing to pay $1700 for a studio apartment mix well.
@hrhppg yeah, keep them low income seniors out! they have no business being near people with money!
Before you make class-segregationist comments like that, think about what it will be like when you are old and (possible) on a limited income.
Warehouse is a good term. A monstrous building filled with overpriced units to store our elderly residents was a terrible idea.
Their goes the Jerry Fried commissary.
Make that There.
No stu,… there are still those “too many floors” at Valley & Bloom.
But, really…can someone tell me what Grabowsky is doing about all of these abandoned storefronts in town? For a town that likes to consider itself ahead of the rest, I could count 12-15 storefronts in the Bloomfield Ave area that are empty (I know, not all him).
A decision as welcome as it is unexpected. Congratulations, Dick! Let’s hope the current council puts an end to this wrong-headed grab for ratables. Far more constructive and revitalizing ideas for this parcel are sure to arise.
Harvey Susswein
mojoe & knashville,
My memory on this is iffy, but these “warehouses for the seniors” has been an approved use in the C-1 zones. The Freid council just voted to allow them in this redevelopment lot.
You also do realize that whatever mixed use replaces the 5-story ALF will now almost certainly be six “monstrous” stories and of the same 21st century style as Valley & Bloom and The Siena? As far as streetscape, there is room for maybe 1 store front once the parking lot/garbage pickup lanes, utility room vents, etc. have ben added. Don’t expect the streetscape to be greatly enhanced. Lastly, we also made a deal to compensate us for the lost parking – which I Imagine will be reincarnated under the alternate use scenario. I don’t see how the Planning Board’s “that ship has sailed” excuse will work here. It’s worth a shot, though.
“Far more constructive and revitalizing ideas for this parcel are sure to arise.”
Well, this was designated a redevelopment area in 2001 and the designated developer looked at nine different studies to best use the property and then gave up on the best option for the ALF option. The developer also said the retail viability was not great. Further, this was not the first lawsuit over this ANR.
The redevelopment plan calls for many out of date requirements and furthermore, only requires 10% of the units to be affordable housing. Even if this gets out of the courts to include in Gateway 2, the only way this makes sense (with all the requirements that will be place on it) will be to do a Transfer of Development Rights package with the Lackawanna Redevelopment Area.
Or, the town could just take it by Eminent Domain and put a parking deck in.
ALF, aside, I simply cannot imagine a six story structure of ANY kind going up on that site. …..Talk about a bad case of architecturally induced claustrophobia….