Spot Re-zoning for Atlantic Healthcare Remarkably Now Needs Parking Variance
scottgreenstone said:
Einj, strip joint, gun store, head shop,. To name a few
Really, I don't think we can compare those things to a doctor's office. Some "undesirable businesses" are already excluded by ordinance. I don't actually think the ones you mention would want to move here.
I just think that strict adherence to political dogma in general is a bad thing. Yes you can develop the best plan you can think of at the time, and everyone can approve it and think it is great. But then a perfectly viable exception can come along and some will reject it simply because it does not conform to "the plan". If all politicians could be pragmatic instead of dogmatic, much more progress would be made.
Not comparing. But the village now had no legal grounds to not grant then spot zoning since the set a precedence that spot zoning is ok. If they deny another business because of zoning, that business had every right to fight the denial due tothe changes made this week.
I'm okay with changing the plan, but not for one or two blocks. I'm also not for a landlord designing an ordinance benefit them. I'm sure there have been businesses that wanted to move in to that building but the landlord wanted something different. We also have this landlord a pilot based on retail business being put in. Now that retail is not going in, are we going to revoke the pilot.
These things need to be done properly to avoid potential issues in the future. I also don't think those types of business would want to come here either, but they are examples what could happen.
I'm okay with changing the plan, but not for one or two blocks. I'm also not for a landlord designing an ordinance benefit them. I'm sure there have been businesses that wanted to move in to that building but the landlord wanted something different. We also have this landlord a pilot based on retail business being put in. Now that retail is not going in, are we going to revoke the pilot.
These things need to be done properly to avoid potential issues in the future. I also don't think those types of business would want to come here either, but they are examples what could happen.
In addition to Scott's points above, a few other points worth noting:
- the zoning was changed on the side streets, where presumably rents were a little cheaper and more attainable for small "mom & pop" businesses (or businesses that wanted to relocate from Irvington Ave) that could not afford being on SO Ave or Sloan St. Now those spaces will be taken by hospitals and professional offices with greater financial means, sharply reducing opportunities for small businesses. Ironically, Torpey didn't raise "classism" on THIS issue.
- Professional offices were already allowed (and on the first floor) on portions of Irvington Ave, Valley St, East SO Ave, outside the prime retail corridor. All this zoning change did is SHRINK the core retail corridor (and potentially raise rents for the remaining retail spaces). Perhaps that is why the property owners on the SID supported this change, but the retailers did not?
- the Ordinance was passed, despite the details not being posted to the Village website, not being sent to the Planning Board, not being sent to the County Planning Board, not being sent to adjacent municipalities, not being published in the News Record or not being sent to the neighbors within 200' of the impacted properties, as is required for all zoning ordinances. So much for transparency and "open government", eh?
- the zoning was changed on the side streets, where presumably rents were a little cheaper and more attainable for small "mom & pop" businesses (or businesses that wanted to relocate from Irvington Ave) that could not afford being on SO Ave or Sloan St. Now those spaces will be taken by hospitals and professional offices with greater financial means, sharply reducing opportunities for small businesses. Ironically, Torpey didn't raise "classism" on THIS issue.
- Professional offices were already allowed (and on the first floor) on portions of Irvington Ave, Valley St, East SO Ave, outside the prime retail corridor. All this zoning change did is SHRINK the core retail corridor (and potentially raise rents for the remaining retail spaces). Perhaps that is why the property owners on the SID supported this change, but the retailers did not?
- the Ordinance was passed, despite the details not being posted to the Village website, not being sent to the Planning Board, not being sent to the County Planning Board, not being sent to adjacent municipalities, not being published in the News Record or not being sent to the neighbors within 200' of the impacted properties, as is required for all zoning ordinances. So much for transparency and "open government", eh?
michaelgoldberg said:
- the Ordinance was passed, despite the details not being posted to the Village website, not being sent to the Planning Board, not being sent to the County Planning Board, not being sent to adjacent municipalities, not being published in the News Record or not being sent to the neighbors within 200' of the impacted properties, as is required for all zoning ordinances. So much for transparency and "open government", eh?
Who would typically ensure this gets done? The Village Clerk?
mbaldwin said:
michaelgoldberg said:
- the Ordinance was passed, despite the details not being posted to the Village website, not being sent to the Planning Board, not being sent to the County Planning Board, not being sent to adjacent municipalities, not being published in the News Record or not being sent to the neighbors within 200' of the impacted properties, as is required for all zoning ordinances. So much for transparency and "open government", eh?
Who would typically ensure this gets done? The Village Clerk?
This is what was said Monday evening: Doug Newman asked whether the ordinance was properly advertised and that the actual revised redevelopment plan was not posted online. Torpey asked Rother to comment.
Rother said that the ordinance had been advertised in the Star-Ledger. The revised redevelopment plan was not advertised nor was it posted online since he was following what had been done in the past.
I feel bad for the doctor that worked so hard on getting this done only for it to possibly get overturned due to lack of proper process by rush it through Torpey.
That is if someone pursues it aginst the village.
That is if someone pursues it aginst the village.
IF it was advertised in the SL, it would be interesting to learn why not in our local paper. Take a look at Maplewood's 3-page zoning public notice, including maps, in yesterday's News Record.
As for business-as-usual, that sounds like unadulterated b.s. But, maybe some can check on what was discussed by the BOT and Planning Board, and shared with the public, the last time the Redevelopment Zone was changed to preclude commercial offices in retail spaces -- after Calabrese orchestrated permitting them so MD's could occupy his retail space on Scotland Rd.
As for business-as-usual, that sounds like unadulterated b.s. But, maybe some can check on what was discussed by the BOT and Planning Board, and shared with the public, the last time the Redevelopment Zone was changed to preclude commercial offices in retail spaces -- after Calabrese orchestrated permitting them so MD's could occupy his retail space on Scotland Rd.
Trans_Parent said:
But, maybe some can check on what was discussed by the BOT and Planning Board, and shared with the public, the last time the Redevelopment Zone was changed to preclude commercial offices in retail spaces -- after Calabrese orchestrated permitting them so MD's could occupy his retail space on Scotland Rd.
You mean Ordinance 08-20, that was adopted unanimously on first reading and then again on second reading (on October 15, 2008?
Sterling Properties, the developer of The Avenue and Eden Gourmet, did extremely well.
1) It received a PILOT for both Eden Gourmet (which originally wasn't called Eden Gourmet) and The Avenue.
2) It sold the building housing the market to Eden Gourmet for $1 or 2 million, recovering its cost of acquiring the entire property of both the market and The Avenue.
3) In 2012, as I recall, it was able to get the PILOT of $500,000 reduced to $350,000. Presumably, this was because the $500,000 was based on ownership units and The Avenue had been converted to rentals.
It is my understanding that Sterling threatened to terminate the PILOT agreement (which it had the right to do) and pay normal taxes. The Village did not want The Avenue to pay normal taxes because the Village would have received less that it would receive with a reduced PILOT, causing an increase in municipal taxes.
4) Sterling had received several inquires from retail businesses but did not pursue these because at the same time it was being pursued by a medical office.
5) Having been granted the reduced PILOT and with the possibility of a medical office renting the retail space, it sold The Avenue to the present owner, at a substantial profit.
1) It received a PILOT for both Eden Gourmet (which originally wasn't called Eden Gourmet) and The Avenue.
2) It sold the building housing the market to Eden Gourmet for $1 or 2 million, recovering its cost of acquiring the entire property of both the market and The Avenue.
3) In 2012, as I recall, it was able to get the PILOT of $500,000 reduced to $350,000. Presumably, this was because the $500,000 was based on ownership units and The Avenue had been converted to rentals.
It is my understanding that Sterling threatened to terminate the PILOT agreement (which it had the right to do) and pay normal taxes. The Village did not want The Avenue to pay normal taxes because the Village would have received less that it would receive with a reduced PILOT, causing an increase in municipal taxes.
4) Sterling had received several inquires from retail businesses but did not pursue these because at the same time it was being pursued by a medical office.
5) Having been granted the reduced PILOT and with the possibility of a medical office renting the retail space, it sold The Avenue to the present owner, at a substantial profit.
Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32am Edited
dave said:
In other words, PILOTs are bad.
Based on the case of The Avenue, it seems that the Village, or rather the individuals making the decision, has no incentive not to grant a PILOT. It would be interesting to calculate how much higher municipal taxes would be if there were no PILOTs.
The PILOT granted The Gateway is particualrly egregious. The Gateway is paying a PILOT of $200,000/yr. It's prime property. There had been several bidders for the property when it was auctioned off by the bank.
PILOTs aren't inherently bad, but granting them for apartments doesn't make a lot of sense.
Gutting The Avenue's PILOT so Sterling could flip its project for a huge profit, converting its retail space to shuttered commercial space, giving the Gateway (f/k/a Beifus) development a rock-bottom tax abatement, far better than what Beifus received, and practically giving away the Village's largest parking lot and rescue squad HQ for a net loss of parking spaces and apparently too little money to replace the demolished building, reminds me of that old adage:
"It's easy to be flexible, when you're spineless."
VP Torpey and the BOT were so attracted to these "shiny metal object" projects, impulsively subscribing to a just-do-it mentality, that they became possessed with meeting these tax-abating, zoning-trashing developers' demands.
Can't wait until the Gateway's developer lobbies our governing body for permission to fill his first floor on SOA with commercial offices, because he alleges he can't find any bona fide retailers.
"It's easy to be flexible, when you're spineless."
VP Torpey and the BOT were so attracted to these "shiny metal object" projects, impulsively subscribing to a just-do-it mentality, that they became possessed with meeting these tax-abating, zoning-trashing developers' demands.
Can't wait until the Gateway's developer lobbies our governing body for permission to fill his first floor on SOA with commercial offices, because he alleges he can't find any bona fide retailers.
RobB said:
PILOTs aren't inherently bad, but granting them for apartments doesn't make a lot of sense.
RobB - At the time that the PILOT was granted for what is now Ashely Market and The Avenue, one trustee did make this arguement. He said that he could understand why the PILOT was being given for the market but saw no need for one to be given for the residential building on Vose Ave.
dave said:
I have no idea how PILOTs aren't illegal.
I completely agree with this. In a town with a shared school system pilots should either be illegal or have a predetermined percentage for schools built in.
Trans_Parent said:
Can't wait until the Gateway's developer lobbies our governing body for permission to fill his first floor on SOA with commercial offices, because he alleges he can't find any bona fide retailers.
I'd bet this request is a virtual certainly after he watches some members of the Board trip over themselves Monday night saying how much foot traffic medical/professional offices will bring (and even more so with Obamacare(!?!)) If that is really the case, why restrict the location of these offices at all?
It's one thing to want the retail space filled up, and another to understand the story behind what is happening. This tenant apparently presented a significant list of potential users to the village many months ago. The owner clearly favors the medical office user for reasons and must not be desperate to fill the space. The medical office user is credit worthy, does not produce noxious fumes, and likely comes with a long term lease. The issue most have here with this process is the bait and switch by the owners AND the lack of procedure and transparency by the village. It's as simple as that.
At least we all finally agree - Pilots are stupid.. hence, the Redevelopment Act pursuant to the interest of resident taxpayers in South Orange as well.
Everyone (well almost everyone) on the Board was persuaded to change the zoning because it was a medical office. The rationale presented by the doctor that people need a first floor doctor's office was ridiculous. There are such things as elevators. What does need a first floor is retail. They depend on foot traffic. No one goes to a doctor based on impulse shopping.
I don't know what to make of this Board that they can change zoning based on a single perspective tenant, and fly in the face of all the effort made by the community in crafting a logical plan for the downtown. What they should have done is hired a business recruiter and then see if there were no potential retail tenants. But I guess Obamacare changed the game. How absurd.
Wait til future boards have to confront a zoning issue for other locations and the check cashing guys and the fortune tellers etc. want retail space. Then what?
When changes like this are so cavalierly made, it is bad policy. Pure and simple.
I don't know what to make of this Board that they can change zoning based on a single perspective tenant, and fly in the face of all the effort made by the community in crafting a logical plan for the downtown. What they should have done is hired a business recruiter and then see if there were no potential retail tenants. But I guess Obamacare changed the game. How absurd.
Wait til future boards have to confront a zoning issue for other locations and the check cashing guys and the fortune tellers etc. want retail space. Then what?
When changes like this are so cavalierly made, it is bad policy. Pure and simple.
According to a 2008 Tax Foundation report there are at least 16 states where residents pay in property taxes 1.2% or greater of their home’s value. Those include Texas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa, and Rhode Island.
I'd review that the average Resident in town pays about 4%. I would argue to say that it continues to get more difficult to tolerate stupidity in governance.
I'd review that the average Resident in town pays about 4%. I would argue to say that it continues to get more difficult to tolerate stupidity in governance.
btw - The Gateway used exactly the same plans that had been approved for Beifus. Beifus had received a Pilot of $450,000. The Avenue got the VP and BOT to agree to a PILOT of $200,000. This was granted shortly after the PILOT for The Avenue was reduced from $500,000 to $350,000.
The Avenue had threatened to terminate the PILOT agreement with the Village and pay normal taxes. The people involved in making the decision on the part of the Village were concerned that the tax rate for the municiapl portion of the tax bill would go up, since it receives 95% of the PILOT.
I've been of the opinion for many years now that while PILOTs do have their place, the effect of PILOTs has been to mask the true cost of the municapl portion of the total tax bill.
The developer of The Gateway knew that he had a VP who was anxious to make a name for himself and was desperate to get something going. As a result, the taxpayers are paying a lot more in taxes than they would have otherwise. My understanding is that Torpey was ready to accept the developer's offer of $175,000. At least a couple of trustees persuaded him to make it $200,000, which is still on the very low range that is provided for under the NJ statutory law governing PILOTs.
The Avenue had threatened to terminate the PILOT agreement with the Village and pay normal taxes. The people involved in making the decision on the part of the Village were concerned that the tax rate for the municiapl portion of the tax bill would go up, since it receives 95% of the PILOT.
I've been of the opinion for many years now that while PILOTs do have their place, the effect of PILOTs has been to mask the true cost of the municapl portion of the total tax bill.
The developer of The Gateway knew that he had a VP who was anxious to make a name for himself and was desperate to get something going. As a result, the taxpayers are paying a lot more in taxes than they would have otherwise. My understanding is that Torpey was ready to accept the developer's offer of $175,000. At least a couple of trustees persuaded him to make it $200,000, which is still on the very low range that is provided for under the NJ statutory law governing PILOTs.
Is this post in preparation for allowing tatoo parlors in town?
https://southorangenj.my.gov-i.com/content/notice/371619d1/show
https://southorangenj.my.gov-i.com/content/notice/371619d1/show
What about a Medical Marijuana shop? And what is wrong with a tattoo parlor?
Nothin'. It really classes up a town, especially if flanked by the check cashing and palm reader establishments. Throw in a gold buyer and you got a critical mass of schlock.
@transparent - At Monday's BOT Meeting, they are repealing the "spot-zoning" Ordinance that was just adopted at the last meeting:
http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=126620&dbid=0
Fascinating.
(and once again the attachment is not included)
http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=126620&dbid=0
Fascinating.
(and once again the attachment is not included)
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Pizzaz