The Montclair Planning Board has started the process of reviewing anew the redevelopment plan for the Lackawanna Plaza parcel. The land-use authority has until May 10 to deliver their opinion to the Township Council.
The board decided at its April 15 meeting that member Jeffrey Jacobson would meet with new members Geoffrey Borshof and Thamar Campbell. The invitation was also open to Councilor Roger Terry, recently appointed as the governing body’s liaison to the Planning Board.
“Any questions you may have, any comments you may have” can be discussed, Jacobson told Borshof and Campbell. Jacobson suggested they review the board’s 2023 report and then, with his assistance, draft their own document, to include suggestions for the board to consider when it takes up the redevelopment proposal again. This could happen as soon as the April 29 meeting.
Jacobson offered his services. He helped draft the board’s previous opinion. The Planning Board submitted that opinion to the Mayor and Council last September. The Planning Board voted 7-1 at its Sept. 18 meeting to recommend to the Township Council that the plan is not consistent with Montclair’s Master Plan, a document that guides growth within the municipality.
The Process Begins Again
The rehabilitation and renovations at the Lackawanna Plaza property, if constructed as approved, would include housing, commercial and office space, retail and a long-awaited supermarket. But there were also questions and concerns about density and possible traffic, including the scarcity of parking and worries that patrons would park on nearby residential streets.
The Township Council approved the Lackawanna Plaza plan last year. Soon after, two groups filed lawsuits opposing the approval of the project. In addressing certain issues brought up in the legal papers, the Council in March reintroduced the entire project for approval, and that process includes a new opinion by the Planning Board.
Since the board wrote the original opinion, Carmel Loughman and Anthony Ianuale were not reappointed. Loughman is running for a seat on the Township Council in the May 14 election.
“The beauty of it is we have new members. And our new members have new opinions,” Jacobson said about the board reviewing the project. “I’d be surprised if it’s the same outcome with new members,” he said.
What we all really want, and for over a decade, is to have the Pathmark (or its pier) come back, to also preserve the historic train station and housing that is consistent with the community and not those dense upscale residential buildings built on an aquifer that could possibly be environmentally problematic. We haven’t seen any updated traffic studies that consider the thousands of additional cars daily on Bloomfield Avenue from the 15 or so condo developments going up in the 5 mile square radius. The handling of the historic elements in the rendering is a failure. Totally unacceptable. The landmark is being dismembered and denied of its integrity and no big “normal” supermarket. How did they possibly arrive at this design?
Thank you, Frank. Your perspective and historical expertise should be heard by the PB and Council. I think the answer to the question of how did they possibly arrive at this design is greed. Renderings are rarely based in reality. Proportions are out of whack.
For the record, the Planning Board didn’t have a problem with the density and never has.
Yes Frank, could be because the planning board does not have any numbers provided to them of the thousands of residential units going up in the surrounding communities. Why isn’t this information within their purview for decision making? Just the development proposed in West Orange/Verona will bring over 1000 cars each day. https://wecarenj.com This is just one of the 15 big condo developments going up that will flood Bloomfield Avenue with possibly over 10,000 cars daily. It amazes me that the the planning boards of Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Montclair, Verona, Caldwell, West Caldwell and Pine Brook aren’t communicating and are ignoring the what is happening and doing nothing to save Bloomfield Avenue from its upcoming functional obsolescence. You also can’t turn Bloomfield Avenue into an 8 lane highway because it would destroy all of the communities’ downtowns. Then there is Bloomfield Avenue’s increased flooding which could even be a worse problem than the traffic. Most of the downtowns along Bloomfield Avenue are already 85% impervious surfaces with maxed out sewer system capacities. It would be highly irresponsible for the Planning Board to approve the project as is.
First, the Planning Board’s Land Use Element of the Master Plan must by law, and does take into account the relationship to the MPs of surrounding towns (see Section 4.0).
Second, they chose to ignore Section 4.0 in their review of Lackawanna Plaza. Which is par for the course since they ignored Montclair Heights in their original Master Plan.
Third, this is what the Master Plan says regarding Lackawanna’s C-1 Activity Node zone:
This zone includes several redevelopment areas, including many of the recently adopted redevelopment plans along the Bloomfield Avenue corridor. Maximum building heights in this district range between 6 and 8 stories, depending on location, with densities ranging between 55 and 75 units per acre. Higher densities should only be permitted as an incentive for developers to provide appropriate public benefits such as parks and open space, affordable housing and similar public amenities.
Fourth, in the 10 years we have been discussing this project area, exactly have many residents have gone to the Planning Board and said your vision of Montclair’s development – specifically this area – is not right; it’s too much?
The proposed density of LP is 37 dwelling units per acre. The Master Plan says the adjacent zones can be from 28-40 DU/ac (C-3), 55 DU/ac (C-2).
Maybe it is time for residents to make time to go to the Planning Board and tell them. Just a wild, crazy, out-of-the box thought.
When will the endless cycle of studies and revisions be done? built the thing already and be done with it. I don’t care about the traffic at this point and I suspect others feel the same.
@spork: What do you see as a benefit to this development being built that makes you so impatient to get it done? I am curious for your point of view. Also, do you drive or take mass transit that uses Bloomfield Avenue at all?
The handling of the historic landmark elements is 100% meaningless and unacceptable.