Planning Board won’t recommend sites near Walnut St. for redevelopment

After nearly two hours of public comment, the Montclair Planning Board unanimously voted Monday against recommending that two parcels near the Walnut Street Train Station be considered an area in need of redevelopment. 

The parcels contain the former Richie Cecere’s Supper Club, vacant since 2012, and a 19th-century industrial building now used as office space. Owned by former Montclair resident Howard Silver and his company, 34 Label Street Associates, the parcels are located in a potential local landmark district. 

Designating an area in need of redevelopment allows for new zoning requirements to be established in the area and introduces opportunities for tax abatements for developers. 

Prior to the meeting, a rendering of an eight-story housing development was circulated on social media by former Planning Board member Martin Schwartz, who alleged it revealed what was planned for the lots. The rendering was referenced by several residents who called into the meeting in opposition to demolitions and a new development. 

But Alan Trembulak, attorney for 34 Label Street Associates, said the rendering was not being proposed for the property and that it was “part of a propaganda campaign” designed to “scare the community.”

The first parcel includes three buildings situated on 1.61 acres on Erie Street, between Label Street and Oak Place: the former Richie Cecere’s at 2 Erie St., a two-story, 19th-century industrial building turned into a multiuse space housing 16 businesses at 4, 6, 8 and 10 Erie St. and a detached storage building.

Alongside the parcel there is a strip of land on Erie Street with unidentified ownership, according to Township Planner Janice Talley. However, county and NJ Transit records have yet to be reviewed for ownership records, she said. 

The second parcel, at 121 Forest St., is an open parking lot, about one-tenth of an acre in size.  

On Aug. 24, 2021, the Township Council passed a resolution authorizing a study to determine whether the Walnut Street neighborhood parcels were an area in need of redevelopment. In doing so, the council directed the Planning Board to conduct an investigation of the area for redevelopment criteria, which was completed by the township planners. The Planning Board then held a public hearing Monday to make a recommendation on the designation, which will now go to the council.

If the council does not follow the Planning Board recommendation and makes a redevelopment designation, the Planning Board would create the zoning for the area, establishing how strict or lenient it would be, and would pass the recommendations along to the council. A redevelopment agreement would then be drawn up, which could set height allowances, density and commercial and housing requirements.

“We can make it more restrictive, we can make it more liberal,” John Wynn, chair of the Planning Board, said. 

​​The initial recommendation for the township to study the area came from the council’s finance committee, composed of Mayor Sean Spiller, Deputy Mayor Bill Hurlock and Councilman David Cummings, Talley said at Monday’s meeting. The three had met with an unnamed interested developer, she said. 

Talley said it was her understanding that a developer approached the finance committee to discuss conducting the study of the area. She said she had not seen the rendering that was circulated by Schwartz. 

She and assistant township planner Tommy Scibilia presented their study of whether the parcels meet the criteria necessary to be deemed an area in need of redevelopment. Only one criterion must be met in order to gain the designation, but the planner said that with the first parcel four of the criteria were actually met — the buildings are dilapidated or lacking in light, the site is detrimental to the safety and welfare of the community, the land isn’t being properly utilized because a title transfer left the property in an unproductive condition, and the designation would be in line with smart growth planning principles. 

During the public comment period, 20 community members repeatedly rebutted the finding that the four criteria were met for the designation.

The planning report stated that in the industrial building, now turned into workspaces, many rooms lacked access to light and air. However, multiple tenants of the building spoke during public comment, saying their spaces were well-lit and the classification of dilapidated was inaccurate. 

Being housed in the 19th-century industrial building is what drew many of the businesses to the space, architect Petia Morozov, who has an office at 7 Oak Place, said. The aesthetic of the building is “part of our brand,” she said, adding her office has windows in every space. 

She said she was offended by the claim that the building is dilapidated. 

“I find that to be actually quite insulting to make that claim and to assume that that’s the circumstance for all the other businesses,” Morozov said.

The parcels are part of an area with “a unique architectural identity” that’s “known for its association with the development of the railroad and the nearby commuter housing,” Kathleen Bennett, chair of the township Historic Preservation Commission, said at the meeting. 

“They’ve done a great job in keeping it down and low, keeping that gritty feel, keeping the industrial feel,” Bennett said. “I just would like the board members to remember that as [they] look forward to decide whether this should go into an area of redevelopment.”

The report also found that the site is detrimental to the safety and welfare of the community because the layout resulted in a “vehicular pinch point” where unloading vehicles in the rear of the building blocked the passage of other cars. Poor drainage and a lack of pedestrian access were also cited. 

Iain Kerr, co-director of the Montclair State University Making and Innovating for X Lab, said he visits businesses housed in the industrial building at least three times each week, and multiple points in the report are “factually untrue.”

“I have driven through it [the pinch point] when vans have been parked there. I’ve ridden my bike through it. I’ve walked there,” Kerr said.

Broken gutters and deteriorating sidewalks, which can be found across Montclair, he said, do not mean the whole area must be redeveloped. 

“It feels like we have a highly used and effective space that’s being mislabeled,” Kerr said.

The third reason for the redevelopment designation, according to the study, is a “diverse ownership” leaving the property in a stagnant condition and abandoned. This point was made in reference to the vacant Richie Cecere’s and the strip of land with unidentified ownership. 

Architect and former Montclair Zoning Board of Adjustment member Susan Baggs said the former restaurant and the industrial building could be redeveloped and repurposed within its current C-2 (general business and light manufacturing) zoning guidelines.

“The zoning that applies here is extremely flexible,” Baggs said at the meeting. “It’s very well suited to the town, and it has in fact helped to support the growth that has happened over the past 10, 15 years.”

She suggested that finance committee members should have reached out to business owners at the parcels to gauge their interest in redevelopment. 

“I am so grateful to all of the creative people and business owners who have worked so hard to make this a successful area,” Baggs said. “We don’t need to unravel the good work that has been done.”

The final point made for the designation is that redevelopment of the area would be in line with smart growth planning principles. The New Jersey State Plan encourages transit-oriented, compact development, the study said, and the proximity to the Walnut Street train station presents an opportunity for a transit village redevelopment.

A transit village district is land that is within a half-mile radius of a transit station, according to the state Department of Transportation website. But with six train stations spread throughout Montclair, creating transit-oriented development is unnecessary and not what the community wants, Schwartz told board members.

“We don’t need the planning vision of transit-oriented development here, which is one of the main bases within the report,” he said. “For Montclair, that is overdevelopment. And the report and the planner continue to advocate that, even though the majority of residents have shown they don’t want it.”

Regarding the second parcel, the small, unmarked parking lot on Oak Place, the study said it fit two of the same criteria as the first parcel — lack of proper utilization resulting in an unproductive condition, and that the designation would be in line with smart growth planning.

Community members weighed in on both sides of the lot’s value. Alicia Robinson-Riche, a resident of 26 Oak Place, said the parking lot is used by her and other residents for free, under an agreement with Silver. 

But Ricardo Pino, a homeowner of almost 20 years near the properties, said cars are often double- and triple-parked in the parking lot, and drive over curbs and pedestrian walkways to enter and exit the space.

“There has to be something done,” Pino said. “The owner of this property has not done what needed to be done for the last few decades.”

After listening to almost two hours of public comment, Wynn introduced a motion that the Planning Board recommends that the parcels do not meet the criteria for an area in need of redevelopment. 

“It’s my opinion, based on everything that I’ve heard this evening and seen, that we’re not quite there,” he said. No other board members commented at that point of the meeting. 

While elements of the properties do fit the requirements, other aspects, including how the lots are currently being used, do not meet the requirements, he said.  

Board member Robin Schlager, the Township Council’s liaison to the board, said she came into the evening thinking she would support the redevelopment plan. 

“But having listened to so many people tonight, I’m going to have to say yes [to the motion],” she said.

The board’s post-public-comment deliberation and vote took less than three minutes, and the motion passed unanimously. The motion is only a recommendation, however, and the council can still vote through the redevelopment designation.