Planners were taken aback Thursday on hearing new plans for Elmwood Gardens, but Executive Director Randall Wood said there had always been a "Plan A and Plan B."
For more than two years, the Planning Board had expected low-income family townhouse development to replace the outmoded public housing complex, but Wood said a "huge need for senior housing" had prompted a shift to a three-story building for residents 55 and older.
He said the change was based on input from "focal groups" and on Union County waiting lists for housing.
"I have a real problem with this type of change," board Chairman Ron Scott-Bey said. "This is completely worthless," he said of a draft townhouse plan submitted in January.
Scott-Bey said the new concept would affect the city's COAH affordable housing obligation and it should have been discussed.
"It's a totally different design," he said.
"So we all recognize that this plan has to be amended," Planning Director Bill Nierstedt said.
One of the benefits of the townhouse plan was to have been a new layout with individual front doors instead of the hallways that were believed to foster loitering, trespassing and crime in the public housing. The proposed senior housing building will have just one entry with a security guard. Architect Brian M. Slaugh said the new plan calls for 0.7 parking spaces per unit, because seniors tend not to own cars. The board wanted 1.1 spaces per unit for the townhouses.
"This is a shock," Scott-Bey said.
Citing different needs of a senior population, such as security staff and transportation to medical offices, Scott-Bey said, "We need a new plan now."
Nierstedt told Wood that if the Housing Authority wanted approvals before the year ends, the revised plan would have to be ready in time for the board's Oct. 2 meeting.
Wood again said there had always been alternate plans, but Scott-Bey said, "Plan A and Plan B has no meaning to me."
The new plan must be in the Planning Office by Sept. 26 for review at the Oct. 2 meeting, Nierstedt said.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stop playing stupid Scott bey everybody who have been paying attention knows that the plan changed months ago.but it's a bad idea to put seniors in that area.
ReplyDeleteWell if it "changed months ago" why didn't they have a new presentation for the board? Maybe the HAP isn't capable of managing a project like this.
Delete"Maybe"??
DeleteThree story SENIOR housing? Seniors need single level dwellings or if in a multi-story building, with elevators.
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense. It makes no sense not to have 2 parking spaces per unit. Why does this city allow developers to put in housing without parking?
This is a bail and switch and should be denied. The housing authority has been proven incompetent property managers -- why should they be trusted with a big product like this?
It's not the city it is Jerry Green. The council is owned by him, so even though he is not directly voting, his fab four are.
DeleteWhat's fab about those four?
DeleteAnother item discussed was plan for redevelopment of South Ave. Only one property owner was in attendance when asked by planning staff. Quite curious - no others were there. Research of Union County Land Records shows at least 6 owners have entered into Notice of Settlements. The real question is can the sewers handle all this development. The City needs to hire a hydrologist
ReplyDeleteto determine the impact as it relates to flooding. If anyone remembers the 1973 flood, the east end was devastated.
This is a great example of how a city doesn't progress. Lets create conspiracy out of nothing and also make assumptions about issues that haven't been identified yet. As far as I can tell there isn't an active development in place for South Avenue.
DeleteThen why was a plan discussed last night and why was there a legal notice published in the newspaper?
DeleteI've go a conspiracy theory for you. The C-Town property is part of the South Avenue Development plan. There's more, but if you don't want to accept what is part of public record, there;s no need to add more.
DeleteActually C-Town property was not part of the conversation last night nor was a development. What was discussed, was designated an area on South Avenue as an Area In Need of Development. There is no formal application with the city for a development that I have heard anyone mention.
DeleteA solicitation of design proposals for senior housing was published months ago. I was struck that the submisions had to be made within 2 weeks. Who can properly design something in that short a period of time? Hence a 3 story cookie-cutter project. I think PHA- and all developers- are making a mistake by not building high-rises. There are million dollar views above the treetops. On a positive note, security for a single entrance senior complex means more patronage jobs for PHA to hand out!
ReplyDeleteThis is more proof that the Plainfield Housing Authority is inept. It makes you wonder why Rivers, Taylor, and others want to give property on West Second to them. Someone's palm is getting greased in that situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of senior housing. The population of seniors in the next 10 years is going to be the largest in history. Many seniors will not be able to afford live in their own home with the taxes and other expenses related to maintaining a home going up faster than their social security checks can handle. Seniors today do still drive and have family members visit them. We need to make sure each unit in this city has a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit. Plainfield City planners need to think of our residents needs and not the wants of greedy developers. A 3 to 5 story senior building with elevators, laundry a community room would be a good thing for the future of Plainfield.
ReplyDeleteGreedy developers leave Plainfield with their pockets full and our city a mess. Just look at the many empty units around the city and everyone having to park on the city streets making it dangerous to drive down many of our city streets. We need to keep Plainfield the Queen City and not let it turn into overcrowded Jersey City.
ReplyDeleteSenior housing on this site is not a good idea. Build the townhouses as planned. Increase parking to a minimum of 1.5 per unit. People drive cars. Even old people. You can add a nice senior building next to the townhouses on the lots across the street. That building should be at least 6 stories high. We have many seniors now and in the coming years in need of safe, affordable and secure housing. They should have balconies and community rooms with laundry and trash chutes on each floor. Parking, especially "H" parking should be at least 1 per unit at a minimum. Seniors still drive. Many of mine had multiple cars. I should know. I've built, designed and managed many over the years.
ReplyDelete