Plans for the long-awaited redevelopment of Bloomfield Center were presented to the Bloomfield Planning Board at a specially-scheduled meeting in the Bloomfield Council Chambers last evening.
The applicant, Bloomfield Center Urban Renewal, LLC, and the owner of the subdivision, the Bloomfield Parking Authority, are requesting approval to build a parking garage and combination residential/commercial development on Block 228, a triangular plot that is bordered by Washington Street, Glenwood Avenue, and Lackawanna Plaza.
The Township Council had approved two tax abatements at Monday’s Council Meeting to facilitate the redevelopment of the downtown area, which prompted criticism from some residents, given the budget shortfalls facing the township.
At the Planning Board meeting last night, the applicant’s first expert witness was Professional Engineer, Michael McGowan, who testified regarding stormwater runoff and curb cuts, and responded to questions from the audience and the board. He stated that, with the exception of two wider-than-mandated curb cuts, the engineering design complied with the township’s redevelopment plan, and had incorporated recommendations made by Bloomfield’s township engineer, Paul Lasek.
Lasek took the microphone to state that he did want to change one other aspect of the design, which pertained to the location of a sanitary sewer, which he deemed too close to one of the buildings. The applicant’s attorney agreed to the change on behalf of his client.
Keith Michaels, the architect, testified regarding the plans for the buildings and the parking deck. There will be three buildings, comprising both retail and residential use, with the parking deck within, partially hidden by the other structures. The ground floors of the buildings will include a combination of retail stores and restaurants, while the upper floors will consist of rental apartments.
Michaels stated that there will be eight studios, 96 one-bedroom apartments, 48 one-bedroom apartments with a den, and 72 two-bedroom apartments, dispersed throughout the three buildings, for a total of 224 units. Residents will have the opportunity to go directly from the parking garage into the residential portion of the building, using a secure access card, without having to return to the first floor.
The buildings will have a similar look around the entire block, with awnings, streetscapes and landscaping planned to provide an attractive ambience. The residential portion will be set slightly back from the ground level retail establishments, which will be along the sidewalks to provide a vibrant streetscape. Sidewalks will be widened in the area near Lackawanna Plaza and will include outdoor seating for restaurants.
Michaels also described the facades of the buildings, which will comply with the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan. There are “green” elements in the design, including landscaping on the rooftops and “cool roofs” that will be light-colored and reflective. However, due to safety reasons, the residents will not be allowed to go out on the rooftops.
The buildings will include a gym (in Building B) and a community room (in Building C). Residents of Building A will need to go outside to access these amenities. Each building will include a mail room.
The parking expert, Gerard Giosa, testified about the garage structure, as well as the circulation and parking requirements. He fielded a number of questions about the entrances and exits to the parking garage.
The Lackawanna Plaza access will include two lanes for egress and one for ingress. All will be gated; residents will have a card or pass that allows them access to the parking lot. People parking to go to restaurants or stores will obtain a ticket from an automated machine on the way in, and pay at a pay station before exiting the garage, similar to the process at the garage in Montclair Center.
There will be someone available 24/7 to address any problems that may arise with the gates or payment systems.
Giosa testified that the number of parking spaces takes into account 1.2 cars for each resident, above the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards. He went over the various other uses the parking garage will accommodate, and stated there would be 439 available spaces altogether, which includes 100 spaces to allow “room for growth.”
The garage will be open to view in the areas not obscured by the retail and residential portion of the development, and will include visible lit stairwells to provide interaction with the streetscape, increasing security and providing a “natural symbol” of the location of the garage to those seeking it.
Giosa responded to questions regarding truck access, confirming that there would be space for delivery trucks to enter the garage and make deliveries.
Several other witnesses still remain to testify before the Board will vote on the plan. Planning Board Chairman LaQuaglia adjourned the meeting just before 11 p.m. The next meeting on the redevelopment will be held on Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
“Michaels stated that there will be eight studios, 96 one-bedroom apartments, 48 one-bedroom apartments with a den, and 72 two-bedroom apartments, dispersed throughout the three buildings, for a total of 224 units.”
Not a single unit of “affordable housing” either low or moderate. I don’t call that “progress”.
That parking garage sounds odd to me. If it is open to retail customers how secure can it be? This isn’t a high crime area but if I were a sicko looking for a secluded place to hide out and wait this sounds great. Also a car thief’s dream, at least 8 hours during the day to break into cars of anyone who commuted via train and lives there.
Pat, I’m not sure that has been established yet. I think it is up to the Town Council to decide how much room for affordable housing should be included, if any. Originally it was going to be under the purview of the Planning Department, but they passed those ordinances the other week putting it as a Council responsibility. That said, you may be right that the ultimate outcome could include no affordable housing at all. I guess we’ll find out as this progresses.
Hrhppg, it will have the same amount of security as the Montclair parking garage, I guess. Gates that open when a car enters and takes a ticket, and open again on the way out. The parking expert did testify that one reason the parts of the garage exposed to the outdoors will be open air is to increase security and lighting (during the day) and the garage will be lit internally as well. The entrances to the residential section from the garage will be locked and only residents who have a pass will be able to get in. There were questions about security for the actual residence buildings and I believe there isn’t any planned at this time since the residences will have that entry card system, but this could be added if needed. Since this application is not yet complete, if there are concerns in this regard, citizens can voice them at the next meeting on May 19.
I think their goal is to make a building that is in keeping to the with the typical types of structures and designs of similiar buildings to Bloomfield’s western neighbors i.e. Glen Ridge, Montclair and Verona rather than alligning the design and features to Bloomfield’s southern neighbor’s buildings i.e. East Orange, Orange and Newark.
I did not like the part about the garage being visable to the street, at some area(s)… Why? Because what cannot be seen….. cannot be stolen !!
When apartments aren’t rented, they will become low-income pods by default.
I don’t know that there’s so much demand for those apartments. If the building is banking on a rebound in 2015 or later when it’s done, maybe things’ll have turned around. Maybe. Isn’t there another huge apartment building going up near the GSP in the old factory?
Would that be the same Montclair parking garage where the machine breaks down regularly and there have been a few incidents of theft from cars and assault already?
Affordable is a relative term in regards to apartments. The studios are bound to be relatively affordable compared to the 2 bedrooms. They’ll have to compete with rentals in Montclair with it’s more active downtown. They could even wind up taking Section 8 tenants to get some steady cash flow to fund the retail developments. The hope is that car-free NYC commuters can be attracted before that happens.
Car free NYC commuters aren’t coming here. Not with their rent tied into the overspending school system, a commuter station that from the street looks horrible and the bucket squad reminding them of the old NYC squeegy guys.
But lots of luck.
Affordable Housing is defined by the Council on Afforable Housing
COAH is the State agency responsible for establishing and monitoring municipal affordable housing obligations in New Jersey.
COAH is empowered to: (1) define housing regions, (2) estimate low and moderate income housing needs, (3) set criteria and guidelines for municipalities to determine and address their own fair share numbers and then (4) review and approve housing elements/fair share plans and regional contribution agreements (RCAs) for municipalities. As a quasi-judicial organization, COAH can also impose resource restraints and consider motions regarding housing plans.
Mission Statement
To facilitate the production of sound, affordable housing for low and moderate income households by providing the most effective process to municipalities, housing providers, nonprofit and for profit developers to address a constitutional obligation within the framework of sound, comprehensive planning.
explore the concept here:
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/affiliates/coah/index.html
You dont need affordable housing when you are wooing the NYC commuting crowd. There is plenty of affordable apartments (with roof access) 3 blocks away on Montgomery, Fremont and Oakland. And there are at least 3 empty apartments in each building. Most of the residents left these buildings because it’s “too affordable.” Id rather not eat at an outdoor restaurant and hear music blasting and pot smoke wafting out the windows of college kids who can afford to live next to the train station.
Pat, there is plenty of affordable housing in Bloomfield. There is no need to add section 8 to every new construction. The train station needs some work, and when this complex is built I hope a private investor sees the value of the ground level space and throws some paint and patch work on the rest of the station
Jimmy,
I’m not the Council on Afforable Housing. Have you never heard of the Mt. Laurel Doctrine?
“The Mount Laurel doctrine is a controversial judicial interpretation of the New Jersey State Constitution. The doctrine requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine
If it’s too expensive to live in an area–it might be time to move.
I think there is a lot of housing in town available and affordable for low and moderate income households. Not every project every time should be required to do that. If I’m paying 500K for an apartment my neighbors better be as well.
@hrhppg then maybe you should call your state senator and get the New Jersey State Constitution changed.
I’ll try my best pat.
It is interesting that on one hand we are fighting a methadone clinic because of NIMBY but on the other hand we are expecting people to move here for new apartments, new downtown and expecting them to have no NIMBY issues of their own.
So in additional to higher rent apartments – we’ll have them in the same area as the clinic and a big section 8 welcome sign on the door. – anyone else seeing the conflict in that?
I think you’ll see the Mt Laurel decision overturned or altered just like what will happen with the Abbott decision.
When? The redevelopmetn is going on now. And bye the way, not all low income housing goes to section 8 a lot of it goes to the working poor.
Is there something wrong with section 8 and low income people that you might want to share with the rest of us. Do you consider them low in character because they are low in income?
No I don’t think anything bad about section 8 or anyone lower income (not far off myself) but living in Bloomfield where NIMBY is a personal mantra (see cell tower debate as well) it is interesting to me that we are making many assumptions on future neighbors and what they will or won’t find acceptable.
Could it be that statistically people whio apply and receive section 8 are minorities? There are an awful lot of poor people, are you saying that they don’t deserve to live in Bloomfield?
Copyright (c) 1999 The Trustee of Indiana University
Indiana Law Review
NOTE: Housing Discrimination and Source of Income: A Tenant’s Losing Battle 1999 32 Ind. L. Rev. 457
Author Kim Johnson-Spratt *
“Many believe that housing discrimination is a past wrong that is now corrected by the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Housing discrimination against the poor is still permissible in many realms under current law. The poor in this country often cannot obtain adequate housing and can be forced to move their families into unsafe neighborhoods or find themselves homeless. Finding adequate housing can be a poor family’s losing battle, as the law does not protect the family from discrimination. More specifically, a prospective tenant’s source of income alone can serve as a justification for a landlord’s refusal of tenancy. Sources of income that become tools of discrimination include Social Security, unemployment compensation, alimony, child support, and food stamps.
However, two sources of income are particularly unprotected by federal housing law: Section 8 of the Low-Income Housing Act 2 (“Section 8″) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”). 3 Those who participate in the Section 8 Voucher and Certificate Programs 4 can be turned away by private landlords merely because of this source of income. The Certificate Program created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 5 allows certificate holders to pay only thirty percent of their income for a privately-owned apartment. 6 Landlords are then reimbursed for the difference between the tenant’s contribution and the rental cost. 7 The Voucher Program allows more flexibility as vouchers are given to the tenants for the difference between the fair …
@hrhppg not sure why you are labeling the cell tower as NIMBY. The Zoning ordianances in Bloomfield were written for a reason. This application violates ALL of the setbacks and height restrictions that are already in place.
We have already suggested an alternate site within the applicants search area that will not violate zoning ordinances and that will be on town property and the town will reap the revenue.
So, no NIMBY it is NOT!
I think Mt. Laurel, Abbott, and for that matter, methadone clinics, were all established with the good of lower income people in mind (or in the case of methadone clinics, addicts who are trying to get clean). In theory they are for the benefit of society and should be a good thing. Unfortunately, implementation and rality don’t always match the good intentions. For instance, Mt. Laurel has resulted in bigger building complexes just to add the required amount of low income units. (Developers don’t like to cut into their profit). Abbott has often meant tearing down historic school buildings to build new ones rather tha putting the money into more needed services. And methadone clinics, while helping those who sincerely want help, can also result in people hanging around out front and making the neighbors uneasy, apparently. (I have no experience in this so am just mentioning what others have said happens). So it may not be all a matter of NIMBY or prejudice against the poor or minorities that drives some of the opposition to these things. Sure, that may be part of it for some, but there are legitimate reasons to question the benefit of Mt. Laurel, Abbott, and other well-meaning legislation that may have unintended consequences. Like most things, these laws are imperfect. Do their benefits outweigh their downsides? I guess we’ll have to wait and see how the courts decide. But as someone else said above, maybe it isn’t that important that every single development contain affordable housing, as long as affordable housing exists elsewhere in the same town. In some towns, the poor were really being shut out completely due to the high prices of all real estate and housing units. In Bloomfield I really don’t think we can say that. But then again, I have not checked the statistics throughout town so I welcome any other information people may have about this. I am certainly an advocate for people of all income levels having the opportunity to live in the town they want to live in.
Once again, COAH or not. How is the addition of 224 new rental units going to help us with this massive tax short fall we are facing. The Mayor and Council are playing games with our Fire Protection, the BOE decides to save us $3 and we are going to add approx 700 new rental units in town over the next 5 years. I don’t get how this lessens our financial burden, won’t it just further stretch the resources that are already stretched thin?
Anyone have an opinion I that I would love to read it, because I think I may be missing something.
I have no problem with minorities, and the whole poor equals minority is a reach (says the poor white girl whose been saving her pennies for a Bloomfield Redevelopment apartment for a decade)
But it is a HORRIBLE business plan to assume you are going to draw the disposable income, fresh from NYC crowd with a dilapidated trains station and the other issues I mentioned. If we want these buildings/rebirth of downtown to fail at the goal then you are on the right track.
Clearly as every gated neighborhood has a methadone clinic in it. You guys want the caviar and champagne crowd but expect them to drink it out of a slop bucket.
If the redevelopment is suppose to elevate the quality of downtown we need to think that way. It can’t be all things to all people. I doubt 77 Hudson has any low income units. http://www.77hudson.com
I don’t know the history of 77 Hudson. Was it built by the municipality that it was developed in?
Block 228 is owned by the township of Bloomfield – don’t be fooled by references to the Parking Authority and the LLC. The people of Bloomfield are fully responsible for the $20,0000,000.00 debt that is being carried by the Parking Authority.
Towns are required to develop affordable housing.
Oh, just caught the reference to “slop bucket”. Do you think the poor are pigs?
No I think this idea is slop and the way it is being expected to be a namby pamby hug fest around the politically correct world is a bucket of – never mind.
But nice try. You should put as much effort in comprehending can’t be all things to all people.
also the slop bucket comment was directed at the double income no kids demographic everyone’s been assuming will flock out of NYC, pretty easy to figure out with reading and comprehension skills. But lets turn my use of the word reading into some other attack on what I must think about people.
and the 72 2-bedroom apartments are aimed at attracting DINKs? I don’t think so. 48 apartments with a bedroom and den – isn’t a den just a bedroom with no windows or a small bedroom and these are actually 2-bedroom apartments?
I’m on lots of Yahoo groups. one of the is called BrooklyntoNJ. One of the reasons that people move the the suburbs from NYC is for their kids. So, no Tim I don’t see how it helps us in any way unless of course some sort of school expansion is what we’re looking for.
We should be encourging businesses to relocate to Bloomfield. I’d love to see a Technology Incubator that helps spawn businesses in our area
“The concept of business incubation has been successfully applied throughout the nation and around the world and offers excellent return on investment for successful business creation, job and revenue growth with measurable direct and indirect economic impact. Today, there are 11 technology incubators operating in New Jersey supported, in part, by the Commission on Science and Technology.”
http://www.nj.gov/scitech/techinc/contacts.html
What often happens when folks from Brooklyn move to Bloomfield is they rent first (an example is down the street from me at Silk Mills Lofts) and often end up buying in the neighborhood. If some of these rental apartments attract these people they may end up being permanent residents of our town and able to help our tax base. That said, the issue of the schools is a concern, I agree. There are plans to build apartments behind Watsessing School as well, and they probably may include some children there too. It is something that will need to be addressed over time as we see who actually does move in to these developments. Re: the affordable housing issue, we don’t know yet that there will be none included; it is up to the council apparently. There will be more opportunities for the public to speak on the issue before the development gets going, I’m sure.
It’s important that the council get good legal advice. TWO debacles with eminent domain should have taught Bloomfield to make sure that it was on the correct side of the law.
I am concerned that bad advice will lead us to another decision that the taxpayers will have to pay for. The $4,800,000.00 lost to Forest Daily was an extrme example of bad advice. And then the subsequent additonal atttempt at eminent domain and loss of another lawsuit to Anthony Ellenbogen showed that our town council does not learn from it’s mistakes.
“In 2004, the township hired multi-billionaire developer Forest City to build housing, retail, restaurants, a 65,000-square-foot shopping center and a parking deck downtown. The plan required the township to seize properties, but a group of downtown building owners, including Ellenbogen, filed a Superior Court lawsuit and halted the seizures in 2007. Forest Daily severed its deal with Bloomfield and sued the township successfully for $4.8 million, leaving Bloomfield without a sole downtown developer.”
http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2010/01/another_suit_filed_against_blo.html
“Essex County Assignment Judge Patricia K. Costello ruled that Bloomfield’s attempt to use the Bloomfield Parking Authority as a means to seize property through eminent domain was disingenuous and violated an earlier settlement signed between the township and Ellenbogen.
Eminent domain refers to the legal process by which a state can take private property for public use.
Ellenbogen, owner and landlord of units 21, 31 and 35 Lackawanna Place (which includes tenant, Garden State Yoga) has been battling the township since the start of their first failed redevelopment attempt eight years ago.”
http://www.baristanet.com/2010/07/bloomfield-redevelopment-loses-lawsuit-by-landlord-updated/