Spot Re-zoning for Atlantic Healthcare Remarkably Now Needs Parking Variance

How can the Village post for second reading and adoption Ordinance 2013-20, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, without providing the public with any related information?

http://47.23.117.154/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=125666&dbid=0

The ordinance states: “The attached amended Central Business District Redevelopment Plan prepared by Heyer Gruel & Associates, dated October 2013, is hereby adopted.” But surprise, surprise, there’s no attachment!

According to the posted ordinance, the 1996 plan was amended in 2002 and 2008. Doesn’t the public have a right to know about contemplated changes before the Board adopts them as law? Isn't that the entire point of holding a public hearing before the Board votes?

Since VP Torpey sets and promulgates the Board of Trustees’ agenda, could Village governance get any less transparent than this?

Also confirmed that the Village didn't bother to advertise Monday's hearing and second reading of this ordinance in the News-Record's 1/16 or 1/23 public notices. Isn't that legally required to proceed?

It is my understanding that this is a resurrection (and expansion) of the "spot-zoning" Ordinance for the retail spaces in The Avenue that was rejected back in 2012.

At that time, the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting reflect that one of the owners, Mr Katz "further commented that his company drafted the proposed ordinance to allow the use of medical offices on the ground floor in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area."

While this was a bad idea because it is counter to the notion of a "walkable downtown", it was stunning that "someone" was pushing for the spot-zoning of a single property and even more stunning in the public admission that the property owner "drafted the proposed ordinance".

Bravo to Sheena Collum who shared her opposition to this on MOL at the time and was the only one to vote against this when it was brought up again on First Reading in December 2013.

We had a plan developed by the Cecil Group. This is an attempt to do spot zoning and go around their recommendations in order to suit a purchaser of The Avenue. Nothing like having professionals do their thing and then decide that you know better (especially when some purchaser pressures you.)

If memory serves me, its really not so different than how the music lesson place was allowed to rent the retail space in the Calabrese building. So much for words about how important our downtown is for retail.

I find the process troubling, and encourage our BOT to vote against spot rezoning to please individual property owners.

But, in the bigger picture, I do wonder if the reality is that the downtown plan was too optimistic about the demand for retail spaces on side streets downtown. May be worth revisiting, but not as a series of exemptions for individuals.

I am curious as to whether any of the local businesses tried to change locations and move into The Avenue storefront, and what they may have been told. Or for that matter, whether any retailer new to town tried to rent there. Does anyone know?

michaelgoldberg said:

It is my understanding that this is a resurrection (and expansion) of the "spot-zoning" Ordinance for the retail spaces in The Avenue that was rejected back in 2012.

At that time, the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting reflect that one of the owners, Mr Katz "further commented that his company drafted the proposed ordinance to allow the use of medical offices on the ground floor in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area."

prompted me to resurrect michaelgoldberg's detailed recap in October 2012:

michaelgoldberg said:

The original Redevelopment Plan, adopted in 1996, prohibited medical offices on the GROUND FLOOR, in order to foster a walkable downtown for retail businesses.

In 1999, the Redevelopment Plan was amended to allow Medical offices on the ground floor on Taylor, Vose and Scotland . (Although, I am sure it was only a complete coincidence that the Village President at the time owned a Pharmacy that was bounded by those same streets.)

In 2008, the BOT (with concurrence by the Planning Board) rescinded that amendment since it was contrary to the notion of walkable streets and a vibrant downtown.

In 2011, the BOT learned that Sterling wanted to rent their ground floor space on Vose Ave to a doctor for a medical office, despite being prohibited by the zoning, and despite their building being approved by the Planning Board for retail use on the ground floor.

At the June 20, 2012 Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, the Committee agreed that medical offices at that location were not appropriate or consistent with the zoning. At that same meeting, a representative from the Avenue shared a 3+ page listing of viable businesses that have expressed interest in renting the space, but were rejected by the landlord.

Last night (October 1, 2012), at the Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, a representative of Overlook Hospital came to sell his proposal for a DOCTOR'S OFFICE at the Avenue. Once again, the Committee agreed that medical offices at that location were not appropriate or consistent with the zoning.

We encouraged Overlook Hospital to work with Main Street/the SID to identify space in the many many locations in town where medical offices are already permitted by the zoning.

If this rezoning ordinance is adopted by the Board, and Overlook Medical Center/Atlantic Health System facilities suddenly take occupancy of the retail storefront in The Avenue on Vose, inquiring minds only can wonder how much time, effort, and who knows what it devoted to its targeted lobbying efforts.

In the mean time, the retail spaces in The Avenue remain vacant. Lots of other retail spaces in town also remain vacant. From a zoning perspective, is a medical office so much different than a nail salon? Both perform personal services, and are not really "retail". Yes we want a "walkable" downtown, but if the options are a medical office or an empty space, I will take the medical office. Maybe you can figure out a way to force the landlord to lower their rent so that a retail establishment could afford to move into the space, which by the way is off the main drag and unlikely to get a ton of foot traffic, but that is doubtful.

Seem to recall that Sterling received a massive tax abatement (i.e. PILOT), which our Board subsequently expanded, and a whopping parking variance in exchange for its commitment to redevelop this location with a retail and residential development. As for this backwater location, did you notice it's next to a supermarket and the post office, and on the street that connects SOA to the second largest shopper parking lot, library, and our major parks and recreation center?

Medical offices, for which there is no shortage on SOA east of Prospect, on Irvington Avenue, on Prospect, on Valley, and on Second Street -- not to mention enough commercial space in 76 SOA to absorb recently all of Village Hall's employees -- are the last thing that the Village needs in its retail storefronts. If you want to see the impact of walk-in medical offices, lawyers' offices, and other non-retail tenants in retail storefronts, along with their covered windows, spend some time in blighted business districts. If our governing body is ready to stick a fork in our business district and declare defeat, rezone away. And, let's not forget to welcome storefront churches.

Rob_Sandow said:

Maybe you can figure out a way to force the landlord to lower their rent so that a retail establishment could afford to move into the space, which by the way is off the main drag and unlikely to get a ton of foot traffic, but that is doubtful.

To state the obvious, this will happen after the Board finally tells this landlord and Atlantic Health that it won't support rezoning this retail space into commercial office space.

Exactly. Call the landlord's bluff already. He can bleed money forever or abide by the agreement.

There are two issues - one procedural, and the other substantive. The OP was discussing the procedure issue, i.e, Ordinance 2013-20 is on the agenda for Second Reading without the attachment, which is the revised Central Business District Redevelopment Plan itself.

I had followed this for several months, since it had been tabled, and there never was the attachment, which is the crucial document. Was there an attachment when the BOT approved the ordinance on First Reading at the Jan. 13 meeting?

cramer said:

There are two issues - one procedural, and the other substantive. The OP was discussing the procedure issue, i.e, Ordinance 2013-20 is on the agenda for Second Reading without the attachment, which is the revised Central Business District Redevelopment Plan itself.

I had followed this for several months, since it had been tabled, and there never was the attachment, which is the crucial document. Was there an attachment when the BOT approved the ordinance on First Reading at the Jan. 13 meeting?

Minor correction - this was approved on First Reading at the December 23, 2013 meeting. However, to answer your question, the attachment was not posted then either. Although, since the Second Reading requires a PUBLIC HEARING, it is far more important to have it posted now. How else can the public provide commentary at the public hearing on Monday?

Cause the public isn't important ing the grand scheme of things in our local government.

Doesn't Public Speaks always come after action items on the SO BOT meetings? If so then actually having the attachment available at 1st reading is essential for public input. Even if attachment were included with the ordinance agenda before second reading then the public would have no opportunity to speak before the vote. Am I correct?

michaelgoldberg said:

cramer said:

There are two issues - one procedural, and the other substantive. The OP was discussing the procedure issue, i.e, Ordinance 2013-20 is on the agenda for Second Reading without the attachment, which is the revised Central Business District Redevelopment Plan itself.

I had followed this for several months, since it had been tabled, and there never was the attachment, which is the crucial document. Was there an attachment when the BOT approved the ordinance on First Reading at the Jan. 13 meeting?

Minor correction - this was approved on First Reading at the December 23, 2013 meeting. However, to answer your question, the attachment was not posted then either. Although, since the Second Reading requires a PUBLIC HEARING, it is far more important to have it posted now. How else can the public provide commentary at the public hearing on Monday?

Michael - I agree that the revised Central Business District Redevlopment Plan should be posted so that the the public can provide comments. What I'm questioning is whether the BOT had the revised CDB Redevolpment Plan for review when they approved it on First Reading Dec. 23, or did they just have the the ordinance without the attachment, and knew what it was supposed to say. Procedurally, things have been sloppy recently, e.g., constant revisions of the agenda, posting the draft agenda online, posting proposed ordinances and resolutions online without the necessary attachments, and so on.

Do I want a medical office? It's not preferable, no. But we have every other type of personal service available downtown from 6 dry cleaners to nail salons, martial arts teachers, day spas, music lessons, etc. all taking up traditional retail spaces. No offense to the owners of those establishments. They are simply following profitable business models. I would love it if our downtown was mostly retail stores that sell actual things, but if the demographics and business conditions (everything from parking availability to rents) aren't there to support it, then no amount of zoning will make it so. I prefer 100% occupancy to papered-over windows. We should probably try to accommodate businesses that want to move here, within reason.

mod said:

Doesn't Public Speaks always come after action items on the SO BOT meetings? If so then actually having the attachment available at 1st reading is essential for public input. Even if attachment were included with the ordinance agenda before second reading then the public would have no opportunity to speak before the vote. Am I correct?

@mod - At the BOT, every Ordinance is heard on First and Second Reading (generally 1-2 meetings apart). At the Second Reading, a Public Hearing is mandatory prior to the vote.

cramer said:

Michael - I agree that the revised Central Business District Redevlopment Plan should be posted so that the the public can provide comments. What I'm questioning is whether the BOT had the revised CDB Redevolpment Plan for review when they approved it on First Reading Dec. 23, or did they just have the wording of the ordinance without the attachment, and knew what it was supposed to say. Procedurally, things have been sloppy recently, e.g., constant revisions of the agenda, posting the draft agenda online, posting proposed ordinances and resolutions online without the necessary attachments, and so on.

@cramer - Fair question. I don't know the answer. I can say that when Robin Kline was the Village Clerk, the BOT received a full packet on Friday preceding the meeting which included the agenda and all supporting materials. Sometimes this included additional information than was posted on the website, such as supporting memos from staff or information about who requested the agenda item.

However, I agree with you that the BOT SHOULD have the Redevelopment Plan for this Ordinance and likewise so should the public.

How is this change impact the SOVCA? I wonder if the new executive director is aware of these changes.

Procedurally, one of the problems is that the VP, in his haste to "get things done", puts items on the agenda without the back-up information or necessary attachments, hoping that the information will be available for that Monday's BOT meeting.

We saw this with the Rescue Squad resolution, where the resolution was placed on the agenda in October, and the necessary back-up information (e.g. the plans and cost for the two alternatives) wasn't even avaiable for the BOT that Monday. As a result, the resolution has been tabled since it was first put on the agenda in Oct.

The ordianance for the revised Central Business District was placed on the agenda in Oct. and there was no proposed draft of the revised plan available. This too was tabled since October.

These items should not have been put on the agenda until there was the actual wording of the revised CDB Redevoplment Plan and there was something firm with regard to the two alternatives for the Rescue Squad Building. Without this, it leaves the public in the dark, not knowing when in fact the resolutions or ordianances will be voted on. This is not the proper way to conduct municipal business.

Somehow Maplewood's clerk manages to publish in our local newspapaer for public review the entirety of its proposed zoning ordinances. Using online media as a supplemental communication channel is great, when it's actually done, but state law requires publication in local newspapers.

Does anyone know if all property owners within 200' of the area being rezoned have been notified, so they can attend tonight's hearing. When neighboring storefronts are shuttered with commercial tenants, like lawyers, accountants, consultants, wholesalers, distributors, and all manner of B2B enterprises, they might be disturbed to learn they never were noticed about the contemplated change by the Village.

Rob_Sandow said:

Do I want a medical office? It's not preferable, no. But we have every other type of personal service available downtown from 6 dry cleaners to nail salons, martial arts teachers, day spas, music lessons, etc. all taking up traditional retail spaces. No offense to the owners of those establishments. They are simply following profitable business models. I would love it if our downtown was mostly retail stores that sell actual things, but if the demographics and business conditions (everything from parking availability to rents) aren't there to support it, then no amount of zoning will make it so. I prefer 100% occupancy to papered-over windows. We should probably try to accommodate businesses that want to move here, within reason.

Sorry, but your comments reflect a fundammental lack of understanding of good, thoughtful urban planning. First, other than the music school, which is a product of Calabrese rezoning his own building to accommodate a doctor's office, all of the examples that you cited are retail, consumer businesses that contribute to vital downtowns.

Second, smart land owners always will pursue the most profitable business model, but thoughtful public policy supports community-based zoning that logically may require them to adjust their quest for profit. If the most profitable use of land in Tuxedo Park is offices and dorms for SHU, would you favor this?

Third, there's frankly little difference between papered and shuttered windows, which is what every commercial tenant does when it occupies a retail storefront. For example, take a look at the commercial tenant across from the Exxon station on West SOA or commercial tenants on Valley St.

If the Board truly wants to help retail landlords, it should invest in hiring a business recruiter or demand this support from the SOVCA -- gut the Village's business district zoning.

Goods retailing from a physical location is dying. Nothing and no one is going to change that trend. Yes, it will not disappear but it becomes ever less important. Services, be it nail salons, or health care, is where the demand and growth is.

What's wrong with having a doctor's office downtown? Sounds good to me.

At last night's BOT meeting, Village Counsel Rother explained the ordinance was posted in the Star Ledger, which may not satisfy the OPRA. With respect to the missing, undisclosed substance of the ordinance, Rother, VP Torpey, and the Clerk all acted clueless -- like "do we really need to share that with the public"? I think at one point Torpey may have opined that maybe the addendum was too large to upload to the website. Was this really uttered by a self-proclaimed website development professional?

The pinnacle of the discussion was when Torpey asked Rother to explain the substance of the proposed zoning changes, and Rother evidentally didn't have them. So, from memory, Rosner rattled off some of the changes, after which Collum pointed out there were at least a dozen more.

But, the absence of specific information for the public didn't stop the BOT from ignoring Collum's request to table the ordinance until the public received the referenced, undisclosed info. Looks like last night added another notch to VP Torpey's transparency belt.

I posted this is another thread, but its worth repeating:

Well, with the exception of Ms.Collum, everyone else voted to approve the zoning change. So much for having Vision Plans, which were constructed a mere three years ago. Davis-Ford actually said we needed this medical office because of the new health care law because more people would be going to doctors. What?

A major justification for granting a PILOT to this property was the creation of retail space. This continues the tradition started with Sloan Street where the town gave a loan to a developer upon the understanding, never put in writing, that only retail stores would be put in at the Train Station. Retail is probably doomed so lets stop giving tax breaks for it.

I still would love to know if any retail operation made a serious attempt to rent the space that has now been turned over to office space, going against the effort and plan to create a viable downtown business district. If the village was serious about a retail district, it would have hired a business recruiter. If memory serves me, they could have shared that cost with Maplewood who once did hire someone.

As I had posted in another thread (in 2012): At the June 20, 2012 Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, the Committee agreed that medical offices at that location were not appropriate or consistent with the zoning. At that same meeting, a representative from the Avenue shared a 3+ page listing of viable businesses that have expressed interest in renting the space, but were rejected by the landlord.

What difference does all this make if the end result works? I like it. What kind of doctor is going there?

The difference is that spot zoning is not a good idea and opens the village to lawsuits. Now when an undesirable business requests a zoning modification, what grounds does the village have to prevent them from moving in?