Planners Unhappy With Park Process

A presentation on improvements to the Madison Avenue playground raised many questions at Thursday’s Planning Board meeting, the biggest one being how the project got moving without prior approval of planners.

The site, bounded by the Raritan Valley Line, Madison Avenue, Central Avenue and West Second Street, is on the city’s Recreation and Open Space Inventory and any changes should have been monitored by the Planning Division. The Planning Board should have reviewed the project both for the capital cost and for consistency with the master plan before work began.

Instead, the city engineer approved the project and parking spaces were increased in what may turn out to be a benefit for a condo project across the street.

In the first of many phases of the project, the number of parking spaces more than tripled, from 11 to 36. However, the $145,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding was only enough to pay for construction up to the point of paving. The new lot is now filled with “dense aggregate,” Eric Mattes of Schoor DePalma said.

Besides finding funds for the paving, money must be found for future phases such as a playground with sections for children ages 2 to 5 and 5 to 12. The design calls for a seat wall with a planter between the two sections. More paving will be done under an existing shelter and sidewalk paths will be made.

Mattes said main concerns included removing a lot of existing asphalt in the park, retaining an existing basketball court and saving several mature oak trees on the site. A four-foot steel picket fence will surround the park.

Planners first asked for a flat rail instead of spikes on top of the fence, but then raised larger questions.

Board member Donna Vose asked why the number of parking spaces was increased to 36 and Mattes said it was requested by the city.

‘That’s why we need a review first,” Vose said.

Board chairman Ken Robertson called the increase “an extraordinary number of parking spaces, because it is eating up green space.”

Robertson asked whether the spaces were for downtown parking, but without a clear answer, he turned to Planning Director Bill Nierstedt and asked, “What are we here for, chopped liver?”

Nierstedt noted the park is almost entirely paved. He said the original design concept was for a parking area off Central Avenue. There was a concern for more green space after the Park-Madison office building was built nearby on a block that had been a park for several years.

Robertson said his question was not answered and pressed to know why the engineer was involved instead of the Planning Division.

“And I’m not going to answer that question,” Nierstedt said.

Robertson asked whether the city knew how many people used the park. Nierstedt said the only thing people could do there was to play basketball, because the rest of the park was asphalt.

Eventually, the discussion turned to the total estimated cost of the project ($500,000) and where the money would come from (unclear). Another concern was whether the project had received state Department of Environmental Protection review.

The 12-unit condo project, which was on the agenda Thursday for memorialization of board approval, had three options, to provide parking on-site, use the Park-Madison parking deck or get city permits. With 18 spaces in two bays at the park, the city might rent out half, which would then involve the Parking Bureau.

The discussion ended as it began, with officials expressing dissatisfaction with the process.

While it was not mentioned at the meeting, the discussion reminded Plaintalker of the flap that arose when the temporary Park-Madison green was inadvertently included in the state DEP roster of green space. A group of open space advocates sued the city and held up construction of the new office building for several years. If in fact it turns out that public funds were expended with the notion of helping a developer get parking for a condo project, sidestepping planning and state approvals, might that also be a problem?

We’re just saying.

Guest Commentary

Note: Plaintalker is deviating from its rules to publish this commentary because the writer, Donna Vose, has a unique perspective as both a current Planning Board member and a former City Council member.

He who writes the first draft controls the agenda. That political truism is an important, though rarely discussed, aspect of outsourcing the functions of local government. In New Jersey we tend to talk about the outsourcing of municipal work in terms of political corruption, bossism, cronyism, payback, kickback, and other assorted malfeasances. However demoralizing these problems might be, there is another less obvious effect: Loss of local control over the quality of life in the community.

There is currently a proposal in Plainfield to outsource the work of the Planning Division to an engineering firm in Haddonfield. The local planning department is the professional staff charged with developing land use policy to be approved by the Planning Board and subsequently the City Council. In effect, the local staff write the first draft.

The first draft matters. Local staff know the community, both its people and its land. They know the history, culture, and especially its urban legends. They are likely to develop land use plans which are consistent and compatible with those values. When the plans then go to the decision-makers for amendments, deletions, and general tweaking, all the players are likely to be in the same book, if not on the same page.

Contrast the local staff to the outside engineering firm. The latter has no idea how we got to where we are today, where the skeletons are buried, where the sacred cows graze. The plans they draw are drawn in a vacuum, pure, pristine, uncluttered by a sense of community. When their first draft goes to the decision-makers, the local folk can amend the document, but will be unable to make it their own because the basic premises are foreign, devoid of local context. No matter what amendments they make, they are reacting to a first draft that was not a reflection of the culture of the community.

Having said that, when redevelopment is on the agenda there will be winners and losers. The community is the presumptive winner of course, but the economic and emotional pain felt by those displaced in the project can create rents in the social fabric of the community. Consider the example of the East 3rd Street and Richmond Street Redevelopment Plan. The proposed plan envisioned elimination of both a successful old Plainfield family business, Thul’s Machine Works, and the carefully planned building project of a public agency, Plainfield Municipal Utility Authority (PMUA). Those parties should have been part of the planning process, but were not. It is not sufficient to simply send them the required legal notice. They are our community. The Planning Board was dismayed to hear for the first time at an angry public hearing that those most affected by the project had not been involved in discussions with the planners. The first draft was drafted without local input.

Another small, but significant, example of why local planners are important for writing any draft on which a government body will make a decision: The Planning Board discussed the need to have environmental building standards made a part of redevelopment contracts. These “green” standards, codified in development terms as LEED standards, are commonplace. Other New Jersey towns, such as Cranford, require them, as do cities such as Boston. When the draft of a redevelopment plan was presented to the Planning Board, there was no reference to LEED. The outside planner was asked to advise the City Council that the Board recommended LEED be incorporated in the redevelopment contract. Of course the developer preferred cheaper construction, so the language the Council received and voted on was language that made LEED desirable, but not mandatory.

So who are the winners here?
He who writes the first draft truly does control the agenda.

--Donna Vose

Planning Board Reorganizes

The Planning Board held its annual reorganization Thursday and approved Ken Robertson for another term as chairman.

Ron Scott Bey was named vice chairman and Rosalind Miller will continue as secretary. Longtime Planning Board attorney Michele Donato was named for another term and the board welcomed F. Robert Perry of Remington & Vernick as planning consultant for 2008.

The Planning Board is gearing up for a year that could bring significant development. Barbara James, the mayor’s designee to the board, said Thursday, “There is a lot we have to do in the city. There is a lot we want to do. We have ideas we want to place out there and have them materialize.”

Among projects or proposals in various stages are the Landmark plan to redevelop several blocks around the main train station and the Marino tract proposal that may include a major supermarket. There are more than a dozen others that have been detailed on Plaintalker over the past two years.

There are four vacancies on the board. The terms of board member Donna Vose and alternate William Toth expired Dec. 31. A one-year City Council liaison has not been named and a one-year city official appointment must be made. Councilman Cory Storch was council liaison for the past two years and one of the mayor’s bodyguards, Police Officer Richard Brown, served last year as the city representative.

The board usually meets on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Its next meeting is Feb. 7 in City Hall Library, 515 Watchung Ave.

--Bernice Paglia

Planners Question Proposed Density, Uses

The next time planners see a depiction of the Netherwood redevelopment study area, they said, they want to see color keys to brownfields, vacancies, residential use and other indicators of conditions on the 16 target lots. And they want to know what plans the city has to relocate the Public Works yard that is one of the targets.

At a special meeting Thursday (Nov. 7, 2007) George Stevenson of Remington & Vernick displayed a map that showed the whole area in battleship gray, without any distinction of existing conditions or use. The study area, reduced from more than 90 lots, is now between Richmond and Berckman streets on both sides of the Raritan Valley Line and extends east to the boundary of the city yard across South Avenue from Central Street. Neither Stevenson nor mayoral representative Barbara James could say Thursday where the city intends to relocate the yard.

The planners also want to know what exists on all four adjacent sides of the study area.

In questioning, Stevenson confirmed that there is a suggestion of five-story residential buildings for the site. That set off more questions about density closer to the Netherwood train station. The theme of transit-oriented development is high density around train stations, phasing to lesser density in a widening radius. But most of the proposed Netherwood target area is outside the quarter-mile range. Planning Board member Ron Scott-Bey asked whether five-story construction there would mean a higher density of 12 stories around the station.

Planners received four quarter-mile maps Thursday for discussion of the four transit hubs - Netherwood, the main station on North Avenue and two sites of former stations at Grant and Clinton avenues.

Planners said the process seems to be “project-driven” and “developer-driven” rather than reflecting what the community might want in redevelopment. Planning Board member Donna Vose said the city needs industry that will provide jobs, not all residential development.

Planning Division Director Bill Nierstedt said planners must consider what concessions they want from developers in return for higher density, such as ground-level plazas or other amenities.

Around the main train station, a 2000 redevelopment plan only included three blocks north of the tracks. But with recently proposed expansions to the west and south, the North Avenue Historic District redevelopment area is now to be known as the “North Avenue Expanded Area.” The historic 1880s buildings of the city’s first commercial district will be preserved, but high-rise construction behind them is proposed.

A large redevelopment area south of the main train station was studied, but is not part of the plans now under consideration. Planning Board Chairman Ken Robertson said the Downtown Station South study was sent to the City Council, but the board received no response.

The Planning Board will not meet on Nov. 15, due to the League of Municipalities meeting. The next meeting will be Dec. 6.

--Bernice Paglia

Planning Board Surprise

A slide show revealed a bit more than intended at Thursday’s Planning Board meeting.

The images were meant to lead the board through an “in need of development” study of the proposed Richmond Street and East Third Redevelopment Area. As Plaintalker reported on Aug. 30, the report did find the targeted properties all in need of redevelopment due to dilapidation or other criteria in the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.

But just before planning expert George Stevenson reached the last slide, one titled “Redevelopment Plan” flashed on the screen.

Board member Donna Vose asked for another look and Stevenson returned to the errant slide, which listed “high density multi-family development” as the goal for most of the target area, with a small commercial section on the remaining portion.

By coincidence, each Planning Board member had a document entitled “Plan for Redevelopment” at his or her place, even though Stevenson had painstakingly explained that the redevelopment process called for the governing body to authorize a study by the Planning Board, which then returned to the governing body for approval or rejection. If the study was accepted, the governing body could then ask the Planning Board to “prepare and submit” a redevelopment plan.

Curiously, the redevelopment plan was dated Aug. 23, the same date as when the City Council authorized the “in need of redevelopment” study.

Although planning officials stressed the many steps in the process, Planning Board attorney Michele Donato said the board would review the redevelopment plan on Sept. 21.

“The plan itself is not on this evening’s agenda,” she said.

According to a public notice, the meeting was to include a public hearing on the study alone.

Before the public spoke, board members questioned the criteria for selecting the properties in the study, saying others could have been included.

Councilman Cory Storch, the governing body’s representative on the board, also said he had not seen any specific plans “until tonight.”

After some discussion, the board decided to recommend the study’s findings to the council, but also to add a recommendation to expand the study area because some surrounding properties seemed also to meet the study criteria. The board will also recommend that the council and administration will include the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority in talks on future plans.


Besides the seeming telescoping of the redevelopment process, the other main issue emerging from the meeting was that the PMUA had major plans to construct corporate offices and to consolidate its equipment and repair facilities in the target area. But after PMUA Chairwoman Carol Brokaw spoke about the authority’s plans to have offices and consolidate equipment and make repairs all in one location, Planning Director Bill Nierstedt said truck repair was not permitted anywhere in the city.

Among interested onlookers were members of the venerable Thul family, whose business in the target area goes back 100 years, according to Larry Thul. Patriarch Frederick Thul, 85, said the family increased its store and machine shop business to seven store locations.

But he said, “I think there’s something cooking here.”

Larry Thul said, “It’s very suspicious to me.”

The family real estate firm rents land to the PMUA and Larry Thul said he wondered whether the city wanted to “pull the rug out” from the PMUA or acquire his property by eminent domain.

Storch, forced by a conflict Thursday to pick the Planning Board over a council meeting the same night, asked for the council to initiate discussions with the PMUA on their plans.

In the end, the Planning Board agreed to recommend the study’s findings to the council, to recommend that the study area should be expanded and to have the council and administration enter into talks with PMUA on plans for the properties.

--Bernice Paglia

Planners Probe Land Use Issues

Future development should feature higher buildings with more density around four city transit hubs, planners agreed Thursday, but split over the preferred kind of land use.

In a special meeting Thursday (Nov. 29, 2007), the Planning Board discussed aspects of the land use element of the master plan. The city has committed to transit-oriented development, meaning tying proposed projects to rail and bus links at two existing train stations and two former ones. While many of the proposals are for residential development, some Planning Board members asked for more consideration of “community commercial” and light industrial development along the Raritan Valley Line rail corridor.

Community commercial development might include businesses such as Home Depot alongside the tracks, and light industrial development would continue the historical uses of rail-side buildings.

Board members agreed that the tallest buildings and highest density should be in the central business district, which includes the main train station on North Avenue. They favor six stories as the maximum height, although a developer has proposed higher buildings behind the existing historic commercial buildings around the station. For the Netherwood station, board members envisioned a height of four stories. For development at the sites of former stations on Clinton and Grant avenues, the board agreed that development needed to produce enough density to convince NJ Transit that the stations should be restored.

The discussion was keyed to the concept of transit-oriented development, a popular notion along rail lines statewide. Seventeen “transit villages” have been designated by the state Department of Transportation, but only a few have progressed to development, Planning Director Bill Nierstedt said.

Nierstedt presented a chart comparing the heights, density and other statistics in the 17 designated locations and a few others. But board members asked for more statistics showing how Fanwood and Westfield set parameters for their transit-oriented growth.

The question of where to put parking was discussed. Plainfield currently relies on parking lots, but underground garages or parking decks may have to be built to accommodate new development. Planning consultant George Stevenson of Remington & Vernick said he knows the city is planning a six-story parking deck off East Second Street between Watchung and Park avenues.

Board members Donna Vose and Cory Storch stressed the need for some light industrial or commercial development to provide jobs. So far, most proposals have been for residential development.

Late in the discussion, the issue of putting multi-story residential buildings right next to the train tracks emerged. Storch recalled how the board disagreed with a proposal to put a middle school next to the train tracks and said, “Now we’ve done a kind of 180 flip here.”

Board member Gordon Fuller, a railroad executive, agreed.

“There is nothing that strikes terror into my heart like building residential right up against the tracks,” Fuller said, citing complaints about noise from train whistles, bells and idling engines.

Fuller said noise can be buffered by trees and landscaping, but only up to about three stories. Those living on higher floors would get all the noise.

The board then discussed having community commercial uses along the north side of the tracks east of the main station, as suggested by board member William Toth, an architect. Toth also suggested adaptive re-use of the existing industrial buildings along the tracks, Nierstedt countered with concerns about land cost and brownfields problems.

Besides what will go in the clusters around the transit hubs, board chairman Ken Robertson and others questioned what would be built between the four circles. Robertson said he didn’t want “a wall of apartments” all along the rail line.

Still unresolved is where the city’s Public Works yard will go if displaced by a proposal to redevelop the north and south side of the tracks between Richmond and Berckman streets. City Administrator Marc Dashield said the city is looking at some sites, but none has been selected.

Discussion of the land use element will continue at the board’s Dec. 20 meeting.

--Bernice Paglia