| Author |
Message |
    
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:21 pm: | 
|
Mr. Rosner,
I noticed in the News Record that the Planning Board will be hearing from the proposed developer of the Beifus site on October 30th.
I also noticed they are requesting a variance to only allow a 1 foot setback for the rear yard.
Doesn't that property border the tennis courts and swimming pool complex? Don't you think having a 5 story building directly against those recreational facailities is inappropriate and will be detrimental?
Also, is this developer being allowed a PILOT agreement like the 3rd street developer was?
What is the justification for 60 MORE residential apartments when the 3rd street project is significantly less than 40% occupied? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 99
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Mayhewdriver: I thought that an automobile dealership was more inappropiate. However, I feel that there should be some kind of plantings (trees and bushes?) between the two properties. It is now up to the planning board and I guess that they will make a decision based on how they view the merits of the project.
I would guess that the developer will ask for a PILOT agreement assuming he gets approval from the planning board. It would have to be voted on in public ( by the board of trustees) and there will be an opportunity for people to speak on that subject before a vote is taken.
This project is probably two years from being completed.
I will give you the justification based on information I have been given, although I might not agree with all the reasoning or the forecasts. I would guess that Gaslight Commons (3rd street) would have a higher occupancy at that time. I have been told that there is still a large demand for apartments in local downtown areas although things have slowed down because of the economy. Also, it appears that two bedroom apartments are being rented out with more frequency than one bedrooms and the Beifus site building is mostly two bedroom apartments (40 two-bedroom apartments and 20 one bedroom apartments).
Over the past year, you have frequently mentioned Hoboken as a town that you admire. One of the reasons that they have a lot of viable stores and foot traffic is that they have a large number of apartments. If one was to look back at Hoboken in the 1960's and 70's, there were a large number of empty apartments, stores, etc. It did not happen overnight. And while I do not think S. Orange will ever be Hoboken, if we want more stores in the downtown, we need to have more foot traffic. I know the question is what is the right number. I think we need to see where we want to be five and ten years from now and work on that plan. My guess is that all the apartments will be rented out (who thought that a developer would find 200 tenants in 6 months?) over time and more stores will open as a result. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot criticize the village for saying there are too many empty stores as opposed to a town like Hoboken and then say there are too many apartments because it will cause more overcrowding. We are trying to acheive a balance that will allow the village to attract better businesses and attract more people to the downtown while minimizing the impact on the schools and recreational facilities (thus one bedroom apartments that will be attractive to singles and young couples without children). |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 204
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hello, Mr. Rosner,
Apparently, the village has decided to build yet more apartments when the Shop Rite deal hasn't even been approved. While I appreciate the token gesture to open government, I hope you really don't think that we who pay attention are fooled. Oversaturation will kill this town for good, unlike the empty storefronts (not every site has to be used for housing, just in case you didn't know).
And one small clue on creating viable foot traffic and a healthy downtown: a supermarket within reasonable walking distance of every home in South Orange. It's taking waaayyy too long, for what I've been told are envrionmental problems (site cleanup).
Comparing a 5-story monolith on the Beifus site that will hulk over the pool with the detriments of a car dealership is amusing as well. Just imagine a visit to the pool with an enormous apartment building less than 20 yards away.
What are the trustees' forecasts for the economy speeding up and Gaslight Commons reaching capacity? Any guess on when the housing development projects might slow down a bit? When do the trustees say "enough"? |
scollins
Citizen
Username: Scollins
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 11:56 am: |
|
Mr. Rosner,
When Modern Auto Body was granted a variance to put in a rental car storage lot on Valley Street they promised plantings for a buffer between the lot and traffic. Drive by and take a look at that buffer. Please don’t let them use the same type of plantings for the pool.
In the case of Beifus, why are the trustees granting the variances in the first place? I thought this was the Planning Boards Job. Could the political connections of the financing people behind the project (i.e. the largest contributor to Gov. Jim) be having an influence?
As for rental demand, I talked to a brand new renter in the GasLight Commons. I also talked to the rental agent and to several developers involved in local projects other than the GasLight. All agree that there is at least a 30% vacancy rate in residential rentals in the downtown area. I guess that one of us is just talking to the wrong people.
And speaking of the wrong people, a few years back S.O. hired a consulting company (I think named Atlantic something or other) for advise on downtown. Their recommendation on the number of rental residential housing units in the downtown area is being grossly exceeded by the current projects. Who is wrong here, the consultants or the redevelopment commission (whoever they are – and can you tell us that?)? I hope it was the experts.
Marc, I find it disturbing the you can look back 40 years to what Hoboken was but only ahead 5-10 years towards what S.O. will be in the future. I feel that is very shortsighted thinking much like the Gaslight Commons project which you yourself said was to big. The Gaslight Commons project sailed through the P.B. in one night and got PILOT status. What was the hurry? Did you ever get the chance to view the plans prior to approval?
Please take the time, study the plans, ask the hard questions and voice your opinion on everything that is going on in town. South Orange needs another voice of reason on the Board of Trustees.
|
qquinner
Citizen
Username: Qquinner
Post Number: 29
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 6:46 am: |
|
It doesn't seem that more apartments are needed downtown, esp in light of Gaslight Commons. It also doesn't make sense that we need apartments in order to bring more businesses to downtown. Look at Maplewood! With the right lease structure and adequate parking, retail should be able to do well in this town. I would rather have a car dealership than a ghost town! |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 10:12 am: |
|
Mr. Rosner,
You are right that I have mentioned Hoboken frequently, but it was for 2 main points:
1) They have managed to turn a blighted business district into a thriving one (even before the mass overdevelopment that is taking place there now), first with its numerous bars & now with its numerous quality restaurants.
2) They have managed to improved the quantity & quality of Open Space extremely quickly. In the 4 years since I moved away, the entire waterfront has been redeveloped with a beautiful esplanade for walking, biking, etc and a huge new park overlooking the NYC skyline. In the 4 years since I have moved to South Orange, we have gotten a new parking lot by the train station and countless proposals for more residential units! |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 100
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 11:35 am: |
|
Mayhewdrive: Most of those open space initiatives in Hoboken were jointly done with the state of N. J. which recognized (finally) that land on the riverfront with a view of Manhatten was just too good to pass up on for both public relations and monetary reasons.
qquinner: On some level, I certainly agree with you. How come more people do not shop in S. Orange village (or any small town it seems)? I wish that Beifus kept his car dealership open (why did he close it up?). Because the parcels of properties are small (by today's standards), developers seem to think the only way to make money is with apartments. I would much prefer to have a Gap open a freestanding store, but this is not a major thouroughfare and that is not going to happen. Almost all the auto delaerships are on Rte. 10, 22, 46 or similar. There are only a handful left in the state like the ones we used to have around here (Beifus, Hornung in W. Orange, etc.).
So which comes first, the chicken or the egg. If you want the stores to open without the apartments than we needed shoppers to support the local stores. If you want stores to come then they want assurances that they will be successful.
Scollins: Clearly you are someone who has paid attention to what is going on and certainly know more than the average resident.
I won't argue with you about whose job it is (planning board vs. trustees) but I did not vote on that issue since I was not in agreemtent with it (I abstained). I have said that we lay the groundwork and it is up to the planning board to deal with the details.
Most developers still insist that the demand for two bedrooms are strong and most say that the reduced demand for the one bedrooms is because of 9/11 and that if/when the economy comes back the demand will increase again.
The atlantic report talked about as many as 500 new apartments. As for Gaslight Commons, I am not sure what their expectations were, but I am sure that the downturn in the economy played a part in the slowdown. I had always said that it would take one year to get it fully rented (5 more months).
I did not know that the investor for Beifus was a large contributor to the Governor (not sure it matters since we are a non-partisan board). It also seems to me that this project has been on the drawing board for at least one year (with several revisions and downsizes) along with meeting with the town, they met with Main Street (which is made up moslty of volunteers who live in the village). If anything, I cannot fathom how this property has been sitting vacant as long as it has and why it has taken so long to present something to the planning board. I hope the planning board reviews the plans and asks the questions that are needed to make a decision and then if revisions are warranted to make those clear to the developers.
I would hope that they would use various types of trees to act as the buffer between the two sites.
As for my short-term vision (only 5 - 10 years) vs. my 20-20 hindsight, well, I guess I am guilty. I really do review every piece of paper that I get and I do ask questions about every project. I think my opinions about most subjects are prettly clear and they have not always been popular with the other board members and sometimes they are not popular with the public.
Who is the voice of reason on the board of trustees and what does that mean? I have certainly been the most accessible trustee (either by email, phone, commuters on the train or this board) and have responded to everyone and anyone. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 420
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Mark, Please do not lose sight of the fact that one of the justifications for emphasizing 1-bedroom apartments, especially in developments that are PILOTed, is that in theory they will not contribute students to the school system. The PILOT agreements that have been structured have not resulted in any money going to the school system, which is already starving for revenue. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 101
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 1:31 pm: |
|
kathy. I did forget to mention that , but I also believe that there would be very few school age children coming from the two bedroom apartments.
Almost every town in the state is trying to figure out how to increase revenues for their school districts. The property tax system is an unfair one, especially for twons like S. Orange/Maplewood vs. towns like Millburn or Roseland or any of the towns that have propery commercial thoruoghfares (Springfiled, Union, Hanover).
|
scollins
Citizen
Username: Scollins
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Mark,
Please review The Atlantic Group's report again. They might have talked about 500 units but they recommended 220 units (page 2 of the report), 110 on Warnock, 50 at Sickley Bros and 60 on Third Street. The zoning code at the time provided for 170 units so the governing body needed to change the zoning to accomodate the extra units.
I think that the recommendation for the other 280 units must have come from someone else.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 102
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 9:41 am: |
|
I will look at it over the weekend. I am sure that you are right if you have a copy of the report and the recommendation for the 500 units might have been from a different source.
It would probably be a good idea to have the Atlantic group come back and give us their thoughts on the work that was done, what is being proposed and what they suggest going forward. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page