The Montclair Seymour Street Redevelopment Plan Fiscal Impact Report has been made available on the Township’s website. The redevelopment plan for the area is to create an arts and entertainment district. The Project is located, between Seymour Street and South Willow Street adjacent to the Wellmont Theater. The plan was discussed at length at the June 30th Montclair Planning Board meeting, which included several residents sharing concerns.

A rendering of the proposed Seymour Street plaza at night.
A rendering of the proposed Seymour Street plaza at night.

According to the report, when the numbers are considered together “a positive estimated fiscal impact of $653,621 results. If the proposed project comes to fruition the result will be a property which will be the net “largest” taxpayer in Montclair.”

The following four properties are included in the redevelopment project (Project area is approximately 2.75 acres) Total Tax Assessment $806,900 Total 2015  / Property Taxes $30,142:

  • Block 3105, Lot 1-(STS Tire) $806,900 tax assessment
  • Block 3105, Lot 2-(Seymour Street Parking) 0 tax assessment
  • Block 3105, Lot 9 (Social Security Office) 0 tax assessment
  • Block 3106, Lot 17-(Fullerton Parking) 0 tax assessment

According to the report, the annual gross revenue generated by the Project is estimated at $7,818,030 to $8,455,000 at Project stabilization, or the point in time the Project is fully leased (less a reasonable vacancy rate) and the Project has been financed and considered substantially complete.

Read the entire report here.

 

 

 

 

18 replies on “Seymour St. Development Would Be Largest Montclair Taxpayer, Per Fiscal Impact Report”

  1. $653,621 is good news… hopefully the building will be in character with the Wellmont and the existing streetscape.

  2. It will be the largest taxpayer if the stores aren’t vacant, like so many others on Bloomfield Avenue. Considering the spaces will most likes be more expensive than the current vacant storefronts, I’m not very confident about the tax revenue.
    I live on Seymour, and I’m so upset/worried/angry about this whole “plan”.

  4. No, it is not a given. It is a pro forma analysis based on some general assumptions – assumptions that don’t align with previous Seymour pro forma analysis like traffic & circulation. It doesn’t mention workforce housing, so I’m assuming that idea has gone by the wayside.

    The numbers look similar to V&B. Basically, it is the financial version of the “it’s better than what is there” justification. Yes, Montclair will take in added revenue. It’s kinda hard not to.

    The interesting part, & the serious bucks, will be the parking revenues and the cost of the decks.

  5. so the headline should say… “Seymour Street Development Could Possibly Be the Largest Montclair Taxpayer, Per Fiscal Impact Report in the Best of Hypotheses”…. since its not a given….

  6. I prefer a headline that the Hahne’s Redevelopment combo of The Siena & The Kensington would (using the same Benecke Economics modeling) not only exceed the Seymour revenues, but would be twice as profitable as this Seymour projection…and we would have had it starting a year ago instead of 2020. All hail the $653K!

  7. At what cost? The town is planning to give municipal land to the developers, allowing them to work around zoning regulations that would normally require them to provide on=site parking. With this plan they can build to the maximum height that zoning allows without having to worry about the parking because the town will give them the extra land to do that.

  8. panache – not sure what you mean. The zoning still dictates the site despite the town owning it, and the developers are providing parking in a new deck.

  9. It would have been nice if someone proofed the study numbers before it was submitted. Between that and an allowable vacancy rate, the net gain drops to $599K.

  10. 3rdwarder, I think — others can correct me if I’m wrong — that all zoning restrictions go out the window when the site is declared an ‘area in need of development.’

  11. For a development of that size, typically a developer would have to provide parking on site. With this plan, the town will give the developer two municipal lots on which they will build multi-story parking decks. This will allow the developer to built to the maximum height allowed without having to worry about using any of their own property for parking. This development will be bigger than Valley and Bloom and also add upwards of 400 residents to a small neighborhood yet there have been no safety or infrastructure studies as yet. Redevelopment of this area is good in theory but the plan is too massive and out of character with Montclair (although, sadly, Pinnacle seems to be changing Montclair’s character pretty quickly).

  12. “This development will be bigger than Valley and Bloom and also add upwards of 400 residents to a small neighborhood yet there have been no safety or infrastructure studies as yet. Redevelopment of this area is good in theory but the plan is too massive and out of character with Montclair.”

    -this comment says it all. More objectionable out of character redevelopment with no guaranteed financial improvement for the taxpayers.

  15. It would also allow the developers to charge what they want for parking and not align the rates to the township parking. Such is the case at Valley Bloom. The lot at Valley Bloom is more expensive, and for many more inconvenient, than using the surface lot. Therefore, many Valley Bloom residents park in the the already over-crowed Valley Road lot.

    Remember the promise that VB would have no impact on parking. Ha!

    Perhaps the town could dictate parking rates and policies in advance of forking over all the power to the developers.

    Also, it would be nice to know the Valley Bloom occupancy rate today, before committing to another 250 pricey apartment.

  17. Or, you could say 85% of the land a developer will build on is mostly public land and the real possibility of the Township invoking eminent domain for the balance.

    Key government actions/prerequisites for large scale development:
    1.) area in need of redevelopment (ANR) designation
    2.) land assembly
    3.) tax abatements (PILOT)

  18. Now that we have more information on basic elements of plan, the numbers seem to indicate a better scenario in the short term would NOT to build the West Deck right now. As it is presently envisioned, it is the least productive component of the plan. Viewed from a land use perspective, the parking capacity, the financial return, and the economic benefit & disruption, it would make more sense to move the deck (or whatever it is to become) to a future Phase 2. Unless, of course, we are locked into the current draft and the yet-to-be-held public hearings are just an 11th hour charade.

Comments are closed.