kensington parking lot

A summer parking lot will soon be available at 63-65 Church Street, offering over 100 parking spaces to visitors and shoppers. The temporary parking lot will be open 7 days a week, from 9 am to 10 pm weekdays, 8 am to 10 pm Saturdays and 8 am to 6 pm Sundays. The parking lot has been temporarily donated by the Kensington, an assisted living community that seeks to develop on Church Street, for use by the Montclair Center BID.

The hourly cost for the temporary lot will be $2 per hour until 6 pm. After 6 pm, it will be a flat rate of $5. On evenings with Wellmont Theater events, the parking will be a flat rate of $10. Monthly passes will be $100 per month.

“Customer parking is a huge concern for our retailers and restauranteurs, “said Israel Cronk, Executive Director of the Montclair Center BID. “I’m so glad that through working together with David Fader of the Kensington we were able to develop and support this effort.”

Funds generated by the BID from the lot will be used for special public projects and events. The day-to-day operations of the lot will be managed by the Montclair Parking Company, who will sublicense the lot from the Montclair Center BID.

The Montclair Center Farmer’s Market, which moved to this space last week, will still take place in the lot every Tuesday. Cronk tells Baristanet that even though the Market is growing, it still will only take up a small number of parking spaces.

The temporary parking lot will open as soon as it is fully staffed. Interested applicants should call Shannon Hare at Montclair Parking, LLC, at (862) 216 9057.







8 replies on “Montclair BID and Kensington to Open Summer Parking Lot on Church St: 100 Additional Spaces, 7 Days a Week”

  1. This is a nice, and needed gesture. But the Kensington is not a done deal yet. They are sort of acting like the friend who keeps leaving more stuff at your home and, before you know it, is moved in. Be careful of pie in the sky. It could land on your face.

  2. Why limit it to just this summer? This should have been opened up years ago and should stay open until something gets built.

  3. More Kensington ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ we’re apart of the community too moves — all to help push foward their corporate sales story.

    It’s so transparent it’s almost humorous. But the economics either makes good sense or it doesn’t. All the donations and corporate sponsorship’s in the world can’t change the fact that Alzheimer patients just don’t stroll Church Street and spend money there by themselves.

    This is not senior housing. It’s assisted living.

    However, a plus 55 retiree, a just starting out millennial couple, or a baby boomer divorcee staying in town to see their kids — still seem like the smarter mixed-use building fiscal bet for our downtown.

  4. Well, at the very least, this will put the final stake in the BID’s 501(c )(3) non-profit status.

  5. If the Council is going ahead and approving the Assisted Living use this month, then all is good. If they don’t, then the Council has now put themselves in the proverbial pickle. While I pray this is a case of he former, why the Council didn’t step in and squash this is beyond my comprehension.

  6. Ru-wacky – Wow. Not only are you an expert on all things development (but not any kind of developer) now you are also the Town Council’s political consultant. My hat goes off to you.

    Sure, Kensington is running around town dangling their transparent feel-me-love me promotions. And yes, some suckers like the BID execs and Jazz House Kids topper seem officially willing to play ball. They don’t see the long term ramifications. But the Council still cannot squash those moves, or be seen to discourage them in any way.

    Any effort by the Council or Mayor to stick their nose into Kensington’s promo-marketing BS would provide excellent fodder for a potential lawsuit or tortuous interference claim then if it ever occurs should the Council do absolutely nothing and not approve a new “use change” to assisted living for this Redevelopment Plan there.

    Think it through. There is absolutely no obligation for the Council to amend that Church Street-downtown Redevelopment Plan. Not even an obligation for the Council to send a potential Plan amendment over to the Planning Board for recommendation. The Council can do just nothing and sit — if it wants.

    If these Council players are smart, (and they haven’t done too badly with some improved decision-makers in place after the Master Plan fiasco) — they will know not to forward the Planning Board a potential Plan Amendment as an official ordinance.

    Why? Because if sent as an ordinance, that starts the municipal clock. The Planning Board then has to respond within a fixed time-period. Instead, if they want to give Kensington a whirl — still give them their good faith opportunity again to put on a show and review the situation, the Council can just informally request that the Planning Board review a use change — only a Council resolution.

    Requesting informal planning board review as council resolution does not require the statutory timed response and puts no onus on anyone for a fast evaluation. It could allow a full and complete economic review of Kensington’s claims and their asserted benefits.

    What happens after if the planning board and community response is still no? “Welcome to Montclair but Church Street is not the right spot for assisted living. We’d love you to stay just move your business to another site?”

    That’s another move and story how to pressure that shift down the road.

    But let’s take it one step at a time. In the short run, a resolution for Planning Board review is the way to play this, give Kensington their day in the sun without obligating the town to really act.

    Let’s hope the Mayor and Council see that.

  7. spot,

    Every time you begin you post with a personal insult, I know that is the best your post has to offer and there is no need to read any further. I did think your insult was very cute. Almost a sweet quality to it.

Comments are closed.