| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 8:54 am: | 
|
The following announcement is being distributed by various paths, including a town-wide mailing. I thought it would also be useful to share it on MOL.
*********************************************
To: Maplewood Residents and Community Leaders
From: Tom Carlson, Chair, Maplewood Planning Board
Re: Community Workshop for Redevelopment Plan
You are invited to a community workshop to gather input for Maplewood’s Redevelopment Area No. 2. It will be held on Saturday, March 25th from 9:00am to 11:30am at Seth Boyden School. The workshop will be led by staff of Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, the consultants we have hired to guide us through this planning activity.
Redevelopment Area No. 2 is located within the town’s industrial zone, along Burnett Avenue, between DeHart Park and Tuscan Road. It includes about 10 acres of commercial property that lie behind the houses on Burnett, Tuscan Road and Boyden Avenue. (See detailed description, attached.)
As you may know, the Township Committee has declared this area a Redevelopment Zone, following the process prescribed by state law. This is the first application of this process in Maplewood. The redevelopment plan would allow the Township to specify what types of uses will be allowed in the area, to create appropriate zoning regulations and to select developers.
This workshop is a chance for residents and community leaders to be actively involved in the planning process, a critical step in determining the future of our community.
Who should attend?
This is a public meeting to which all interested citizens are invited. No technical knowledge of development or land use is required; we’ve already hired experts to help us with that.
At this workshop we will identify the visions and concerns that you have for the immediate neighborhood and for our community as a whole. The workshop sessions will be a two-way information exchange, providing citizens with an opportunity to contribute as well as learn from the planning process. I urge you to attend this interesting and valuable workshop.
Detailed Description of Redevelopment Area No. 2
The designated area is located in the northern portion of Maplewood’s Commercial-Industrial (CI) zone.
The boundaries of the area are:
- On the south, bounded by DeHart Park and the town’s Department of Public Works (DPW)
- On the west, bounded by a combination of frontage on Burnett Avenue and by rear yards of residential lots on Burnett Avenue
- On the north, bounded by the rear yards of residential lots on Tuscan Road
- On the east, bounded by the rear yards of residential lots on Boyden Avenue
The area has small frontages on both Tuscan Road and Boyden Avenue, between residential lots. The following observations are also relevant to this designated area:
- The residentially zoned properties along the east side of Burnett Avenue were included in the original investigation but are not part of the designated area.
- In the vicinity of the study area, Tuscan Road and Boyden Avenue are fronted by residentially-zoned properties, the rear yards of which abut the CI zone. These residential properties are not included in the designated area.
- The site of the First Maplewood Baptist Church (Lot 7.01 of Block 48.47), is not included in the area. This lot lies at the south end of the designated area, immediately north of DeHart park.
- The entire DPW facility (Lot 167 of Block 48.47), was included in the original redevelopment study area. Only a small portion of that was included the designated area, specifically the far northern tip surrounded by other properties in the area. Because of its size and configuration, it was logical to include this portion of the DPW property the designation.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4831
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 10:42 am: |
|
"It includes about 10 acres of commercial property that lie behind the houses on Burnett, Tuscan Road and Boyden Avenue."
Thank you Tom, sharing this information on MOL is an excellent idea, especially given the small opportunity offered for us to get a word in edgewise on March 25th. Getting some business minded Republican input can’t hurt either... 
I’d like to get the ball rolling by saying, with the exception of the one senior citizen housing project previously discussed; we sure don’t need any additional residential development. This area of town is long overdue for some basic decent shopping services of its own. I feel a food store, drug store, dry cleaning, and banking branch should be considered basic. A small bakery, and a luncheonette for breakfast and lunch would probably help as well; maybe we could get that pub in front of the new church they’re building on the Avenue to move over and turn it into another Irish Pub, no make that a Scottish Pub, like the Gate in the Village...
IMHO, much of the above could be condensed into a small Super Market that also has a Drug Store service, and also include a small Bank of America service branch inside like the Path Mark has. Actually, I would try to get the A&P on Valley Street to move over to Burnett as well... This way the town isn't losing anything, we'll just be moving it around so it can do more good.
OK, that’s a start folks. I’m sure our on line discussions will help speed the process along. Please carry on...
|
pmart
Citizen
Username: Pmart
Post Number: 156
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Respectfully, I have to disagree with your food store proposal. As a Hilton neighborhood resident, I don't see a food store as an enhancement to my quality of life. Rather, it would become a cross to bear; too much traffic...too much noise.
Food stores are 24 x 7 operations that attract too many cars and trucks. They require a large well lit parking area; trucks need to load/unload all day and all night; and neighborhood street traffic will need to accommodate more trucks and cars -- especially on the weekends when it is now pretty quiet. I'd rather drive to West Orange or Livingston.
An alternative thought, though ...What about a full facility YMCA? Something with a pool and gym? Is the Y considered to be a rateable? Do they pay full taxes? They could even use the park (within walking distance) to run their summer programs. At least with a Y, traffic increase should not be noticeable, activities would probably end by 9ish (no overnight noise), and we would eliminate trucks from the neighborhood (both day and night). Just a not-so-well thought out "thought". |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4843
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:48 am: |
|
"Just a not-so-well thought out "thought"."
Really? Well, that's a matter of opinion... “Respectfully speaking of course”, is it possible you were being a little short sighted, bias, or just didn't grasp all of what was being suggested? Let me try again…
First, I guess we can agree to forget the YMCA. It doesn't pay property tax which is what this redevelopment process is all about anyway.
As for pursuing the small A&P, it would help both areas. Even windmills would be better suited on Valley Street than the present super market located next to a Path Mark. FWIW, a small A&P on Burnett doesn’t have to be 24/7, plus the present one closes at 10PM anyway. As for the parking lot lights, they can be set so as not to disturb the few bordering residential neighbors in the area. Also, the traffic activity is going to pretty much be a factor with anything the town agrees to allow there.
I believe the real value is that presently there’s no close and convenient shopping center like our Village for this side of town. The advantage of a full service A&P is that multiple services can be combined into one location and one store, ie: Food, Bank, Drugs, Liqueur, Butcher Shop, Fish Market, Bakery, Film Development, etc…
IMHO, having these conveniences for the neighborhood will far outweigh any inconveniences, and will support any further residential and commercial development of the Hilton/Springfield Avenue area.
|
pmart
Citizen
Username: Pmart
Post Number: 157
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I agree that we don't want to give away property to a non-tax paying entity - I wasn't sure about the Y's status. However, I am still opposed to a food store on Burnett. I hate to get all NIMBY about it, but I happen to be one of those "few bordering residential neighbors" that would be affected.
I did not purchase a home on or in a shopping district, which is what a food store will do to Burnett. The streets that feed off of Burnett are residential; it is part of a neighborhood. Food stores are designed to service customers from all parts of town and neighboring towns. They are not intended to be a neighborhood service like a pizza parlor, dry cleaners, or deli. Although the store may close early, deliveries are generally made in the middle of the night. I am afraid a store on Burnett will split the neighborhood.
Regarding the value in having a "close and convenient shopping center like our Village" for this part of town ... the Village is less than 2 miles from Burnett; that's still pretty convenient to me. Besides, Springfield Ave has almost all of the services you mentioned: drug store (TOPFs), several banks, a fish market, and a gazillion liquor stores – in addition to a toy store, a coffee shop, and restaurant. All within walking distance. And really, how many people in town actually do their weekly shopping at Kings?
Again, regarding convenience, what exactly is MW’s definition of convenience?
First of all, this is New Jersey and it’s pretty much a given that we drive everywhere. For those who don’t drive, how much more of a convenience is a food store on Burnett to someone living on Claremont than are Kings in the village and SH? For the non-drivers in Hilton, again, if this store is only inconveniencing a "few bordering residential neighbors", then to how many people will it be a convenience?
Secondly, the Shop Rites in Union, Springfield and Millburn are all acceptable (not wonderful) and are well within driving distance. The Pathmark in SO is very close; the Shop Rites in WO & Livingston are further out. The Kings in the Village and Whole Foods are fine for light shopping. Peapod even delivers. How many food stores do we really need? I think we're falling into that bigger/more is better trap.
Lastly, the A&P on Valley is a dive. What’s the guarantee that an A&P, or any other store for that matter, will be any better on Burnett? People always complain about a good food store in the area, but what exactly are they looking for? As I mentioned previously, there are at least 5 different food stores within a (approx) 5 mile radius from the center of town. There are more as you go further out.
So now, as you can see, while my suggestion for what should go on Burnett may have been “short-sited”, I have put a little more thought into what should not go there. I just think we're selling out with the food store proposal. We're looking at the dollar signs and presenting them as "quality of life". I'd like to challenge the TC to come up with an alternate solution, perhaps one that includes removing all trucks and lessening traffic on the Hilton streets. Those would add more value to my life. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4846
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
... good points and well put Pmart!
I tell you what, as you may know, I'm not much of a NIMBY fan, however, being I have NO vested interest in this other than wanting the best for Maplewood and its residents, And that there's more than one way to skin a cat, And because you read like you're not against the redevelopment in general, And that it's just you and me at this point who have expressed the slightest bit of interest on line, I'm going to side with you pal!
Good luck going forward and let me know if I can help you out... Art |
pmart
Citizen
Username: Pmart
Post Number: 158
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Sorry, guess I got carried away
I just didn't want to give anyone in town government the impression that at least one person in the neighborhood was against that idea. It's not the first time I've heard it. Thanks for the ear (eye?)! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13125
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
This seminar occurs this Saturday, and I thought I should bump this thread so others notice it.
|
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 415
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Bump... |
knak
Citizen
Username: Knak
Post Number: 143
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
I couldn't come to the meeting and just heard a brief report from a neighbor, including concerns about opening a grocery and interest in a small business incubator. Anyone willing to post some of the discussion?
|
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:16 am: |
|
I like Art's idea of windmills on Valley.
We could all tilt at them as often as we liked. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4916
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
The "Y" is out, a super market is out, and more residential is out...
There was a decent turn out. The meeting was a well planned and well run. And, the winners were additional 55 and over housing, and a number of flex space buildings for small incubator type businesses. The public input was considered valuable, and there will be more meetings in the future...
(BTW, no windmills yet for Valley Street.) |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 418
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Someone from the Planner's office presented to the whole group first. The audience consisted of some residents in the immediate neighborhood of the redevelopment area, some residents from the rest of Maplewood, some business owners, some developers, and some people from the Township Committee and the Planning Board. After the presentation, we broke up into six groups and came back with lists of ideas and priorities.
In addition to what Art said, there were a few other consensus issues from all the groups. I can't remember them all, but among them were that the area not be developed in a way that set it apart from the surrounding neighborhood, that it be integrated to the surrounding area in scale and architecture, and that it be accessible from all sides. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4919
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
...thank you Annette, actually that this development be integrated into the surrounding community in scale and architecture, and that it be accessible from all sides was probably, IMHO, one of the most important suggestions made. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page