Sleepy Hollow Developers won Planning Board approval Thursday for a 212-unit amenity-loaded apartment complex on South Avenue.
A redevelopment agreement with the city is still being worked out and the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority is requiring a sewer capacity study, but the board gave the developer preliminary and final site plan approval. The developer is also seeking City Council approval of a 30-year "payment in lieu of taxes" plan.
Comments from the public Thursday included Tom Kaercher's concern about parking. The developer is proposing 302 garage and surface parking spaces. Kaercher said the anticipated tenants, described in earlier testimony as "walking wallets," would have "plenty of money for cars" and would want to shop in upscale malls that are not accessible by public transportation.
"My concern is where do those cars go" Kaercher said.
Planning Board Chairman Ron Scott Bey said testimony indicated that each resident will contract for parking.
"If you have three cars, your contract may only give you two spaces," he said.
The tenant would then have to find a place other than at the complex or on the street, such as a garage, as car owners in New York do, Scott Bey said.
Dr. Harold Yood remarked on an "epidemic" of apartment complex fires and asked for evidence of fire-proofing at the proposed structure.
Scott Bey said the Fire Division report showed "all necessary fire suppression" was planned. Yood asked whether exceptions were allowed and board attorney Michele Donato said, " I know of no exceptions to the code."
Nancy Piwowar asked how many handicapped-accessible units were planned. Told there were two, she said the number might not meet federal requirements, but Planning Director Bill Nierstedt said all the apartments could be made handicapped accessible.
Regarding the sewer capacity study, Nierstedt said the developer was negotiating the cost for the PMUA to conduct the study. Piwowar asked what happens if the capacity is not there and Nierstedt said the applicant will not get a building permit without the sewer capacity.
Bo Vastine spoke in favor of the project, saying it will bring "fresh residents to town that perhaps will lead to the 'walking wallet' syndrome." While there was no guarantee, he said, the fact that the developer was willing to invest $50 million boded well..
After the meeting, developer Joseph Forgione declined comment.
The PILOT issue generated much comment Monday from council members, with Council President Bridget Rivers calling for renegotiation of the plan. The PILOT ordinance must pass on two readings, and since it did not pass this week, City Administrator Rick Smiley offered to arrange a special meeting for first reading so the ordinance could still be on track for final passage next month. At issue are financing and also contracts on the 11 properties that will be cleared to create the development site. No update has yet been announced.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greedy developers. Why do they want to cheat the tenants out of parking space? You need at least 2 parking spots per unit ,Handi Cap,and guest parking.Why should they have to park on the street? What are they going to do in the winter when they have to plow? South Ave is a County Rd I d
ReplyDeleteSo many questions. People shop on the internet, they don't go to malls (ask the brick and mortar stores). 212 Units and "only" 302 spaces. All the residents will have a car (or two, or three?) Really? Overflow parking on the street? Where do those who have that concern park when they go visiting? Egad!
ReplyDeleteI park in the driveway or parking space in the apartment complex . Not on the street where my car will get plowed in during winter snow season
Delete"The tenant would then have to find a place other than at the complex or on the street, such as a garage, as car owners in New York do, Scott Bey said."
ReplyDeleteThat's ridiculous.
Mr. Bey, that's poor planning and a poor answer. Plainfield is not NYC or even JC.
The parking issues needs to be addressed. We don't want cars lining up the streets or unnecessarily creating visual eyesores as local garages or business start offering up their available lots as overnight parking.
Come on, we've come this far, let's get this right.
Mr. Bey's answer begs the question, "Where are the parking garages?" But perhaps he is being disingenuous. Whoever owns the supermarket building across the street has plenty of unused parking spaces. Will approval or a variance be readily granted to them to use it for a car park if they step in to meet the need?
DeleteIf I wanted to park on the street I would have stayed in Elizabeth . I came to Plainfield so could park my car in my driveway and have green space.
DeleteWas the planning board "spoon fed" or were they able to figure things out and ask questions before they met?
ReplyDeleteThats one way to put the empty lots on South Ave to good use. Paid parking for the residents. The parking ratio is a little low for the site. If it were closer to the station then yes.
ReplyDeleteWho is going to pay high rent and walk 2 blocks in the rain or snow to get to their car? Who is going to pay extra for a parking spot on top of high rent? This is not Jersey City or Hoboken! We have beautiful housing here with driveways for a place to park our cars. If I wanted to live in an overcrowded town with no place to park I would go to Hoboken or Jersey City
DeleteAnon 1:06 - who is going to walk two blocks? Are you just coming up with these scenarios off the top of your head? Tell me something. How many parking spots are required per unit on average for this development and was was allowed on average for this development? Then tell me how that delta creates this mass chaos of people walking blocks and blocks in a blizzard. I assume they have two children with them and have 19 bags of groceries from the store that they have to carry up hill both ways. Oh the drama.
DeleteI live in a 2 bedroom and have 2 cars. It takes two incomes to be able to pay rent,daycare,groceries,etc. I would not want to walk even 1 block to park my car,it is just not safe!
DeleteAs the communities around this city continue to build and progress Plainfield is the worst city for redevelopment contractors and developers. They are absolutely pathetic.
ReplyDeleteCity ask Plainfielders to drive around town on any night to see all the cars parked on the streets especially around apartment buildings. You can hardly drive down Randolph Rd,west 7th or Front St. The overflow of car is getting to be dangerous. The developers want you to think that people will walk and not drive,we'll just look around folks people are not giving up their wheels. What are all the tenants going to do when winter comes and South Ave which is a county road needs to be plowed and they issue no parking orders on the street? Just how much money did this developers donate to the Democrats to get this project passed? Look at the mess of the Monarch building with the parking. The developer left us with a mess.
ReplyDeleteThe cars you are referring to are on the streets because the landlords are allowed to charge for on site parking. The City allows it. Those properties were built with parking and the cars should be parking in the lots, not on the streets. Lets see if the council will take on this problem.
DeleteThe city does not allow it actually. However, the council doesn't want to support the necessary resources to enforce those violations. The process is slow because of the staffing.
DeleteIf the City does not allow on street parking,then why would the south ave developer not want to put enough parking on site for the tenants . My friend in Rahway could not ever find a parking space to visit her boyfriend so he moved from the new apartments in downtown Rahway.When I drove down south ave last night I counted 10 cars parked on the street at 1:30 AM by the apartments next to Lagrens
DeleteMaybe the first thing that the City should do is get inspections to make sure that he number of people in living the apartments and homes are to code? Maybe we have too many cars because we have 3 families living in a 1 bedroom apartment.
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is look at the amount of trash in the PMUA carts in front of the alleged one and two family homes.
DeleteOf all the comments in pro of the PILOT everyone keeps stressing that the developer will walk away without the PILOT. Can we ask, how much profit does the developer expect to make on his fifty million dollar investment? Would that profit be worth him building even without a PILOT? I can’t imagine that there paying that much for the land. How much are they paying for the land?
ReplyDeleteThey are paying market rates for the land. It is a few million dollars. They are not getting it for free. The PILOTS provide revenue for the builder and the City.
DeleteJeff - well said. For some reason Anon 3:06 as well as others forget that we live in a free market economy (in general). They also hate anyone to make a profit and feel everything should be done at cost. That is not how the world works, nor should it be. This PILOT is an incentive to attract development - it in no way shorts the city treasury - to the contrary it almost triples the amounts that the city would get if the properties stayed as they are. It is a constant struggle to get people to understand the concept of win-win incentives. Every city in the state (and country) is doing it yet we are supposed to sit here and not compete.
DeleteA PILOT is nothing more than a subsidy to the developer, and subsidies distort the free market. Assuming it is at half the tax rate, it means JMF is being given a subsidy of more than $10 million over 30 years. If the project is not economically viable without the subsidy, it should not be built. Another project will come along that is and Plainfield will get something new without giving up tax revenue to itself or the school system. Already two smaller apartment projects have been built on South Avenue without a PILOT. That's how the free-market world works.
DeleteAnon 9:31PM - you would be correct that that is how the free market works. However, the US is not a free market economy. You would be hard pressed to find one actually. We are a mixed economy that utilizes government stimulation of the economy - as do most governments by the way.
DeleteI think that your thinking is closed minded and dangerous for Plainfield. Developers, of a certain size, go to cities and states and pitch ideas - they then look for incentives to continue with those ideas. It is standard practice and if done properly is quite beneficial. If Plainfield switches to a free market approach we will sit here without much activity while all other cities in the state get the new developments, jobs and taxes for upgrading their infrastructure and relieving the tax burden (or at least holding it steady).
By the way - I think you should be a champion of free market and set the course that we can all follow. Please do not use coupons at the store as that is a form of a subsidy/enticement. Please don't allow anyone you know to utilize an FHA loan option to create home ownership and please make sure that you pay taxes on any property you sell instead of reinvesting the profits and taking advantage of the tax laws. There are many more examples - and when you realize that you aren't going to be the one person that doesn't take advantage of those available opportunities you will hopefully realize that Plainfield shouldn't be an experiment for free market economy at the expense of the citizens - who will be holding the bag when nothing progresses in the city.
9:34am- you ignored the fact that "... two smaller apartment projects have been built on South Avenue without a PILOT." Activity and progress will occur without having to give out multi-million dollar tax breaks. I would be interested to know what projects on the South Avenue corridor from Plainfield to Cranford have or have not been built with PILOTS.
DeleteThat is an awesome idea! North Plainfield has this process in place, at least for large apartment complexes who require proof of city inspection before new tenant can move in.
ReplyDeletePrior to allowing tenants to move in, landlord is required to register with city to have inspection that ensures illegal alterations have not been made to the unit that would accommodate more than legal maximum number of persons allowed.
They also make surprise visits!
This process could potentially reduce Plainfield's population anywhere from 5 to 25% OR it would create a demand for more rental units. There's a potential to generate violation revenue and creation of one new job.
How about that as a win-win!
Plainfield has a program requiring inspections before a tenant moves in. Unfortunately to do the same for future tenants, it is the landlord who must seek a Certificate of Compliance. Not sure this always happens. At one time, Plainfield coordinated Inspections with public safety entries to houses or apartments and uncovered violations such as locks on bedroom doors and refrigerators, indicating illegal boarding houses. The city has tried many things to address over-occupancy but landlords do not always cooperate.
DeleteBernice, I had 3000 apartments at one time. You have no choice but to register with the city and in most cases, the state. The CO is the best thing the City could do. It ensures the renters are getting a real rental that has been inspected by the city for maintenance, cleanliness, vermin and fire safety, not just some flophouse with rooms. No inspection, no rental.
DeleteJeff, I so wish that were true. I agree that they will inspect your two or three family homes and ticket you without mercy, but when it comes to an apartment complex, they don't bother. In my building (located on Park Ave) as we speak, there are five people living in one bedroom, it was rented without an inspection as was my apartment. It's not kept up (loose rail on stairs; front steps pulling away from bldg. front door lock often broken, laundry room being used to store bikes etc. as the washer and dryer do not work etc. etc.) I have sent all kinds of emails, pictures to owners , they could care less and I have been to City hall to complain about various things with no results. I finally just gave up and finally will be moving on shortly out of the bldg. and Plainfield.
DeleteIf landlords don't cooperate, then it's long overdue that these landlords get dragged to court and/or liens are placed on their properties. As soon as it hits their wallet they will start paying attention and playing by the rules or selling to someone who will.
ReplyDeleteOne of the huge issues Plainfield has is enforcement of its own codes. Lack of enforcement = increased chaos.
Lalo - I wouldn't say it is a lack of enforcement. I would say it is a lack of resources to enforce to the extent that we should be. Sadly, the council has not agreed with the need for further resources.
DeleteMy question about fire safety is based on the number of multi-unit buildings that have burnt in the past few years displacing large numbers of residents. All have complied with a permissive code! That does not make it right. The Monarch must comply with the code as does the one going up over the stores across from the RR station, or the ones in Fanwood. This quote describes my cause for concern
ReplyDelete"Modern construction techniques and lightweight wood construction are not new. Wood roof trusses have been around since the 1960s. Modern construction refers to a newly built structure or a structure that has undergone significant renovations. Lightweight wood construction refers to engineered wood products used in modern wood-frame structures; they have less area mass and are lighter than components used to build older houses. Firefighters have been faced with additional challenges in modern wood-frame structure fires as the buildings have become more and more lightweight"
Much of the woods used include laminated panels.
Many of you have such good comments. Too bad only a few people showed up at the Planning Board meeting.
ReplyDelete