Montclair Planning Board Recommends New Zone for Claremont Avenue Properties After Plofker Request

BY  |  Tuesday, Nov 14, 2017 3:55pm  |  COMMENTS (7)

The Montclair Planning Board agreed on Monday evening to recommend a zoning change for a strip of residential properties located on the North side of Claremont Avenue, which would change the zoning from R-3 to a new “historic” OR-3H zone.

This designation would allow office use while maintaining the residential character of the buildings.

Developer Steven Plofker, managing member of the Montclair Town Center LLC, currently owns the Georgian Inn property on the corner of North Mountain Avenue, as well as 323 Claremont Avenue (three-family house). Claremont Avenue Partners, affiliated with Montclair Town Center LLC, owns 315 Claremont Avenue, a two-family house. The single-family home located at 319 Claremont Avenue is owned by John and Leslie Matis.

These properties are all currently zoned R-3 residential “Garden Group Zone.” Another property on the corner of Claremont Avenue at Valley Road is already zoned OR-3 (office/residential garden apartment).

Attorney Alan Trembulak, representing Plofker, stated they were requesting the Planning Board recommend to the governing body that the zoning on the North side of Claremont Avenue between North Mountain Avenue and the existing OR-3 zone be changed to OR-3 from R-3.

Board member Martin Schwartz asked about the status of the Matis property. Steven Plofker was sworn in to testify, and explained that he had a “handshake agreement” with the owner to buy the property when the time is right and said the owner is “in full support of the application” and would be willing to testify to that.

Schwartz then asked what the developer’s intention would be for the property. Plofker began by saying “No real intention,” and then explained the history behind the rezoning request.

He said they had made multiple appearances before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and ultimately the ZBA recommended that rather than seeking numerous use variances, that they go before the Planning Board and request a rezoning of the properties. He said that most of the surrounding properties are commercial or multi-family. “So you have this anomaly of these three smaller buildings surrounded” by these other uses, Plofker said.

Plofker had bought the Georgian Inn property in 2012. The Inn and the carriage house behind it were granted landmark status by the Montclair Historic Preservation Commission in 2008.

The carriage house, which housed a business on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor, suffered an accidental fire in 2014. Since that time, after a decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in January 2017, the carriage house has been moved to a more prominent position on Claremont Avenue with the intent to convert the space to medical offices. The main building, which is also being renovated, is slated for use as a 34-room hotel.

Plofker explained he wanted the rezoning of the additional three properties adjacent to the Georgian Inn and carriage house in order to allow medical office space on those properties.

“In my opinion, Montclair needs high quality office medical space. The township is suffering because we’re not competing with neighboring towns that have new and larger medical buildings. This is an ideal place for this, along this increasingly busy corridor,” he explained.

Schwartz asked if they would turn the houses into medical offices. Plofker said he would see how the leasing goes on the carriage house. He stated he didn’t know yet if he will renovate, add to the existing houses or tear them down.

Schwartz also brought up the future medical office buildings planned across from Mountainside Hospital, pointing out that this plan would make that area a “medical corridor.” Plofker said that some practitioners don’t want to be in a large medical building and prefer to have standalone offices that aren’t immediately adjacent to the hospital.

Board member Tony Ianuale asked Plofker how many square feet of medical office space he anticipates, not counting the carriage house.

“At least another 20,000, I haven’t looked at it closely,” he said. “There’s a lot of property there, the lots are deep, they’re bordered by parking lots in the back. Doctors like prominence. They would like a certain visibility to the street. Claremont is a perfect street, where it’s busy and visible but not too busy, not too much traffic, and easily accessible by foot, car and taxi. It’s centrally located to almost all of Montclair.”

Martin Schwartz then brought up the appearance of the residences. “These are classic looking Montclair homes,” he stated. “What will you do to preserve their exterior?” He also went on to ask if the houses could be prevented from being knocked down.

Planning Director Janice Talley said nothing is preventing them from being torn down now; this is just a rezoning request. Ianuale pointed out that Talley’s memo stated that mixed use residential/office space should maintain a residential look.

Plofker explained the problem is that Victorian homes are taller and narrower than what would be conducive for office space. “They don’t have the floor plans and ceiling heights that doctors require,” he said. 

Schwartz replied, “That’s why they’re residences.” Plofker went on to say that the houses “are not adaptable, not accessible. It would be hard to make them accessible in the current configuration…If I’m asking the board to make a recommendation to the council, I have no issue with these concerns being put in the recommendation. I have no doubt that we’d be able to recreate or build a new structure that had a residential feel if that’s what the board requires.”

Attorney Alan Trembulak interjected. “We’re talking policy here. We’re presenting this application soliciting your support to recommend rezoning of the property. This is not an application…. The board should decide whether this property is suitable for what we are suggesting. If the board recommends that it be rezoned, if the council should introduce an ordinance, that ordinance would have to come back to this board and the board would have to provide a recommendation whether it’s consistent or inconsistent with the Master Plan.”

He then introduced Planning Consultant Peter Steck, who passed out an updated exhibit showing the zoning change request and pictures of the relevant properties.

He explained the focus of his report was on the residential lots 19, 18 and 17 on Claremont Avenue.

323 Claremont, 319 Claremont (Lot 18) and 315 Claremont (Lot 17)

“Those are in an R-3 zone, which means you can have conditional uses like nursing homes, but basically there are no rules against tearing them down,” he said. “By changing to OR-3 those existing rights are not changed. The OR-3 just expands capabilities,” he said. He explained that OR-3 says if you’re going to do mixed use, with residential and offices in the same building, you’re required to have residential on the second floor and keep a residential appearance. However, he stated that if a new building is all office, retaining the residential appearance would not be required.

He discussed consistency with the Master Plan, which he said stated that the township should consider rezoning the Georgian Inn to OR-3 zoning.

In my mind, you wouldn’t just zone the Georgian Inn property as one OR-3 lot. You’d tend to extend from the existing zone if that makes sense. Because of the amount of traffic on Claremont Avenue, I think you could do something on the North side without any adverse effect on the South side,” he said.

Steck then made the suggestion that if the board is uncomfortable with the requested OR-3 zoning, there are variations that may be possible.

“If you were uncomfortable with the OR-3 rezoning that’s requested, there are other variations that are possible…. This is kind of a no-holds-barred policy discussion. Allowing offices responds to a portion of the medical market that doesn’t seem to be well-served….This technique of introducing an office component to residential zones has been in Montclair for a long time,” Steck stated.

He pointed out that one reason for office conversions in Montclair stemmed from the tendency of large older homes being turned into rooming and boarding houses in the past. He said that the policy of allowing office conversions has been successful in keeping these properties well-maintained.

This prompted Martin Schwartz to say that from his perspective, “there are two agendas”: one to increase the office use in an area that’s clearly moving toward that, and the other to preserve the look of historic houses.

“How about OR-3H for Historic?” he suggested. “Require that the exteriors be maintained and the owners have the opportunity to turn them into an office use, and we solve both agendas at the same time… I would support something like that. Create a modified zone in that area and perhaps use it in other areas as well, such as Plymouth Street.”

When questioned by Janice Talley whether this would mean preserving the existing buildings, he confirmed it would.

There was further discussion on the ability of the developer to add to the back or sides of the houses in order to accommodate the new medical office use.

Plofker said, “The general concept I support, I just would hope we would be able to figure out to allow me enough flexibility, with either the Planning Board or HPC’s consultation, to enlarge the structures and modernize them and alter them. They have to grow. Their footprints are too small.”

Janice Talley pointed out that the regular OR-3 zone would require new office space to only be two stories tall, and the current buildings are taller than that, so he gains space from that perspective.

Vice Chair Keith Brodock, who was chairing the meeting, pointed out that keeping the residential look of the homes would benefit those living across the street as their view would continue to look residential. He did express concern about the loss of relatively affordable residential housing. Steck said that most of the demand for residential housing has been on the Bloomfield Avenue corridor and that medical office space is highly in demand.

If the residential market was stronger than office market then they’d remain or be torn down for apartments,” he said, referring to the three homes on Claremont Avenue.

Board member Stephen Rooney, who represents the Historic Preservation Commission, suggested the guidelines from the HPC’s ordinance could be utilized in designing the new zoning regulation for a potential OR-3H zone.

Plofker reiterated the need to expand the footprint of the buildings, and Martin Schwartz suggested adding a wing as well as rear additions. Rooney concurred, saying that the stipulation would be that the additions be “subordinate” to the original building.

Janice Talley said that the Zoning Subcommittee was in the process of updating the whole Zoning Ordinance and that the new OR-3H zoning could be incorporated in to that update, which is due to be presented at the next workshop meeting on November 27. The final recommendations would then be sent to the Council to be incorporated into a new ordinance, which would be sent back to the Planning Board for further assessment before final passage.

Steven Plofker and Peter Steck suggested they could draft up an ordinance that would incorporate the requirements discussed at the meeting and provide it to Talley in time for the November 27th meeting. She requested they provide it within a week and said she would be reaching out to Joe Fleischer of the Zoning Board for comment.

Martin Schwartz made the motion to recommend the creation of an OR-3H historic zone for the properties at issue and that language be crafted accordingly to both reflect the modified use and to incorporate preservation language that may already exist within the HPC or master plan documents. The board passed it unanimously.

The workshop meeting to discuss the zoning ordinances will be held on Monday, November 27, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at the Municipal Building.

7 Comments

  1. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 14, 2017 @ 9:59 pm

    The new “historic” OR-3H zone

    This might be one of the “dumbest”, yet the “funniest” moment in Planning Dept/Planning Board history.

    You just can’t make this up. I was rolling on the floor last night. I bow to Plofker. He went on the record on several specifics that would make a planner cringe, but not our gang. This meeting surpasses any Master Plan episode….by far.

    Thank you.

  2. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 14, 2017 @ 10:11 pm

    Sorry, the damn spellcheck again.

    Planning Dept/Planning Board should be Plofker Dept/Plofker Board.

  3. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 15, 2017 @ 2:08 pm

    The existing OR-3 Zone was to facilitate development along the Valley Road North/South corridor. However, this proposed rezoning emphasizes the commercial variances granted to the Georgian Inn to argue for its expansion along the Claremont Av corridor.

    The Master Plan argument:
    Do we agree that the Claremont Ave Corridor should be changed from primarily residential to include high-density commercial? You have two recently updated elements of equal stature within our Master Plan (Land Use & Historic Preservation) that DON’T recommend this.

    The Land Use Element identifies the Valley Rd-Van Vleck Focus Area which included the proposed properties and others on Claremont Ave & surrounds. As it did not suggest an intensification of use beyond the Georgian Inn, there was no public discussion.

    The HP Element specifically identified Claremont Ave, starting at N Mountain, as a historic streetscape resource. It also identified 5 other adjacent properties as historic resources. Further, 3 landmarked structures are within the proposal and 3 more within 2 blocks. In summary, this short stretch of Claremont has 25% of the Township’s individual landmarks as well as a half dozen other historic resources. This rezoning proposal is putting the cart before the element’s horses.

    The “Historic” Protections argument:
    The developer said the current Victorian structures are not conducive or adaptable for Class A Medical Office use. Clearly, demolition is, and would be by right, an option. At the very least, the existing visible character of the structures would be subordinated by their expansion.

    The applicant also said that rebuilding, as office use only, would eliminate the requirement for a residential appearance. The applicant said he was looking for at least 20,000 sf of office use – more than double the total existing uses. That level of medical office use would require, by ordinance, 140 parking spaces.

    The PB wants to create a historic zone without an historic overlay and because it is a zoning issue, input was not solicited of the full HPC (or it’s designated representative).

    The PB recommends unclear historic requirements for the 3 rezoned lots with houses could, as of right, be demolished is crazy. At best, and I don’t see how, it would just add a design police role to the PB for the new buildings. A role that the HPC already has via our HP code requirements. This is side-stepping the HP ordinances.

    Reminds me of an old saying of Victorian surgeons, “the operation was a success, but the patient died.”

    The Scope vs. Expediency argument:

    We have new, township-wide overhaul of zoning in the pipeline, but that doesn’t fit the developer’s timeline. The “heavy lift”. Hence, we are creating a new, one-off zone that will be replaced when that overhaul is approved.

    Even if choosing expediency, the scope should also include Lots 21 & 22 (39 & 49 N. Mountain Ave). The same block, same adjacencies to the Georgian Inn, and these buildings already have first floor office uses approved by the Township. Their lack of inclusion in the discussion suggests this is just another version of a variance process rather than a thoughtful land use & zoning review.

  4. POSTED BY jimbo08  |  November 15, 2017 @ 2:52 pm

    Anyway- “He stated he didn’t know yet if he will renovate, add to the existing houses or tear them down. “There’s a lot of property there, the lots are deep, they’re bordered by parking lots in the back” – This kind of language from a developer such as Plofker is scary. I can see him in a couple of months stating that “he has spoken to doctors and they are going to have their offices around Mountainside, so I have decided to knock the houses down and intend to build townhouses” (planning board)- ” great idea Steve, how quickly can you start?!”
    Him and other developers are ruining what give Montclair its charm. As noted by Schwartz, the houses are beautiful, classic, old school Montclair homes. Why doesn’t Plofker focus on areas that really need redevelopment like Pine St, Mission/ New St areas. That area can be turned into a- (dare I say), little Soho or West Village with the beautiful buildings already in place. A true commuters dream. Fix that area of town.

  5. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 15, 2017 @ 8:50 pm

    Unlikely, jimbo. Mountainside has cut back their new office building 25% to 45,000 sf.

    Mr Plofker is right about what doctors want. I suspect Mr Plofker would definitely do medical office, especially if he can get the required parking spaces at 40-50% discount.

    To your point, I suspect Mountainside is still going ahead with the original surface parking lots capacity as per the 60,0000 sf plan. I wonder how this affects the PILOT revenue figures for Montclair? Glen Ridge just lost 25% of their PILOT revenues.

  6. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 18, 2017 @ 7:24 pm

    Interesting question for the planning board members…

    If this was not a redevelopment area, what zoning would this amendment moat closely approximate?

    You can pick a current one, a proposed one, or a conceptual one. You can only pick one, though.

    Let me know.

  7. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  November 18, 2017 @ 7:24 pm

    moat is most.

Leave a Reply

Baristanet Comment Policy:

Baristanet has specific guidelines for commenting. To avoid having your comment deleted -- or your commenting privileges revoked -- read this before you comment. Violators will be banned from commenting.

Report a comment that violates the guidelines to [email protected] For trouble with registration or commenting, write to [email protected]

Commenters on Baristanet.com are responsible for all legal consequences arising from their comments, including libel, infringement of copyright or actions that threaten a third party. By submitting a comment, you agree to indemnify Baristanet LLC, its partners and employees from any legal action arising from your comments.

In order to comment on the new system, you need to register a new Baristanet account. To get your own avatar next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Featured Comment

Sad. Let's hope that this is not its "Last Tango." One of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in town. Valentino, Garbo, Keaton must have played there.

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information