Ted Mattox To Talk To Baristaville

I love you guys -- thanks for making this happen!

I am looking forward to it as well.
Ted dissapointed me last night by voicing his opinion against the rezoning. I want to ask if he is now firmly against it or just wants to pour over the facts again.
Our town needs serious zoning restrictions. Tight restrictions have served Summit well. Loose ones in Montclair have diminished our town's value (albeit not as much as our sky high taxes) and aesthetics.

Kudos to Ted for putting himself out there. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions on things you have to acknowledge his openness for a dialogue, especially with all the highly opinionated posters on this blog - myself included :) .

Ted is badass.

Dont agree with "rantman" or "I love you man"

Having sat in on the council meeting last evening, I was very unimpressed with Ted. He was part of the planning process that created the rezoning legislation that was going on for several months. He went into last evening with the intent on voting for the rezoning (his statement).

After the montclair citizens spoke on this issue (I would guess about 60-40 against), he changed his tune on the issue.

My big problem here is that he had several months to do the necessary research and get his and the planning board's act together on creating legislation that would work. He failed in that quest. This decision should have come well before this issue was brought to council as a vote on item.

As a member of this project team, he failed on this issue. He was also part of the team that allowed Crisco to happen.

I don't care if he is a great guy or not. Everything of note that he has touched lately has been a dismal failure. He needs to go for nonperformance.

And Ms. Lang was shameful in using the council forum to advance her personal agenda on the recent bakery incident.

I didnt know her name, but I agree that I dont needed to be chided like a child about something she doesnt even have all the facts on. Was she a witness to the incident?

From what I heard, the crowd, mostly owners of small multi-family houses, was worried that their resale value would be affected. They were told that they could keep their designations, and that even future owners would be "grandfathered" into the previous zoning regs.

Some were still concerned about plans they had to convert present 2-family houses into 3-family, which I think would not be allowed.

I think this is a decent, if long-overdue attempt to regulate overdevelopment.

If it can restrain the Plofkers of the world, i am all for it. It just needs to be sensitive to the needs of the small homeowner, which as far as I can see it mostly is.

I wonder if Mr Mattox is playing the same game as our previous Mayor.
That is speak up on a popular issue that residents feel passionate
about. The issue would be doomed but by speaking out
he would give a "show" .

Ted should straighten out his position on downzing...that is the big issue...work out the details, address the homeowners' concerns and pass the downzoning....if he doesn't see this through I would question his sincerity.

Wayfinding is dead after last night anyway.

Let's be VERY CLEAR on what the proposed changes say: If you are R-3 and currently only have 2 families living in the property, and you are "downzoned" to R-2, you will not be able to build additional units as would have been permitted had you not been "downzoned."

If you are R-3 and you currently have LEGAL three, four, or however many families living in your house NOTHING WILL CHANGE. And IF YOU SELL, NOTHING WILL CHANGE for the new owner.

The only downside is that if you have NOT taken "advantage" of what R-3 allows, and you are "downzoned," you will not in the future be able to take advantage of the R-3 designation.

I found that 90% of the people failed to understand this last night.

I fear for Montclair. This is not a difficult concept!

Hiding,

I don't think you have reason to "fear for Montclair". It's more likely that the problem is that the Planning Board/Council didn't do their homework and reach out to these people to help them understand. This is no different than what happened with the sewer tax. All the information was disclosed, but there was no effort to make sure the persons most affected (basically every property owner/resident) were aware of the impacts.

In other words, one could say there was disclosure, but there was clearly no concern whether anyone would notice and offer input.

I was at the meeting last night, and for me it was obvious that we need a new zone created in the zoning law: the three family home zone. It makes no sense that we only have R-1 (One family), R-2 (Two family) and then the big jump to R-3 (which are currently "Three and more" family homes). The whole problem could be solved in designating streets like Portland Place, Montague Place and St. Lukes' Place, which mostly have small lots and 2-3 family homes to a new R-3a (Three family ONLY). Make other lots with intended larger apartment/townhome/commercial properties R-3b (>3 units).
That takes care of the concerns of most homeowners, who spoke at last night's meeting and keeps the greedy developers reigned in.

A street like North Mountain or Upper Mountain should have never been rezoned as R-3 (old) in the first place. Big mistake of the past. Now let's not continue on that track and protect the historic building on the corner of Claremont and Upper Mountain. Let's also put a single family home back where it belongs on North Mountain between Bloomfield and Claremont.

It was lovely to hear the greedy developers whine and rant last night. That show alone was worth making the trip down to the municipal building.

Yeah - listening to the guy who wants to tear down 24 Upper Mountain made my skin crawl....

Hiding -

Maybe you can explain this to me because I'm still having problems understanding it.

If I own a Legal 3 family (stated on tax bill) but currently only have 2 units, would I still have the possibility to upgrade to a 3 family in the future if the rezoning is approved?

If the down zoning to R2 was approved and you decided at some point in the future to expand your property to a 3 family unit it would be denied. If the new zoning is two-family only and you are paying taxes for a legal three you will not be allowed to enlarge to three.

So as it stands today you can in the future update, renovate or enlarge your property to 3 family. The only thing you need to do before getting a Building Permit is obtain Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board. This should not be problematic as the current zone allows it.

With regards to last night's Town Council meeting, is anyone wondering why Joyce Michaelson voted in favor of the project at 24 Upper Mountain at the Planning Board meeting on Monday night but is aggressive in her defense of the down zoning and in her opposition to the project at 21 North Mountain? And why did she vote in favor of the project on Upper Mountain if she was going under the assumption that the down zoning would pass? Those were her own words, folks. There are some inconsistencies here.

Why are we criticizing Ted for changing his vote last night? Isn't the public comment portion of the process an important element of the process? He listened and responded to what he heard. To me, that displays a willingness to listen -- right up until the end. Otherwise, are we sending out public notices and asking for comment simply for show? That would certainly be the case if all decisions were made prior to comment.

I am criticizing Ted because I attended the meeting.

Think of it this way....

Ted spent several months on the planning committe putting this together. Either the plan was so incomplete and shortsighted that it needed to go back to planning, or Ted simply folded to the pressure. So he's either incompetent or a wimp. And anybody that attended last nights meeting will attest that there was plenty of pressure. I don't want either attribute in one of my representatives. Coupled with Ted's Crisco history, not a good track record.

Hiding,
What you say about Ted is correct. He didn't enter the meeting with predetermined position. He gave people the opportunity to speak, and he sided with the objectors because the down zoning was ill thought out. This zoning change has been rail-roaded through by Michaelson (as far as can see), and she thought she had it in the bag until the final vote. Then she astonishingly said "last night (refering to the Planning Board meeting the night before) we were going under the assumption this would pass" It seems that Michaelson has lost control of the township council members. In the end they realised why so many property owners were upset.

Mattox seemed to be counting potential votes just the way Bob Russo used to

"Mattox seemed to be counting potential votes just the way Bob Russo used to"

If you mean deciding not to screw over 200+ property owners, many of whom spoke at the meeting, for an over reaching ordinance to protect a few people on North Mountain Ave, I guess I agree with you.

I also came into the meeting siding with the downzoning, but changed my mind after hearing people speak. I'm not looking for votes.

not impressed,

so ... I assume it is your stance that the public comment element of the process is just for show -- everything should be decided before the public is asked to come and let their voices be heard. That is exactly what we would expect from someone who wants just a few influential people to determine the process. you're a rwl "democrat."

Hiding,

Didn't say that

......Maddox drafted the legislation. He was on the committe.. He had months to get things right (like talk to citizens of Montclair). This was as much his baby as anybody else.

So he comes to the meeting last night.........and SURPRISE.....everything he did on this issue for the past 2 months was a waste of time.

Oops....I forgot to check with the people that are impacted by the zoning. Oops....I forgot to verify if the legislation made sense.

If a rep not on the planning board changed their mind, thats one thing, but not the guy that helped to draft the legislation. He should have had his act together with sound legislation before he walked into that meeting.

The legislation was poorly written, and he folded like a cheap suit.

I am for debate on these issues, but don't waste my time coming to a meeting to fight (for or against) legislation that was not properly thought out or written.

And yeah, I am registered democrat. But I don't get your point. It's the republicans that do the goosestep to the bushster.

Not Impressed,

You've got your facts all wrong.

Maddox did not draft the legislation. Yours truly, Joyce Michaelson, Sally Ross and Karen Kadus (Planning Director) developed the legislation. These three are the only members of the so called Planning Sub-Committee.

The Planning Sub-Committee presented this to the Planning Board. This is Michaelson 'brain child'and she should take the heat for trying force such an ill conceived idea upon R3 tax payers.

Are you a registered democrat ... or Democrat? And what does "the bushter" have to do with this.

The overall point remains. No one "forgot" to check with the people -- this is the point at which the people are specifically invited to give their feedback. I believe that this is late in the process to be asking people for feedback, but this is the way the process has been established. Would it better for neighbors to get registered letters at the start ... maybe.

Fact is still that no one "forgot" to ask the people -- appearantly some just like to hear what the people said. At least Ted was willing to listen and keep an open mind.

If you are actually arguing that this legislation "was not properly thought out or written," I agree. This town is now several years into the examination of a Wayfinding project that will take a few more years to complete. Without even being sure that we are going to proceed, the town has spent tens of thousands of dollars and given numerous opportunities for citizens to speak to the specifics of the plan -- yet this is a plan that has been pushed through relatively quietly and with minimal investment for research and consultation. Putting up signs desrves years and $$$, but changing zoning ordinances doesn't? Come on, this is silly ...

taxpayer,

interesting point -- with JM helping to draft the legislation, she certainly tipped her hand last night when she made a last ditch effort to amend the rezoning to ONLY apply to 21 North Mountain. This is the whole intent of her effort --- ONE property.

"democracy" at work ... right "not impressed"?

it appears that Joyce Michaelson aim was to help the owners of 21 North Mountain Ave. The question is why? At the meeting, she attempted to change and draft legislation that would apply only to 21 North Mountain Ave, as town attorney Tremulak sat quietly nearby. He failed to advise her, (and he surely must know), that it is unconstitutional to craft legislation so restrictive that it only applies to a few, or in this case, to only one person. Yet they started down that road. It makes me wonder what else have they don't that is not correct.

typo

It makes me wonder what else have they done that is not correct.

Hiding,
That makes me mad.

If Michaelson was after 21 North Mountain Ave, why would she try and destroy the property rights for the rest of us?

And why try to push it through quickly during the summer (August) with little discussion? All affected property owners needed to be consulted and this issue debated in an open forum. They really should have an outside consult do the analysis and present it to the people. They did this for the redevelopment of the Glenridge area. At this meeting residents/property owners were able to give input on its direction.

Michaelson's type of democracy sucks!!!
No public debate to provide direction, and her pre-determined position before hearing the public speak.

What is worst after the public did speak, and the clear opposition against the proposal, Michaelson still wanted to 'ram it' down the citizens throats. Does Michaelson think we are stupid and don't see how she is acting.

Taxpayer,

I couldn't agree more!

Just to clarify on the "public" speaking at the meeting: The anti-ordinance crowd was rallied by the developer who has torn down the 21 N. Mountain residence and who has similar dreams for the next door property. His wife--Susan Neill, who gave a statement at the meeting--sent a letter under the name Susan Gallagher to all the R-3 homeowners (except, notably, those who live on N. Mountain) warning them that the ordinance would damage their property values/etc., and telling them to show up or else they'd be financially doomed. It was a misleading letter (beginning with the obscuring of the identity of the author) that revved up a lot of folks. And--like an effective position paper should--it suggested the talking points that used phrases like "diversity" and "affordable housing" as smokescreens, behind which hide a pack of greedy developers who have realized they can use the emotions such phrases arouse to create loopholes through which they will drive their bulldozers.

As for the urgency regarding N. Mountain: by tabling the ordinance, the council meeting schedule means that Neill will be able to (attempt to) get approval for his Christopher Court II project before the next meeting. He has already torn down one house, and hopes to tear down the home next door. But it was pretty obvious the ordinance was never just about one street or neighborhood. There is a race against time throughout Montclair to save the town.

I was at the meeting, and it seemed to me from the way Councilor Michaelson acted that it was really all about stopping 21 North Mountain. To me it was obvious it was about only one street. Therefore in a shoody attempt of spot zoning they inculded my house and my friends house in the down zone ordinance to make cover for their real objective. The word 'ill-conceived' doesn't do justice to how this proposed plan was implemented.

GLS,
I have read your above comments with amusment. However I checked the letter I received, and it makes no mention of either 'diversity' or 'affordable housing'. I just thought you would like to know.

Anti Big Government:

There is text and there is subtext. If you reread my post, you'll see I didn't say it included or mentioned those phrases--it suggested their usage/relevance as part of an argument built around the threat that individuals would find themselves financially ruined by the downzoning-- themes that were explicitly articulated by Susan Neill herself in her public statement, as well as the other developers testifying, as well as by Desmond Neill himself in the previous Council meeting. If my email was unclear, I apologize. According to others I've spoken with, who have seen the letter, the themes I mentioned were definitely there in subtext, and you could only avoid them if you wanted to.

What would be great would be if you could post the letter here so we can all see exactly what Susan Neill wrote. If I was misinformed about the letter's contents I will be the first to apologize--but so far I've not seen any evidence that the letter was a) accurate or b) not a calculated effort, by a developer who has already offended the town in a variety of ways, to manipulate a group of innocent citizens into fighting his battle.

GLS,

You said: "And--like an effective position paper should--it suggested the talking points that used phrases like "diversity" and "affordable housing" as smokescreens"

When you say that it suggested talking points (which are very specific and precise in nature) -- and then you put the precise terms in quotes, you ARE clearly implying that those precise terms were used. Then again, the error is understandable, as you were commenting upon a letter you had not even read or seen -- yet you point out that you have not seen any evidence to contradict what you are saying. The fact is, you haven't seen any EVIDENCE to support what you've said either. Talk about simply trying to "manipulate a group of innocent citizens into fighting his [or her] battle" -- this seems to be exactly what you are doing as you play fast and loose with the "evidence."

Perhaps before you call someone to task publicly for their actions, you familiarize yourself with the evidence. That only seems fair.

Let's face it, there are folks on both sides of this issue that are trying to persuade other citizens. Heck, there is a whole loot of that right here on Baristanet. Should "innocent citizens" only be given one point of view? Why didn't the supporters of the measure seek to write their own letter to drum up support? Maybe because, like Joyce Michaelson, they thought the outcome was decided prior to the public being heard. Ah ... democracy!

Maybe the Barista would be willing to post the text and a scan of the letter.

Anyone willing to give it to her?

Lots of us would like to know what it really says.

I think the worries of R-3 owners are akin to those of farmers looking to retire by selling their land to subdivide. Its not that all of a sudden the unit that holds 4 familes and gets downzond to R-2 will have to move a family or two out, but that fact that if that land in its current designation can hold 8 families at maximum allowed by the ordinance then is downzones to only be able to hold two if the current structure is torn down, then yes it will lose value becuase now it won't be desired to a developer who would have wanted to put 8 units on that land to maximize its use. That would be the primary objection for those who are worried about downzoning, and given our culture's emphasis on landowner's rights over civic responsibility, its a legitimate concern.

If Montclair was really concerned about the tearing down of homes and the overbuilding which really isn't overbuilding if it meets current zoning, then the town would consider the idea of scrapping the outdated notion of zoning altogether in favor of design standards.

Hiding:

We agree. I am all for multiple points of view and honest debate. Those in favor--and by that I mean a council that had previously been unanimous in their support for the ordinance, as were all the town planning officials--could and should have done a much better job explaining what the ordinance did, why it made sense, and how they had decided to go forward with it. They should have allowed questions and given detailed answers. Then we could have had an open debate/discussion. Instead, Desmond and Susan took advantage of the knowledge gap.

As for speaking about the letter without having seen it: I have no reason to think the people I spoke with about it were misleading me. Until someone posts the text--and until we can be sure that that posted version is authentic--all we can rely on is what we've heard secondhand.

Finally, you ask why supporters of downzoning didn't blanket mail the entire town with letters supporting their position. Maybe because they don't have the $$$ the developers do.

gls

"Finally, you ask why supporters of downzoning didn't blanket mail the entire town with letters supporting their position. Maybe because they don't have the $$$ the developers do."

You've got to be kidding -- or are so naive it's remarkable. Doesn't sound like a high priced effort to me ...

By the way, the council has given their rationale for trying to move forward with the plan. The problem is that their rationale is a load of crap and was exposed as such on Tuesday night. More problematic is the subtext of the argument you are making (as long as you are big on subtext) -- that the public comment portion of the process should only occur after the matter has been decided and should not have any impact upon the vote of the council. So I assume you are against public comment altogether and favor a closed process that is controlled by a closed minded few. How's that for subtext. How does it feel to be characterized and called to task for what some may view as the subtext or intenet of your words? Perhaps I'll tell some friends what you believe, and they will have no reason to question me ... right.

Tyler,

If the ordinance to downzone passes, then the value to the developers goes down (I agree), but the value to other prospective buyers goes up. I don't want to buy a house in an area that is zoned so that a housing complex could be built next door at any time. I don't want that property. If I know that cannot happen, it becomes more valuable to me.

Hiding:
Well said.

You just gave gls a verbal hiding.

I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of you!

It good to see you have an open mind. If I remember correctly you stated that you were for down zoning when you turned up at the hearing, however, after everyone had there say, you decided to favor the objectors in stopping the down zoning ordinance.

It good find people who are open minded enough to change when they have heard both sides of the argument.

Hiding:

Weird. I wrote:

"They should have allowed questions and given detailed answers. Then we could have had an open debate/discussion."

And you interpret that as:

"I assume you are against public comment altogether and favor a closed process that is controlled by a closed minded few."

Very hard to see how you went from my comments to your conclusions.

As for your dismissive comments about the cost of doing a mailing--well, some in Montclair do have to watch household budgets, even at that level. You talk about opening up the process. Does that include Montclair residents who might not have as much money as you do?

gls,

Don't do a mailing ... just hand deliver to the limited number houses in question. If all of the folks who supported the down zoning got together, there would be minimal costs (for the copies) and each person would only have deliver a few handbills (that is, if the support for the downzoning is as widespread as you say). You gotta get involved at the grasroots level. Go for it -- democracy can work ... as this situation clearly illustrates.

ps to gls

well, my conclusions seem pretty clear and reasonable -- but I assume you see what a problem the interpretation of "subtext" can be (if, in fact, I have misread the subtext of your comments).

A lot of good intentions, but miss-information both here and at the meeting.

Underlying NJ. law does not allow for imposition of design standards. It has to be done creatively through zoning, or by designating an area as a historic district, which is a zoning change overlay.

Alternatively, if you want to stop blight -- we could integrate zoning requirements like: no more than 10% of any structure could be vinyl sided. The council knows this but has not acted.

Bottom line here -- those atempting mega-multi unit projects scared those with small income producing properties to think they would lose that income immediately from the redesignation (not true they are grandfarthered) -- but the council punted anyway when they saw the heat.

Our council did a poor job explaining the underlying reasons for the ordiance (yes you Ted) and preparing those effected with facts -- and they need to do a much better job next time around.

Downzoning is the only way to prevent excessive development - given underlying NJ law -- it just needs to be more effectively implemented and perhaps a closer review of the actual properties included -- given some of the feedback from a few downtown streets that seemed to be largely multi-units already.

The problem here is that now everyone will be rushing to maximize their land sales and bundling developments in the interium. The analogy of the farmer wanting to be able to sub-divide and sell off the land to a developer is a good one during this period now. And so, we need to stop that quickly by preventing knockdowns.

If we don't, the end result is developer profits with higher taxes from more kids in the school system.

Martin,

You make some excellent points here, but there are a couple of points for discussion. Many of the folks at the meeting were concerned because they would not be able to potentially add one more unit to a two or three family house if the down-zoning passed. Their concern did not seem to center around plans for knocking down their current structure and erecting an 18 unit apartment building. Many of these homes could reasonably have a unit or two added without even adding onto the current structure (merely by apportioning space differently) -- yet they would be prevented from doing so. The council was, and always has been very clear about the fact that structures were grandfathered -- in that they would not have to reduce the number of units, but they would not be able to add apartments over 2 (that is, convert from a 1 or 2 family to a three family. This is a problematic thing to tell a homeowner who may be surrounded by businesses and 3+ unit dwellings (which is what happened in many cases here).

Which brings us to another point. The council went about choosing properties in a haphazard fashion. Many of these homes are not reasonable candidates for subdivision in the first place. Others are in areas that are already predominantly multi unit dwellings and businesses (i.e. areas of lower Walnut).

There could have been other ways to go about this -- i.e. create new zoning designations that could reasonably be applied to these structures. The fact is, they acted quickly and without proper counsel. It is interesting that they have spent years, and now tens of thousands of $$$, simply deciding whether or not to go ahead and put up new signs around town --- yet this goes through in a few months without any consultation. We are in the midst of a process of inventorying all houses in Montclair (for the first time since 1986) -- wouldn't it be wise to look at the result of this process to get a clear and accurate idea of what actually exists inside of current structures before we begin to characterize entire neighborhoods. The fact is that the council isn't taking tthe time to really be thoughtful about how they proceed.

Is it really true that while the town cannot impose design standards, they can tell you what type of siding you can or can't have on your house?