The following editorial was submitted by Marc Ackerson, a resident of W. Fairview Avenue in South Orange.
The many concerns being raised about the recent adopted Resolution which established the entire Township as an “area in need of rehabilitation” are important and the Township’s responses informative. Residents are right to be concerned and the Township should do what is necessary to address those concerns.
Under this new Resolution, any new development proposal is reviewed in relationship the Master Plan and all additional controls are meant to extend control beyond existing zoning, therefore in order for this resolution to successfully be implemented, a Master Plan and zoning ordinances that the Township fully supports must be in place.
Under this resolution, proposed development projects are to be referred to the Planning Board “to review for consistency with the Master Plan”. I have spent the past few of weeks attending Board of Trustee and Committee meetings and it is clear that our representatives feel that the Village’s Master Plan and zoning is outdated and irrelevant for areas of South Orange outside of downtown. With this opinion, the Township is in essence saying that decisions they make should not be consistent with the Master Plan and our current zoning ordinances. If this is in fact the case, then it is clear that the Town Council must have an updated Master Plan and zoning ordinances in place for the Planning Board to review a development proposal against.
Greater controls under this Resolution are described as: architectural control over the specific layout, design and appearance, ability to require that any approved project be constructed within a specific period of time and power to require other changes that are outside of zoning requirements, but it seems that these controls are gained at the expense of established control over zoning items such as approved uses, setbacks, height, density, lot coverages and other limitations. Do we not want developers to be reactive to what the Village has established it wants?
Case in point: The Township is currently considering a proposal to build a high-density, 4-story, 72 unit apartment building on a small parcel on Irvington Avenue. This apartment block would extend behind residential homes on W. Fairview, Tichenor and Village Road. The illustration attached shows how this building would look in our residential neighborhood.
The Resolution that designates the entire village as an “area in need of rehabilitation” allows the Township to craft a redevelopment plan that would permit this proposal despite the fact that it would have 5 times more units than current zoning permits, be nearly 20 feet taller than currently allowed, covering 100% of the lot and providing only 53% of the required parking spaces. If the Township plans to use this Resolution to approve developments like this, there could be far-reaching consequences for our neighborhood and other parts of our Village. Is this proposal providing “consistency with the Master Plan”?
And while I know this proposal is not approved and will be reduced in scale, it appears to be so inappropriately different from residents expect based upon current law, why is it even being considered? Is the Township going to allow a different use than currently allowed? Is it going to allow 3 times more units than currently allowed? In doing so, would it qualify as providing “consistency with the Master Plan”?
The Township is making an effort to explain their intent with their new controls, but their actions speak louder. Current actions by the Township cast a grave concern on what this “area in need of rehabilitation” designation could mean for us as residents. I can see exactly why Elaine Harris would note that “with this Resolution, the Trustees can circumvent local zoning and award Redevelopment contracts to persons of their choosing.” People are genuinely concerned about our Village’s plan for future growth; residents, community-based organizations such as the South Orange Village Center Alliance and renowned architects such as Richard Meier and Peter Eisenman (both CHS graduates) are all speaking out.
We are told that the next step is a ‘redevelopment plan’; not ‘redevelopment plans’ for particular sites. Is this a singular plan for the Township as a whole, a particular area or a particular site? Are we lead to believe that a singular comprehensive redevelopment plan will be created?
I and members of Seton Village Residents for Positive Change believe that greater control comes from a town-led comprehensive vision and plan that lets everyone know up front how we see our village growing, not piecemeal, developer-driven plans that allow for spot zoning changes.
We call on the Township of South Orange, prior to entertaining any development proposal contrary to existing zoning, to re-examine and update the vision for the Irvington Avenue Corridor stretching from Prospect Street to Eder Terrace (whether through an Irvington Avenue Redevelopment Plan, updated Master Plan or zoning changes encompassing the entire area), to foster smart growth in Seton Village while preserving the distinct residential qualities of our neighborhood.
