Montclair Mix-Up May Mean Big Profit For Developers

MONTCLAIR, NJ — A Montclair Planning Board member is alleging that a series of mix-ups surrounding a township redevelopment plan are paving the way for much-denser development on Orange Road than expected… and big profits for developers.

During Monday’s planning board meeting, Martin Schwartz demanded an investigation into circumstances that he says have allowed the developers of a proposed apartment complex to “take advantage” of a misworded section of the Montclair Center Gateway Redevelopment plan.

Pinnacle Companies and The Hampshire Companies are seeking permission to build a 46-unit, mixed-use building at 33-37 Orange Road dubbed the MC Residences. But the proposal has been sidetracked due to a controversy surrounding the redevelopment plan for the area.

At the heart of the matter is a simple question: did Montclair officials intend to limit development at apartment buildings in the area to 18 or 46 units per acre?

According to Schwartz, the original plan is crystal-clear.

“Both we and the council originally seemed to agree to only 18 units per acre,” Schwartz told his peers Monday night. “And that is not what we now have to consider here this evening based on how our government has handled this application.”

The issue lies with the language of the redevelopment plan, which limits multi-family apartment buildings to 18 units, but also appears to make an exception for buildings that also have a “commercial” component.

During Monday’s meeting, Schwartz alleged that the ambiguity may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars profit for Pinnacle and Hampshire.

Pinnacle has previously gained planning board approval and variances for several other Montclair real estate projects, such as the adjacent MC Hotel. The developer – along with The Hampshire Companies – has also been trying to redevelop Lackawanna Plaza, the site of a historic former train terminal.

• See related article: Montclair's MC Hotel Opens, Taps Into Local Artistic Scene
• See related article: Lackawanna Plans Hit Big Speed Bump In Montclair

Schwartz said the foul-up in Montclair may not be a simple editing error, as he originally thought.

“Contrary to what I said when I brought this matter up originally – when I said that it was just a technical drafting [mistake] which has gotten us to this place – my understanding now, from talking to almost every town councilor, is that there may have been some intentionality that caused this situation,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz asked for an investigation into the situation, which he said may add “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in value to MC Residences.

“The result is that this applicant has now been able to take advantage of the situation,” he said. “They have taken advantage of a drafting incongruity between the paragraph heading and the wording within which impacts the number of units they can seek. They then rushed in their application to capitalize. Our council then apparently believed they were legally boxed-in and did not make any further clarification and plan change.”

Schwartz said when the planning board first encountered the MC Residences application, it passed the matter to the local zoning board, which ruled in favor of allowing the companies to build 46 units per acre on July 17.

“In my opinion, the [zoning board] was steered and practically directed by their lawyer then to vote for the applicants' POV of more units per acre – but based on what appeared to me was incorrect information,” Schwartz said.

At Monday’s planning board meeting, architect Stuart Johnson provided the following details about the proposed MC Residences:

• 46 apartments (with 10 percent reserved as “affordable units”)
• Retail space on the first floor
• Rooftop garden
• Pedestrian plaza
• 67-space garage

Don’t forget to visit the Patch Montclair Facebook page. Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site. Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com