| Author | Message | ||
     doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 82 Registered: 3-2003 |
M.Rosner: The site plan was approved last night. Quite possibly (hopefully)the only thing that might change is the number of residential units. Even if the final plan is changed from five stories to four, this should not be relevant in determining whether to grant PILOT status. And when you say you can't speak for the others, that is why they should have been on this board. I have a pretty good idea of what their vote would be, based upon the discussion of PILOTS at the LWV debate. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 83 Registered: 3-2003 |
Pete: I would give you a link to a website, but I don't know how to do it. Brian? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 379 Registered: 4-2002 |
Pete: There are many different types of PILOT's. The one we are talking about here is a long-term Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). Any property that is given this type of PILOT does not count in the total assesed property values for either the county or school taxes. Let me give an example of one though just so you can see the numbers. Say for instance you have a property that is assessed for $20,000,000. The total tax bill would be just over $1,000,000. The village would normally get $250,000. The county would get almost $200,000. The balance would go to the schools. If a 50% PILOT is given, the village would get $500,000. The county would get nothing. The schools would still have the same budget but nothing would be coming from this agreement. However, since this property is not counted in the formula for the schools it means that Maplewood must "subsidize" 58% of the school portion of the savings given to the developer. It is important to remember that since the village would get double what it normally gets, that it has an impact on the municipal portion of the tax bill. So why your school portion might increase, the muncipal portion might decrease. Also, the split between the two towns which is based on a property wealth formula would actually benefit the village since this property would not count in that formula and could actually reduce the percentage the village has to pay (right now it is about 42% of the school budget). The amount collected is increased by whatever the percentage increase is in the municipal tax rate (if any). A PILOT is a tool that should not be used lightly and only when needed to help bring a project to the village that otherwise would not happen. As far as I know both towns only have one long term PILOT agreement on the books. I actually think the village attorney should prepare a formal explanation of the different types of PILOT agreements along with any legal ramifications. There is a lot of confusion about them and certainly a lot of disagreement on how they work. Remember to Vote Line A on May 13th www.leadershipwithvision.org | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 55 Registered: 1-2003 |
I still don't understand what was approved last night. Was a 5 story building approved last night or not? If so why would we think that it could go down. If this could be clarified, it would be helpful. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 98 Registered: 5-2001 |
Pete, A payment in lieu of taxes tax calculated by is a fixed, indexed or formulaic method other than the rise and fall of the property's assessed values. The bad word is tax abatement. This is an arrangement where the assessed property value is reduced on or eliminated from the tax rolls of the village, county, or school district. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 84 Registered: 3-2003 |
nwyave: Your question is an important one, and I'll try to give my understanding. Perhaps Mark Rosner can correct or clarify my understanding. Last night the planning board approved what is called the "site plan" and approved certain variances requested by the developer. On Vose Ave., as I understand it, a residential building with that number of units would have been allowed under the current zoning. One of the variances requested was to increase the height permitted. Another variance requested and granted was a reduction in the number of parking places normally required for that type of building. However, since the Village owns the ShopRite site and the Vose Ave. site is in the redevelopment zone, the developer has to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the Village, and the Village can basically ask for or request what it feels is best for the Village. In other words, the redevelopment agreement overrides the Planning Board's approval. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 85 Registered: 3-2003 |
nwyave: Further clarification. The official Village website makes it sound like it's a done deal because it doesn't say that the developer still has to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the Village. Specifically, the Village could request that the number of units be decreased so that there would be more parking spaces for shoppers. This is the big question - what will the final agreement provide? | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 56 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mark - could you plse clarify? Is doublea correct in his explanaition? If so, what is your position. Would you leave the planning agr approval as is or would your require a change under the redevelopment agreement. Brian - Again assuming doublea is correct, what is your position. Thanks | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 86 Registered: 3-2003 |
nwyave: This explantion was given by Village President Calabrese right before the vote took place. You might have left by then so didn't hear it. My impression was that Mr. Calabrese gave this explantion because he knew there were probably a lot of residents watching on TV(like me, although they also probably didn't know a final vote was going to take place last night)who were concerned about parking and the number of residential units. But let's wait to hear from Mark and Brian. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 87 Registered: 3-2003 |
After I posted the above post, I found that I had a private message from the Vilage Attorney,saying that I was wrong and the redevelopment agreement could not overturn the Planning Board's decision - it could only change the terms and conditions. If this is correct, then I misunderstood what Bill Calabrese said and I apologize.But I did not fabricate this and what exactly did Mr. Calabrese say that led me to this conclusion. I know he specifically mentioned the number of parking spaces. Let's play the tape. If I heard it wrong, then once again I apologize. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 304 Registered: 6-2001  |
Doublea, I'm finding it just a wee bit surreal that Mr. Matthews won't just post the answers here. Instead, he chooses to Privateline responses to specific posts; I received one and did not feel comfortable posting it here since he chose not to. But really, if he can say it with email, why can't he say it to everyone? And I'm really not trying to criticize: I'm sure Mr. Matthews is an extremely competent attorney. I'm uncomfortable that he's sending individual replies to questions posted here. You posted about the Privateline just 16 minutes after questioning the process. Leaving time for typing your response, you must have received an email from Mr. Matthews within 10 minutes. That's pretty impressive; but then again, it's an election. We all know who he supports. I can tell you that I never received an email from Mr. Matthews pertaining to a post on this message board prior to this election. I ask that he continue his involvement here, publicly, after the election's over. With that said, I don't doubt that you heard a glossy, flowery speech from Bill expounding the virtues of the new savior of downtown - The Upscale Market with mixed retail/residential spaces (not to be confused with the mixed retail/residential By The Pool on the Beifus lot - savior number 2). But you are absolutely right to worry about parking. More parking rather than less should be mandatory. It's starting to feel overcrowded here already, let's think carefully before adding to the existing chaotic traffic in downtown South Orange. And that begs the question: What are the plans for Vose Avenue/Taylor Place/South Orange Avenue? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 88 Registered: 3-2003 |
Bets: As I said above, if I misunderstood what Bill Calabrese said just prior to the vote, then I apologize. I would hope to hear from someone from LWV in this regard. Actually, this discussion started with a discussion about whether the incumbents would give PILOT status to the New Market development. Mark then responded that he thought since they were allowed to develop residential units, PILOT status should probably not be granted, but he would have to see the final plans. This then led to my question about what could change, since the site plan had been approved, subject to the possible changes which I thought Bill Calabrese explained might take place in the redevelopment agreement. There is no question that even if the Planning Board had to stay until 3:00am, they were going to vote on the project last night. As it was, the vote took place shortly before midnight. I do think that parking is going to be a major problem, and I hope that people do not stop shopping at the new market because they can't find a parking space, resulting from the building on Vose Ave. with 90 units. Even when ShopRite was open, many times it was difficult to find a parking space, and the amount of parking available is going to be severely reduced. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 305 Registered: 6-2001 |
Doublea, If the current slate remains in office, do not be surprised when the PILOT status is granted. The site is contaminated with more than an oil tank. From what I have heard (but admit I cannot substantiate) a former auto repair shop buried batteries in the northwest corner of the site, near the train tracks. Cleanup will be considerable and costly. I've heard this from more than one person of separate acquaintance. The only carrot that will tempt a developer is the promise of PILOT. I hope I'm wrong. It just doesn't make sense that a site that lucrative sat empty for so long. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 89 Registered: 3-2003 |
It is pretty clear that if the incumbents win, PILOT status will be granted. Most likely, because the developer agrees to clean up the environmental problem. Mark Rosner has stated that it's not a "big deal," yet the LWV gave the environmental problem as one of the reasons for the delay. At the Planning Board meeting the developer said it would be responsible for the clean-up when asked by one of the commissioners -his answer was not conditional upon being given PILOT status. All I'm trying to do is get a straight answer and I think we're being played with. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 307 Registered: 6-2001 |
All I'm trying to do is get a straight answer and I think we're being played with. Welcome to South Orange. That's why I'm voting for Brian, Eric and David. http://opensouthorange.com | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1392 Registered: 3-2002 |
My understanding is that the planning board approved a proposal and the variances requested as a part of that proposal for a development that includes: - a five-story front on Vose Avenue - a two-story parking garage for residents and shoppers - 80-plus residential units, currently planned as condominiums - a proposal, which has to be reviewed by the county, to eliminate parking on the South Orange Avenue end of Vose and turn the street into a four-lane road to accommodate traffic - demolition of the historic "flatiron" building that fronts on Vose Avenue It is also my understanding that the market operator has not been named. It's not clear if we get King's, IGA or something in between. At a coffee earlier this week, I heard a great idea for a market concept that would include food-court type concessions - a green grocer, a dairy market, a baker, a fish market, etc. The person who brought up the idea conceded that supermarkets are space-intensive, low-margin businesses, and asked if our commitment to getting a market was blinding us to solutions that would deliver the same service using less space and requiring less dense development. It's an interesting idea, and I think it is the kind of idea that comes up when the process to approve development is open and well understood. Neighbors I've spoken with have said the planning board voted without giving them a reasonable chance to review and comment on the proposal. We've been criticized in this campaign for wanting to speed things up by sidestepping the planning board (this was never the case). I think this is an example of how a rush to make a decision will cost the Village time down the road, as the people who wanted to weigh in feel they were denied this opportunity. That winds up making foes out of friends, when other options may have been available. www.opensouthorange.com Vote Line B on May 13th | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 90 Registered: 3-2003 |
Brian: Thanks for your summary of what was approved. I'm still puzzled by the statement at the planning board meeting that some things could be changed, such as the parking. I had intended to voice my concern at such time as the Planning Board asked for comments from the public, but I did not know that this was the last meeting. As I turned on the hearings about 9:30, it appeared that testimony was going to go on, but I assumed that the meeting would adjourn at 10:00pm as is usually the case. As things went on, it became clear that the matter was going to be concluded that evening. Furthermore, it became apparent that even if there had been more comments from the public, they would have had no weight. With regard to the suggestion made to you regarding the type of market, I have always felt that a place similar to the Amish Market on 9th Ave. in N.Y. would be a perfect fit. . | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 383 Registered: 4-2002 |
I was just too busy all weekend to post but will try to address some of the concerns. First, let me restate some comments about a PILOT. First, I have always said I will not vote to approve a PILOT unless something is on the table that helps the village and is the only way to get a project completed. If I don't like the project, I won't vote in favor of a PILOT. I have not been shown the final plans for the shop-rite site so it would not be fair to comment on it. I will add that the village has only given one PILOT in the four plus years I have been on the board and that was given so we would not have another Biefus situation. The opposition makes it sound like they have been handed out like campaign flyers at election time. None have been promised and they will only be given if it helps the village and the residents. The delay for the site was while trying to determine about exactly what contamination is on the site. The process was not instantaneous and needed to be completed. Also, there are grants that can be acquired to offset some of the costs involved. As for the market that Brian referred to, it is a great idea and the person who came up with it did tell me about it several months ago. First of all the idea was put on the table after the plans from the current developer made his application to the planning board. Second, in order for that idea to become a realitly someone would have to be willing to put up the money to make it work. The same person who had the idea suggested that the village put up the money and then find someone to operate the marketplace. I said I would prefer to use private money although we would gladly assist a developer in getting low-interest loans from the county. The idea is not dead, but the space needs to be renovated first in either case. The current developer is committed to putting in a supremarket and does not want to explore other options at this time. Remember to Vote Line A on May 13th www.leadershipwithvision.org | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 21 Registered: 4-2003 |
Open South Orange has never claimed that the current Board has granted a PILOT to any project other than Gaslight Commons. We do question why one was needed for a residential project within walking distance to the train station. Mark, you say this was to avoid a situation like Biefus. Are you saying that no developer would have been willing to proceed with a similar project in this prime location without this enormous tax incentive? Even if one was needed, we would understand a short term PILOT during the construction phase and perhaps a year or two beyond, to allow time to fill the rental units. But thirty years? That is an absurdly long time. Yes, you have only granted one PILOT, but its size and scope go way beyond what is good for the community. _________________________ Vote Line B on Tuesday Open South Orange | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 73 Registered: 3-2003 |
"With regard to the suggestion made to you regarding the type of market, I have always felt that a place similar to the Amish Market on 9th Ave. in N.Y. would be a perfect fit." Or the Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, or its smaller, neighborhood iterations, the Firehouse Farmer's market in W. Philly and the Chestnut Hill Farmer's Market. The latter two feature booths selling gournet cheeses, bread, produce, meat, and prepared middle eastern food, Mexican food, etc. I volunteered a suggestion about this kind of market to Bill Calabrese a year or two ago, and supplied pictures taken off the internet, which were passed on to John Gross. But by then the current mystery developer had already been chosen. Still, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who believes South Orange, with its natural eclecticism and the market's location next to a NY-bound train line, would be perfect for this kind of thing. I suspected it would be difficult to get a New Jersey developer to think outside the box. I guess we must have a conventional gourmet supermarket because suburban NJ communities tend to have this sort of thing, yes? "The current developer is committed to putting in a supremarket and does not want to explore other options at this time." But you know, Mark, that raises the question, How come we're dealing with this developer and not one who sees South Orange for the attractively unconventional place that it is? I mean, how many nationalities of people live here? Who else in the area has an international farmer's market? We could have people coming here to shop from Chatham and Millburn and Livingston--not the other way round. How are we going to do that if we haven't got something other towns lack? |
