Montclair Council: Residents Speak Out on Seymour Street Redevelopment Plan

The long-awaited hearing by the Montclair Township Council on the ordinance designating the area around Seymour Street and the Wellmont Theater as a redevelopment area for a new arts district did not happen at the council’s August 23 meeting as scheduled. The hearing was postponed to Tuesday, September 6, because an incorrect version of the ordinance published in the public notice of the hearing. But residents who were planning to speak at the hearing did so at last night’s meeting.

Victoria Ostrer of Roosevelt Place brought up two points about the Seymour Street redevelopment plan.  She said she wasn’t sure why large condominiums in the area were not considered in the collective tax revenue from a large building, and she hoped it would be explained when the impact study is looked at – specifically in terms of revenue from building as and not just their assessed value.  Ostrer also thought it was inconsistent for the master plan specified arts and entertainment district stretching along Bloomfield Avenue from Park Street to Lackawanna Plaza – well beyond the Seymour Street area – while the plan focused on just Seymour Street,  which led her to express concern over another issue.    She said that the developer currently owns the Wellmont Theater and the former Social Security property, while Montclair would allow the developer to use four other lots, and that the developer may acquire the Somerset Tire Service (STS) auto repair shop through eminent domain or other means.

“We’re looking at five additional properties the developer does not own at this time,” Ostrer said. “Even though the Seymour plan is trying to mitigate and limit what the developer can do, I’d actually like to see one property developed rather than six.”  She preferred that all other areas be left alone and that the town concentrate on the rest of the area designated by the master plan as an arts district.

Beth Calamia-Scheckel, a Willow Street resident and a frequent critic of the Seymour Street plan, said that the plan would set a precedent by allowing developers to build on municipal land so they can avoid putting parking on their own property, which  zoning regulations,  and that there haven’t been enough adequate studies of traffic and infrastructure.  Calamia-Scheckel also complained that there was not enough notice of the hearing, but Mayor Robert Jackson pointed out that the plan to hold the hearing on August 23 had been publicized as early as July 25, even though the agenda for the meeting was not published until just before it took place.  Third Ward Councilor Sean Spiller added that the council tries to get the agenda out for the meeting as quickly as possible but details need to be tweaked as things change, and if there is a problem as there was with the Seymour Street redevelopment ordinance, the council postpones a matter.

William Scott asked about affordable housing in the redevelopment area, and Mayor Jackson said he would like to have flexibility in the language of the plan to ensure preferences for affordable housing for Montclair residents.  Scott later asked why the finance study excluded the proposed Midtown parking deck, and financial consultant Bob Benecke took a seat on the council dais to explain.  He said that, while a Seymour Street parking deck was studied because it was integral to the redevelopment project, the proposed Midtown deck was seen as a stand-alone project that was separate from gets built on Seymour Street and could stand on its own, independent of whatever transpires in the redevelopment plan. Planning Board Vice Chair Jason De Salvo sought to expand on that, saying that the ownership of the land differs between the two parcels, with the township owning the Midtown lot.  He added, though that there would be definitely revenue going back and forth between the Seymour Street plan and the Midtown parking deck in a complex way.  He said it was being discussed but was not yet finalized.

“As a stand-alone thing it has to make sense financially,” De Salvo said with regard to Midtown, “so that parking deck has to work with the revenue that‘s going to come to account for the lost revenue that the town has for some spots, gaining others, and at the end of the day, it’s supposed to be built at no cost to the taxpayer.”

The redevelopment ordinance that did get passed was the amendment to the Eastern Gateway plan allowing 86 dwelling units per acre over the previous 75 units.  Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville objected, saying it concentrated yet more affordable housing in the Fourth Ward when the council has been trying to spread affordable housing throughout the township.  Dr. Baskerville acknowledged that the plan was being amended to allow a new apartment building on the present-day site of Mount Carmel Holy Church on Bloomfield Avenue, to be built, and she appreciated the full compliance with the 20 percent affordable housing mandate.  However, she cited the “paucity” of such housing in the other three wards and felt the amendment set a precedent for a greater concentration of affordable housing in the Fourth Ward as well as allowing too much density. Mayor Jackson said that the planned project had been thoroughly vetted by the Montclair Housing Commission, and that he was happy with it. Dr. Baskerville was not; the amendment passed 5-1 (Councilor-at-Large Robert Russo was absent) over her dissenting vote.

Dr. Baskerville then sought to have the council repeal the moratorium on affordable housing in the Fourth Ward passed in 2012, noting that the project on the site of Mount Carmel Holy Church technically violated it anyway, and adding that she thought the council could be aggressive in allowing developers whatever density they needed to provide affordable housing in the other wards.  Mayor Jackson said he did not want to pursue what he perceived to be unilateral and draconian re-zoning, and Councilor-at-Large Rich McMahon said that the density change for the Mount Carmel property was an isolated exception pertaining only to that property.  The moratorium remains on the books.

Also, a first-reading ordinance to ban truck traffic on Walnut Street between Grove Street and Walnut Crescent in anticipation of the Hackensack UMC/Mountainside was postponed after Dr. Baskerville said she wanted to add Cloverhill Place to prevent it from becoming an alternative route for construction vehicles.  Councilor McMahon re-iterated his opinion that, because there were no plans on the table to redevelop Hackensack UMC/Mountainside as of yet, it didn’t make sense to pass an ordinance just yet; he wanted more information.  “They’re not breaking ground any time soon,” he said.

The Traffic Parking and Advisory Committee may look at the issue at its September 21 meeting, meaning that the ordinance won’t likely be passed on first reading by the council before October.

The council also re-appointed Municipal Judge Kenneth Strait, who was immediately sworn in to a new term.

Montclair Municipal Judge Kenneth Strait is sworn into a new term by Township Clerk Linda Wanat.
Montclair Municipal Judge Kenneth Strait is sworn into a new term by Township Clerk Linda Wanat.

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


  1. Re: Mr. Jason De Salvo comments

    1) Is this some new, Millennial definition of stand-alone?

    2) We should be truly scared about a complex revenue stream. Not kidding. This is seriously stupid of some seriously smart people.

    PS: I had to laugh recalling how the seriously smart people on the then Capital Finance Committee justified the South Park Promenade Expense. Now we have between 27-40% vacancy adjacent to the South Park Promenade Financial Impact Area. Go back and read it. It will be illuminating how to read current financial impact studies.

  2. Rubacky: are you saying in your newest, 11th hour quarterbacking POV that because the town renovated the South Park Promenade — there there is now a 27%-40% vacancy rate surrounding this?

    Or are you saying that the nice new wider Promenade area to encourage more tourism and better retail has had no impact on stores and retail and therefore — was a municipal economic waste?

    Or are you saying you’ve fully reviewed all the real estate rateables for the area and compared them to rateables before the Promenade was built and can now affirmatively state what the economic impact is?

    I’m just not clear the point you are trying to make here now as it relates to this new proposed Seymour Street Development.

  3. I’m saying we made the numbers up out of whole cloth … and then I think we got a few smart people to lend their names in support. The Council just wanted to do it no matter what. So, the project, as much as you love it, went 100% over budget. But, that little fact shouldn’t bother you. Seymour is what, a $90MM project. So what if we miss the assumptions and pro forma by $10-20MM. It is much less of a miss %-wise. This Council ca be very proud of that.

  4. I watched the Council meeting video and wonder what is going on.

    Mr De Salvo is on the PB, and the Council’s Economic Development advisory group, said only the Midtown parking lot land will continued to be owned by the Township. Yet, the Seymour Plan ready for hearing specifically requires all the municipal parking lots to remain owned by the township.

    Can anyone shed any light on this?

  5. I’m not an advanced speculator, but it seems something is fundamentally wrong with this deal. Mr Benecke went to extended lengths to point out the Midtown Deck was a separate, stand-on-its own “capital stack”. Ridiculous term, btw. He goes on to point out the Township’s financial goal is to break even on the deal. Our goal is to break even. We break even and we get to retain our existing number of parking spaces. Wow, is this some form of the Stockholm Syndrome?

Comments are closed.