At the 11th hour and 59th minute, architect prof Petia Morozov sends her own rendering of the Siena, the planned replacement for the Hahne’s building… which will enter into history today. (The demolition ceremonies get underway at 11 am.) This image is actually part of a larger document that she sent to the Montclair Times this morning. Morozov charges that the developer’s rendering of the 7-story mixed use tower to replace the Hahne’s building is misleading. The actual tower, she says, will eclipse the church tower and cast a long shadow over downtown Montclair.
The full text of her letter to the Times (and us) follows:
Dear Mark:
This week’s Montclair Times coverage of Hahne’s Redevelopment is highly provocative: on the one hand, the front-page article seems to make light of the environmental issues that many churches, schools, businesses and residents in the area will be subjected to during demolition. On the other hand, the side-by-side images of the building and rendering (on page A5) cleverly demonstrates the very same concerns that Planning Board member Sally Ross entered with her “no” vote, in opposition of the redevelopment project. She pointed out the discrepancies that the developers’ rendering depicts, perhaps because she is trained in design. To think that this was the only image that was submitted in Herod’s application that attempts to put the proposed building in context!
I am a practicing architect and professor of architecture and urban design, teaching at Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. I also teach at Mayor Ed Remsen’s and Manager Joe Hartnett’s alma mater, Fordham University, where I am also artist-in-residence. Your articles prompted this academic exercise: using the plan and elevation drawings that were submitted to the Planning Dept, I wanted to test the implication of your side-by-side photos, so I built an accurate computer model of the proposed development, and I set up the same views of the building. It’s astounding what I discovered.
Attached is a compilation of images that begin with a simple analysis of your side-by-side images. The church tower is an excellent reference common to both images that helps illustrate this inaccuracy. It effectively outlines the implausibility of the rendering. Then, I carefully aligned views in the computer model to help create the same snapshot as the one in Herod’s rendering; I offer the accurate version of the building they plan to build. Finally, the model allows me to study shadows based on summer and winter sun positions, to illustrate how long and prevalent these shadows on Church and South Park Streets will be throughout the year.
Your spread is very effective in proving Sally Ross’ point so clearly, and now I wonder: given the conflicting tones of the two articles, what common ground does the paper stand on with regard to this project?
Best,
Petia Morozov
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation
here we go….
Reminds me of the “artist’s rendering” for the Plofkerville planned for the site of the Marlboro Inn, which ran some months ago in the Montclair Times. In the drawing, the site was the size of Central Park, and the houses were small and cute. There was no way that drawing had any connection to the reality-to-be.
I *simply* cannot *imagine* why the town has a hard time keeping developers interested in these kinds of projects…
good god! Shadows!
stop the bulldozers.
we dont need the tax revenue anyway.
let the old building continue to the eyesore that it is.
down with progress.
The developer’s rendering was presented to the Montclair Planning Board under oath.
Is it wrong to expect the truth in that situation?
Montclair officials should be outraged that they were duped.
Or, was it just the public and media that had to be deceived for the town council to change the height (+2 floors), density (+40 units) and parking (-35% and the 100-space annexing of the Crescent Deck) laws for this connected developer?
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking
Mr. Morrison — Our maven of outrage.
How do you keep it up? Vitamins? Coffee?
ROC,
I would think that TRUTH would be high on your list of values. Why so sarcastic?
It is, but do we know the truth here? I know that all renderings lie a bit.
Personally I don’t see a hugh difference between the sketches. Not enough to be *outraged* about.
Make no mistake there are many agendas present in this situation – especially political.
If Remsen and the council get this building built and the eyesore removed, even with (god forbid) a shadow at certain times of the day, I will be happy.
How many more years of an eyesore are we willing to take? Should the project be stopped because of a rendering?
No.
I hope the chattering, nattering nippers of delay and further decay are completely ignored.
I don’t think anyone wants to stop it. It’s a question of process. Someone expected reality but was presented “an idea.”
Process is important. It’s why we do a study before we implement a solution. Its why the Council approves a proposal before contracts are let out, people are fired, or whatever. Process is rules. It makes life easier.
I can’t wait til’ I build my first skyscraper. I’m going straight residential zoning, baby! Bring the fight!
You’re right… Process IS important. But why do the words “long and drawn out” also come to mind whenever ANY project has to get off the ground in Montclair?
Shadows!?!? Are you freakin’ kidding me? To be really sure, before The Siena is built, let’s do a year long study, covering all four seasons, to determine if these “shadows” cause an increase in SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) among shoppers on Bloomfield Avenue.
I am just so S.A.D. thinking about it!
actually, I am thrilled that this miserable eyesore is finally gone! having lived on Church Street for 2 years, every day I walked out of my building I had to look at the World’s Ugliest Building sitting there, loads of potential wasted, as the enemies of progress stopped ther natural order of capitalism. A pig-melting factory would be an improvement over what was there.
I only wish I could see the pile of rubble and hear the wailing of the crybabies coming from beneath it.
I went by the building today and the spot when they made the big hole was all boarded up. What is up with that?
The company doing the demo wanted to make sure no debris fell from the opening and no one would be tempted to “explore”. Later in the day they did more demo in the back. The whole job will take 60 days so they can systematically demolish and remove everything.
The company doing the demo wanted to make sure no debris fell from the opening and no one would be tempted to “explore”. Later in the day they did more demo in the back. The whole job will take 60 days so they can systematically demolish and remove everything.
If given a cursory glance, I can understand the impression that people have that I am trying to stop the project. However, when meeting with Mayor Remsen, I made it clear to him that I generally supported the project, and had only wished that the town would’ve held a higher standard of design to reflect better, more sustainable building practices. In fact, my office is in the process of designing a 50-unit mixed use project for a town half the size of Montclair, with half the planning resources, and we aim to achieve a LEED rating of PLATINUM on the project. (For more information on what LEED means, and how our town officials could draw innovative and sustainable development to Montclair in the future, go to https://www.usgbc.org/leed/leed_main.asp )
So consider the debate closed about my resistance to the project so that we can return this discussion to my original issue: Montclair Times pointed out the descrepancy better than anyone – including myself – could have done, by the simple decision they made to photograph the building as it exists today, from the exact same angle, and exact same spot on the street, and then put it directly alongside the developers’ rendering. The church’s tower is positioned exactly in the same place in both images; even to the layperson, it is unmistakable to see that Hahnes building stands only slightly shorter than the Herod rendering. When you consider that the Hahne’s building is only 2 stories while the Herod project is actually 7 stories, one has to question why the Herod rendering is falsely presenting the project. It is yours to examine more carefully for yourself when you turn to page A5 of this week’s Times.
So what, why does it matter? you ask. Never mind that the project lacks any character and doesn’t engage the scale of the neighborhood, what was ultimately at stake for this project was community support and engagement. This building stood vacant for so long, and reflected poorly on its many elected officials. There is no argument that something had to be done. But trying to achieve community trust through false representation is fundementally wrong.
“When you consider that the Hahne’s building is only 2 stories”
2 stories? How’d they get the 3 floors depicted in the Montclair Times picture of the interior into 2 stories?
(since we are all trying to be “accurate” and avoid “false representation”)
How high is each story in the old and new building?
(not all stories are the same.)
Thank you for raising this point. You’re right, it’s better to compare heights than to compare number of stories.
So then, because you raise this point, and it seems important to you, I encourage you to use your persistence toward something productive, like going to the gaping hole in the back of the Hahne’s building and counting the number of concrete blocks tall. Multiply it by the height of one block and you have your overall height. Then go to the planning dept and ask to see the drawings of the proposed building, and compare the two heights for yourself.
My guess is that you won’t because it’s easier to persist in creating your own divide on the real subject than it is to have a dialogue with your fellow Montclarions. As long you you don’t care to disclose who you are, your attacks are worthless.
If the redevelopment is delayed or thwarted how long will it take to find a new developer? Perhaps not long, since Montclair has proven to be such a development friendly town?
I fear we will end 12 years of this eyesore:
https://www.baristanetnew.wpengine.com/photos/uncategorized/hahnes_building.jpg
just to begin a period of years looking at something like this:
https://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/kcc/images/sector9bef.gif
Your offended aesthetic sensibilities (or for that matter – Ecological Fundamentalism) notwithstanding, I for one, would rather have the 7-Story Sienna (shadows and all) than a derelict wreck or empty lot!
Dear Mayor Remsen,
I’m glad you got the chance to see the real size of the building you approved, even though it may be too late to correct the mistake.
Which of the following is close to your position on the issue of the developer lying to the town council and the planning board:
1) You’re angry that the developer committed perjury when testifying under oath and you will have law enforcement investigate. This will show future Montclair developers that the town will not tolerate dirty tactics.
2) You agreed with the deception to help sell the project to the public. That way the council’s breaks to the developer for height (+2 floors), density (+40 units), set backs (0) and parking spaces (-35% and a forever tax break of +/-$50,000 yearly) from becoming a controversy.
3) Your’re embarrased that you and Deputy Mayor Michaelson were duped by the developer. You’ll hope nobody notices. You’ll also hope that the rest of the council allows you and Ms. Michaelson to close on an even better deal for Steven Plofker’s hotel in place of the Church Street parking lot.
The public deserves your attention on this issue.
And Petia Morozov deserves your gratitude for helping Montclair see the truth.
Sincerely,
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking
Garrett:
I will look into the questions you and Petia pose because they raise serious issues and I will be glad to respond when I have looked into the matter but your cynicism, innuendos, sarcasm and righteousness are really getting to be too much. There has been a proper and open process at every level for this project.
Developers like the Dursts, Albanese, Millenium and Goldman Sachs would have a field day with your 20th century sensibilities of economic development.
* Four Times Square https://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_22_50/ai_112986987
* The Solaire https://thesolaire.com/
* 2012 Olympic Village, New York City https://www.nyc2012.com/news_052604_winners.html
* One Bryant Park https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/features/feature_template.cfm?ID=1050
I should add that my last posting was directed toward Right of Center.
Petia –
Welcome to the internet where psuedonymity means that it is ideas, not number of advanced degrees (though I *am* impressed!), that matter.
I’m no supporter of Richard… I mean Right of Center, but your ad hominem attacks towards him lessen your other, fact-informed, arguments.
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am sure you realize that success in politics (as President Clinton once said) is measured not by what you attempt, but by what you get done.
Keep the focus (as you have) on what is best for the *whole* town rather than cave-in to vocal special interests.
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I certainly hope that you, and Deputy Mayor Michaelson, realize that most citizens of Montclair are both relieved, and happy beyond belief, that after fifteen long years the Hahnes building will finally be demolished in order to make room for a seemingly beautiful and economically viable building.
With that in mind, remember the small number of citizens who voiced their opposition of the completion of the Montclair-Boonton Line? Remember how they cried, screamed and threatened lawsuits claiming that it would ruin Montclair’s property values and destroy our aesthetics? Well, that doomsday scenario didn’t exactly play out that way, huh?
Please, no more unnecessary delays, hearings, studies, or sub-comittees concerning this exciting project. Enough is enough.
Now, about those taxes…
Dear Mr. Mayor,
We are grateful that you will look into the duping charge with regards to the false rendering of the Siena building. Though this is not my main issue, the alleged duping is a symptom of a process that is either broken or corrupt.
I just don’t understand how you can say the process has been proper and open. Just the other day the Montclair Times reported on the front page that the town manager, Mayor Remsen, Deputy Mayor Joyce Michaelson and Steven Plofker had a private meeting to discuss Plofker’s proposed Montclair Center Hotel in the redevelopment zone. It is unbelievable to many that a meeting like this could take place in the current Marlboro Inn climate of distrust.
I can only explan my cynicism by the following.
I have been trying to point out the lack of parking in the redevelopment plans for almost two years. I have addressed the issue at two town meetings. I have spoken to the mayor, my former councilman, my current councilman, the planning board and countless others. Others will not discuss the issue with me including the town manager, parking authority chairman, parking authority director, other council members, etc.
Not one person has addressed my numbers or disputed with any evidence that the long-term parking situation will get worse after the redevelopment is complete in Montclair Center.
Should I not be frustrated? Should I not think something else is going on behind the scenes?
Maybe this illustrated example will open your eyes:
Raymond’s eatery is an establishment that most in Montclair know about.
When they are busy, and that is often, they have 85ish seated in the 100-110 person indoor dining area. They have a line outside the door. They have 25-30 people working.
How many parking spaces would be required under your redevelopment parking guidlines?
Answer: 4.5 spaces.
The current law would have required 9 spaces, which seems low already, but you cut it in half to 4.5 spaces. I don’t know why. The current developer had a plan to follow the current law before the reduction.
Now consider that the Siena project has the space to house 22 Raymond’s.
Does this sound wrong to anybody? Is it hard to imagine Montclair Center parking getting worse with these kinds of numbers (4.5)?
Sincerely,
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking
Garrett,
But you are so affable and friendly when you are alleging wholesale corruption and malfeasance on the part of our local pols, I am truly *surprised* no one takes you seriously!
Are you saying that if the siena project (hahne’s) has a restaurant like raymonds the developer has only provided 4.5 parking spaces for the employees and customers for that size commercial space? I would think a place like raymonds would need more than 60 spaces. 4.5 spaces would not even be enough for the kitchen staff.
I have read many of garrett’s comments about parking around church street. He seems reasonable, logical with his thinking and has a long term outlook. But no one cares about parking until they can not find a spot. Of course, by then it will be too late to fix anything and no one will remember which elected officials caused the problem.
That is more the situation in Montclair than corruption. But politicians are always guilty of catering to their supporters like plofker. That is politics, even on the local level.
Garrett –
I love Raymonds!
I don’t go there anymore, though, because there’s nowhere to park. Actually, I don’t go anywhere in downtown Montclair anymore because of the lack of parking. Nutley has some good restaurants. That great little bookstore downtown? Love it, but the Barnes & Noble in Clifton has parking. Whole Foods? I wish.
In a sensible world even the developer would listen to you, because anyone who sets up shop in his buidling, with its inadequate parking, has got to be a fool.
Lex,
For a supposed conservaitve, you seem to have no faith in capitalism.
Do you think *no one* else has considered parking and commerce?
I suspect if there is a problem it will be solved, because developers can charge higher rents for successful locations.
ROC-
Tragedy of the commons.
???
Right of Center:
Talk about blind faith! Talk about refusing to look at the facts and the numbers! Talk about snarky innuendo!
If you would look at the parking estimates alone, submitted by consultants to the township, it would take you moments to conclude that with the additional development in the Church Street vicinity, plus any expected increase in retail traffic, population growth, etc…there will not be enough net gain of parking. Period. Also, as the consultants pointed out, there is no way the township can meet its budget unless parking fees continue to increase. And, given the debt levels incurred in all this construction, Montclair will really struggle to break even with this project. For an added hoot–see what they found about parking enforcement or lack thereof in the BID. As a so-called conservative I would think you would be outraged with a) the poor quality of service that b) has a direct impact on Township coffers.
I didn’t make this stuff up. It is in the consultant’s report, paid for by taxpayers. Get yourself a copy before you slam Mr. Morrison with more embarassing, uninformed tirades.
You know what the tragedy of the commons is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
To paraphrase, it is the “sub-optimal use … [of] collectively shared resources (the “commons”) by private interests when the best strategy for individuals conflicts with the common good.” Here the collectively shared resource is parking. Why should the developer bear the full cost of parking when he can piggyback off existing parking and any parking he build will probably be used by people also shopping elsewhere? By not paying for more parking he creates a situation where, eventually, the town has to pay for it.
This is one of the few areas where most mainstream economists believe that external regulation is one of the only practical solutions (the other solution being the conversion of the public resource into a private one, but see the Coasian argument re transaction costs, which I believe argues against that here.)
John,
Here’s what I know.
If Morozov and Morrison have their way we get *more* time looking at a wreck or an empty lot.
Parking? Build it and it will come.
Action, I want action. Not more delay….
This is the *closest* the township has been to finally doing something about this. I hope the council does not let special interests bog the project down any more.
Onward!
Lex,
Sooooo, a wreck or an empty lot is more in the common good?
Really?
p.s. John are you a watercooler BD? What does innuendo have to do with it?
ROC –
Hmmm, if you can’t win the debate just change the terms of it? When did I ever argue that the complex shouldn’t be built? Or, for that matter, when did Garrett? Do you believe that the only two options are build without adeqaute parking or never build anything?
Given the town council’s and the mayor’s responses to Garrett, it do4esn’t seem like they really considered the parking problem to be their responsibility. My point is that it is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the developer or, in the short to medium term, of the free market. I was taking issue with blind faith in the market, not with the building itself.
If you ever go to downtown Montclair, you have to admit that there is inadequate parking. If Garrett is correct, and it’s hard to argue with his numbers (even you haven’t tried to show him wrong–derision isn’t debate), the problem will soon get worse. At some point merchants and customers will demand the town fix it, and they will. Who will pay for it then? Not the developer, Montclair taxpayers will.
The *Conservative* thing to do is to force the developer to contain his externalities (lack of parking), not to foist this onto the community. An alternative approach would be to tell the developer that noone patronizing shops in his building may use town parking. If the town were to do this, the developer would be adding spaces left and right, IMHO.
Lex,
I don’t quibble with Mr. Morrison’s numbers only his conclusions.
When you say parking is already inadequate I don’t think I agree. I find it odd that businesses seem to be doing fine. None that I can tell are closing due to lack of parking. Do you mean inconvenient? That I will agree with.
But, if his conclusions are correct and the Sienna is built and there is not enough parking in it’s new lot, or in the proposed mult-level Cresent Deck or in the new multi-level parking lot currently being built on valley road (Mr. Morrison will now brandish his spreadsheet and tell us why it is not enough) I am still not worried. We will have gone from a 12 year eyesore and an economically non-viable location to simply a non-viable location with a new building and housing units.
However, I don’t think this will happen, because it is in everyone’s interest that the location be economically viable.
What is wrong with taxpayers paying for parking structures? It is done quite often. The economy benefits, the town benefits.
Mr. Morrison and his Next door neighbor Ms. Morozov who both live in the neighborhood affected are certainly entitled to oppose the project. They are entitled to raise separate objections over the course of the last few years (as they have) in multiple aspects of the project such as Process, Parking, Hazmat and Removal of Asbestos, Aesthetic Concerns, Environmental Sustainability and the like.
But you do raise an interesting point. What do Mr. Morrison and Morozov want? A redesign?
OK, now we can have a reasonable disagreement: you think the taxpayers should pay for additional parking, I think the developer should.
First, it is true that much town parking has been paid for by the public. This seems to be the case generally where land for parking is inexpensive and structures don’t need to be built. In more urban areas parking is usually privately owned and built because the expense of publically supplying it is too high. I think Montclair has moved from stage one to stage two.
Second, it is more efficient to make those who benefit from the parking pay for it, rather than everyone. As I said, I don’t shop in downtown Montclair because of the parking situation, but I do shop in other parts of Montclair. Why should I pay for downtown parking? If the developer pays then he charges it back through his rents and the cost creeps through to the consumers who shop there… the very ones who are benefitting from the additional parking. That seems like the fairer and more efficient thing to do.
Lex,
Should you stop paying Tax to the Schools when your kids graduate?
Fire Deparment when you have never had a fire?
In an ideal world, I would agree let the developer pay. But, if this is what it takes to make progress, I don’t have a problem with it. It is not an ideal world.
I look forward to walking (if need be) to the Sienna on a sunny afternoon to meet a friend for lunch.
p.s. Just because the town may pay for additional parking structures does not mean the parking will be free to the user. Many town owned lots charge for parking and some of the shops ‘validate’ for their customers.
p.p.s
I don’t *necessarily* think the town should pay. That issue can be faced when the time comes.
In fact the town has *more* leverage with commercial developers to pay *after* they (the developers) have made a hefty investment in a building.
If the parking situation is truly a dire one, the developer is the one taking the larger risk here.
Mr. O’Colgan:
Do you live in a historic neighborhood? In a historic home? In Montclair?
Dunno, depends on what you mean by historic.
Yes. (to me, anyway. But probably not to anyone else)
Yes.
Right-
Different issue, I think. I’m not questioning whether or not the town *can* pay for the parking, I’m questioning whether or not it *wants* to.
I think the majority of the town *wants* to pay for schools and the fire department. I am not so sure that the majority of the town even understands what they are getting into with the parking issue. That’s why I think what Garrett is doing is a public service: starting a public debate.
And, I want to add, even if I disagreed with him, I think he has approached it in a more commendable way than pretty much anyone I have ever seen approach a political issue–he has refrained from polemic, partisanship, mud-slinging (aside from some justifiable frustration), etc. I wish everyone who was arguing an issue was as constructive and pragmatic, then we might actually have a shot at some sort of rational decision making in our legislatures. Petia, as well, albeit six months too late, I would think. Hell, I’m just a rabble-rouser. These guys have presented facts.
Lex,
When Mr. Morrison says things like:
“Montclair officials should be outraged that they were duped.
Or, was it just the public and media that had to be deceived for the town council to change the height (+2 floors), density (+40 units) and parking (-35% and the 100-space annexing of the Crescent Deck) laws for this connected developer?”
(implying the council was ‘in’ on the dupping )
or
“You agreed with the deception to help sell the project to the public. That way the council’s breaks to the developer for height (+2 floors), density (+40 units), set backs (0) and parking spaces (-35% and a forever tax break of +/-$50,000 yearly) from becoming a controversy.”
(“agreed with the deception”)
or
“Your’re embarrased that you and Deputy Mayor Michaelson were duped by the developer. You’ll hope nobody notices. You’ll also hope that the rest of the council allows you and Ms. Michaelson to close on an even better deal for Steven Plofker’s hotel in place of the Church Street parking lot.”
(stupidity AND more corrpution in the case of the hotel)
or
“Petia Morozov deserves your gratitude for helping Montclair see the truth.”
(implying the mayor or council is lying)
or
“The alleged duping is a symptom of a process that is either broken or corrupt.”
or
“I just don’t understand how you can say the process has been proper and open. ”
or
“Should I not be frustrated? Should I not think something else is going on behind the scenes?”
(“something else…”)
I really don’t know how you can possibly say:
“he has refrained from polemic, partisanship, mud-slinging (aside from some justifiable frustration), etc.”
I guess I will have to disagree.
BTW all those quotes of “non-mud-slinging” are from this thread alone! I have gone more than a few rounds on this issue with Mr. Morrison and we never go far before he implies The Mayor or Council are either stupid or corrupt.
p.s.
Reread his letter to the mayor above. It is essentially the policital equivalent of the “How often do you beat your wife?” question.
That is not polemic to you?
ROC,
I didn’t want the public to believe that corruption was going on in Montclair. I have no proof of that. Only that the development process is broken. Corrupt was a bad choice of a word. I am sorry for that.
I do believe that the town is guilty of favoritism for the Siena project developer and Steven Plofker over the public’s interests. It is possible that developers took advantage of a town council desperate to get the Hahne’s project going. Or they might have guilty of trying to find a way of getting a local developer in on the Hahne’s project.
I am frustrated. I have had the opportunity to speak to the mayor and the council several times over the last two years. But, none of the issues I raised have been addressed. And if they think any of my numbers are wrong, they haven’t corrected them.
Here are some of the facts of the situation:
1) The Hahne’s owner had a plan that included a much smaller residential/retail project with a parking deck of 418 spaces to be put on the 125-space Church Street parking lot. Their project complied with the town’s building requirements.
2) The town council then voted to give Steve Plofker the Church Street lot for a Montclair Center hotel project with retail and residential components. They were able to essentially give the owner’s land to Plofker because they tagged the land a redevelopment zone. I’m sure the Hahne’s owner was not happy about losing their parking lot and deck plan.
3) To help everything work for an upset Hahne’s owner the town took several steps: A) The town reduced the parking requirement by 35 percent (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space to 2.5 and 1.5 spaces per residential unit to 1.3). Their requirement went from 358 spaces to 236 (-122). B) They allowed the density of the project to go from 65 units per acres to 80 units. And they Allowed the height of the structure to increase by two stories. C) Lastly, the town council allowed the reduced 98 commercial spaces to be built into the proposed Crescent Parking Deck with no increase in size of the deck to accommodate the new demand. If the Hahne’s developer couldn’t strike a deal with the Parking Authority on the deck then they gave them the right to put the parking in Plofker’s development at $20,000 a space. If the spaces go to the Parking Authority it results in a tax break because they won’t have to pay property tax on them. If they went to Plofker, they would have to pay property tax on $2 million worth of parking. The parking ended up being in the Crescent Deck and resulted in a tax break.
In addition to getting the parcel of land, Plofker also benefitted from all these reductions in requirements because he is part of the redevelopment zone.
I think all the requirement changes were for the developers and not the citizens.
We asked that the town allow the Hahne’s developer’s parking in Plofker’s development option be open to the general public if it was unused. We had at least one parking strapped building owner willing to put up several million for the option. The Christ Church, with no parking, would also have been interested. Plofker probably didn’t like having to accommodate the spaces. And it was rejected by the town.
We asked that the hotel project on the Church Street parking lot, the most popular one in Montclair, be reconsidered. No luck.
The dealership parking deck under construction on Orange Road increases parking by approximately 47 spaces. The 700ish parking deck build on a public lot that the Board of Education mainly used will mostly house new cars. A decision hasn’t been made on who gets the public spaces. They logically will go to the parking strapped BOE.
I just don’t see the citizen’s and business owners needs being equally addressed in all these moves.
Yes, I’m somewhat frustrated.
At this point, since we can’t get any changes, we don’t want the Siena project stopped. We just want the process to be better and more considerate when the hotel project is combed through and future projects are proposed.
And if the Siena developer did actually falsely present the project, we would like some sort of penalty.
Sincerely,
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking