Congratulations to South Orange, the Neighbors and Developers of the 4th & Valley Project

This is the way that redevelopment projects should be done.

"Public forums for development projects don’t often go like this.

“This is the ideal of what a public process should be like,” said
Academy Heights neighbor Andrew Kitt at a public forum discussing
changes to a proposed 106-unit development on the Southwest corner of
4th and Valley in South Orange on Wednesday night. “I could not be more
satisfied with the outcome.”


http://villagegreennj.com/uncategorized/south-orange-neighbors-shape-development-project-4th-valley/

As a note, the article mentions the Third/Valley development. I have to say that we went to Giants of Jazz last weekend and parked in the Third/Valley parking deck.There are other valid criticisms of the development, but I'm glad that the parking deck is there.


The 4th and Valley Developer must not have as many friends as 3rd and Valley.



bets said:

Ugh

Why ugh? The neighbors are very happy and the financial consequences are excellent for the town and the schools. I'm glad that we have additional tax revenues coming in which will help with the tax burden with a project that the neighbors are happy with.

"However, Parlapiano also noted the “tax implications [of the proposed
project] are wonderful.” By his estimates, the property now brings in
about $22,000 a year to the town and $48,000 to the school district.
With the improvements, said Parlapiano, the property would bring in
upwards of $400,000 annually to the town and $875,000 to the school
district."



Well it is yet to be seen how much these many apartment building will change the nature of Maplewood South Orange.

However an educational expert recently testified that the many, many apartment units in both towns will eventually

bring 300 new students into the district. That may require one, possibly two new schools



truth said:

The 4th and Valley Developer must not have as many friends as 3rd and Valley.

“Third & Valley did not have the robust public process this has had,” said Collum. “Credit the neighborhood for mobilizing.”



author said:

Well it is yet to be seen how much these many apartment building will change the nature of Maplewood South Orange.

However an educational expert recently testified that the many, many apartment units in both towns will eventually

bring 300 new students into the district. That may require one, possibly two new schools

"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

Author - You never give up. You're not a SO resident and I'm glad that we're getting a project in town that will help with the tax burden, and one in which the neighbors have had a lot of input which was taken into account by the developer.



Not sure I agree with the call for public space in these developments, and the complaint that 3rd and Valley doesn't have one. Most buildings occupied by residents in the area have yards, there are parks in S.O. What do people expect to do in a public space on 4th and Valley?


Because density. When is enough enough? Apparently never.

cramer said:



bets said:

Ugh

Why ugh? The neighbors are very happy and the financial consequences are excellent for the town and the schools. I'm glad that we have additional tax revenues coming in which will help with the tax burden with a project that the neighbors are happy with.

bets - Density is definitely a concern. I'm most concerned about the problems facing commuters on the Midtown Direct. To me this is the biggest problem.(I don't commute.) As I said earlier, I'm definitely glad that there will be a new source of revenue for the town and schools which will help a lot in at least keeping tax increases down. That's a biggie for me and I'm reasonably sure that it's a plus with most of the taxpayers in town.



cramer said:



author said:

Well it is yet to be seen how much these many apartment building will change the nature of Maplewood South Orange.

However an educational expert recently testified that the many, many apartment units in both towns will eventually

bring 300 new students into the district. That may require one, possibly two new schools

"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

Author - You never give up. You're not a SO resident and I'm glad that we're getting a project in town that will help with the tax burden, and one in which the neighbors have had a lot of input which was taken into account by the developer.

Well you are right in that I never give up. Do you possibly believe that a 200 plus unit apartment building will

only bring in 3 school children. Are you expecting a deluge of Seniors and others who have decided not to procreate?


At one of the development committee meetings I recently attended, Sheena commented that the town of South Orange has actually done studies of how many children all the recent developments in town--the Gaslight, the Avenue, the Gateway, etc.--have added to the school district, and the number was very small, around forty or so. I'm sure people will keep saying that the new developments are crushing our school system, but it is statistically not accurate. By far, the largest concern the town has with the new development is with NJ Transit and the strain on the train system.

While the one thing I remember from sociology class is that you should never use your own personal experiences as an indicator of larger, society-wide trends, I went trick or treating with my kids this year in the Gateway, and must have met half the people who lived in the building. It was mostly single, older people, single, younger people, and a few young couples. Only met one person who lived in the building who had kids, one kid. Now, maybe the rest of the kids were out trick or treating elsewhere in town, but the demographic I encountered was definitely not adding many children to the school system.

author said:



cramer said:



author said:

Well it is yet to be seen how much these many apartment building will change the nature of Maplewood South Orange.

However an educational expert recently testified that the many, many apartment units in both towns will eventually

bring 300 new students into the district. That may require one, possibly two new schools

"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

Author - You never give up. You're not a SO resident and I'm glad that we're getting a project in town that will help with the tax burden, and one in which the neighbors have had a lot of input which was taken into account by the developer.

Well you are right in that I never give up. Do you possibly believe that a 200 plus unit apartment building will

only bring in 3 school children. Are you expecting a deluge of Seniors and others who have decided not to procreate?



I live in a condo building with approximately 78 units, mostly 1-2 BR. There are at least 30 school aged children living here.

But the density, strain on utilities, and loss of small town charm shouldn't be dismissed.


Bets, are you still in south orange, or is your condo elsewhere? I thought you moved.

Author, there is rather good data on this topic, as well as pretty detailed anecdotal information that I have on both Gaslight and one of the local condos (from current or previous residents). The residents are indeed mostly a mix of young childless people, divorced people staying near children, and retirees who have downsized or moved here in retirement.



bets said:

...But the density, strain on utilities, and loss of small town charm shouldn't be dismissed.

I agree, Bets!


If we are truly liberal and green in this town we have to do our share to limit pollution where we can. That means dense development along mass transit routes. Yes, we have to fix the trains as well, but this nimbyism about development reflects poorly on us.



hauscat said:



bets said:

...But the density, strain on utilities, and loss of small town charm shouldn't be dismissed.

I agree, Bets!

Monty Motors - small town charm?



susan1014 said:

Bets, are you still in south orange, or is your condo elsewhere? I thought you moved.

Author, there is rather good data on this topic, as well as pretty detailed anecdotal information that I have on both Gaslight and one of the local condos (from current or previous residents). The residents are indeed mostly a mix of young childless people, divorced people staying near children, and retirees who have downsized or moved here in retirement.

The younger couples who move into these developments are doing it for the commute. When they do have a child, they're not going to stay - they're going to look for a house, hopefully in South Orange. Guess what - many of the the houses are being sold by empty nesters who are moving because of the high taxes. The taxes generated by this development might help ease the tax burden and keep them in their houses, which in many cases they would prefer.


cramer said:
...
"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

So if the risk of a significant number of new students is low, why not let the developer and/or owner of the property bear it, instead of the town and its incumbent taxpayers? A PILOT is a special contract outside normal tax policy; could we write a special contract such that the payment varied based on the number of students?

I agree density near trains is good, but it does not make sense if there is no capacity on the trains, which Collum herself knows is a problem, and is currently, apparently, intractable.

I don't feel I or many other townsfolk knew what we were getting when we voted for these pro-growth candidates. Our fault for not asking explicitly. Does a majority of the town want these developments?



good_neighbor2 said:







cramer said:
...
"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

So if the risk of a significant number of new students is low, why not let the developer and/or owner of the property bear it, instead of the town and its incumbent taxpayers? A PILOT is a special contract outside normal tax policy; could we write a special contract such that the payment varied based on the number of students?

I agree density near trains is good, but it does not make sense if there is no capacity on the trains, which Collum herself knows is a problem, and is currently, apparently, intractable.

I don't feel I or many other townsfolk knew what we were getting when we voted for these pro-growth candidates. Our fault for not asking explicitly. Does a majority of the town want these developments?

good_neghbor - It's late in the evening for me (I'm watching the Planning Board meeting where Landmark is making its presentation) but I'll attempt to answer the question you asked in the first paragraph. No, under NJ state law, a special contract can't be entered into that varies the payment based on the number of students. The NJ statutes only provide for PILOTs in areas in need of redevelopment or areas in need of rehabilitation. Otherwise, property owners have to pay the normal taxes. I explained the difference between PILOTs granted in redevopment areas and rehabilitation areas in the thread started by JBennett in the Education section "Finally, good financial news for the SOMSD" and I'll repost it here:




"Sheena Collum did say that the project might get a PILOT, but in this case it
would be a five- year PILOT instead of a long-term 20 or 30 year PILOT.
The Fourth/Valley project is in a Rehabilitation Area and not a
Redevelopment Area as are all of the redevelopments that have received
PILOTs so far. The difference between the two is that a redevelopment
PILOT can be up to 30 years and the proceeds of the PILOT (which is less
than the normal taxes that would have been paid) go 95% to the town and
5% to the county. With a rehabilitation PILOT, the first year is exempt and beginning with the second year, 20% of the normal tax is
paid which increases 20%/yr until beginning in the sixth year, full
taxes are paid. Plus, unlike a 30 year PILOT, taxes are paid in the same
percentages as normal taxes. Using the numbers supplied by Micahel
Palapiano of the Board of Adjustment in the Village Green article, this
results in the following:
Presently, the town receives $ 22,000 in taxes and the schools receive $48,000 for a total of $70,000.

With a five- year PILOT, in the second year the town receives 20% of $400,000
or $80,000 and the schools receive 20% of $875,000 or 75,000 for a
total of $225,000. This increases by 20% a year until year six when the
project pays the full amount, a total of ,275,000, with the schools
getting $875,000."

Now, I'm sure that you (good_neighbor) are asking why they should even be given a five-year PILOT. The reason for doing so is get a development built that would not have otherwise been built if a PILOT had not been awarded. I don't know if a five-year PILOT will be given, but I suspect that it will. The question is whether it is better to have the project built, or not. I personally think it should be built because it will be a big improvement compared to what is there now. The neighbors are happy with it, and SO will receive a lot of revenue from it, even with a five-year PILOT. South Orange is one of the most heavily taxed towns in the state, and the revenue from the project will substanially help in reducing the tax burden. .


btw - There has been a lot of discussion about the lack of affordable housing. Third/Valley set aside 10% of the units (25) for affordable housing as required by law and I believe that 't Fourth/Valley will have the same requirement.






Oit of curiosity, what's the status of SO's COAH fund? Maplewood's was dwindling somewhat, thus the acceptance of a payment-in-lieu for the PO development (albeit one that's one-tenth the size).

Anyhoo, this seems like a good deal for all involved from a financial pov, PILOT or not (though if I were a betting man I'd wage a tenner on it getting one). From a neighborhood standpoint I'd expect it is too, particularly given the general look and composition of that stretch of Valley (and beyond) and what was possible vs preferable there. Schools will survive this relatively unscathed (PILOT or not). Only issue would seem to be the VERY sharp increase in density downtown, and the impact on what's already a nightmare commute on some of the more preferable trains (or so I hear from some on them). Clearly the move is toward urban/compact and away from quaint, but that ship sailed long ago to begin with, and making the best use of the downtown layout has its advantages.



ctrzaska said:

Oit of curiosity, what's the status of SO's COAH fund? Maplewood's was dwindling somewhat, thus the acceptance of a payment-in-lieu for the PO development (albeit one that's one-tenth the size).

Anyhoo, this seems like a good deal for all involved from a financial pov, PILOT or not (though if I were a betting man I'd wage a tenner on it getting one). From a neighborhood standpoint I'd expect it is too, particularly given the general look and composition of that stretch of Valley (and beyond) and what was possible vs preferable there. Schools will survive this relatively unscathed (PILOT or not). Only issue would seem to be the VERY sharp increase in density downtown, and the impact on what's already a nightmare commute on some of the more preferable trains (or so I hear from some on them). Clearly the move is toward urban/compact and away from quaint, but that ship sailed long ago to begin with, and making the best use of the downtown layout has its advantages.

I don't know the status of SO's COAH fund. What I do know is that when I discussed Third/Valley with a trustee, I was told that Third/Valley was governed by the new rules on affordable housing and could not lay-off its affordable housing obligation by making a contribution to another municipality using the Regional Contribution rules that had allowed previous developers to do so. He also told me that The Gateway was not governed by the new rules since the plan that was approved was essentially the same plan that had been approved years earlier when Beifus had the property, and was therefore grandfathered.


eta - The development at Orange Lawn did not have to set-aside any affordable housing, so I'm not really sure of the situation in SO. Maybe someone who is more familiar with SO's affordable housing requirements can help.


Speaking of Orange Lawn; any recent news regarding that development proposal? I have not seen anything, but I may have missed it.



Copyability said:

Speaking of Orange Lawn; any recent news regarding that development proposal? I have not seen anything, but I may have missed it.

In June the Board of Trustees approved the redevelopment plan of Orange Lawn. The plan calls for the building of 20 units. I don't think the Planning Board has looked at it yet.

http://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/south-orange-trustees-approve-orange-lawn-tennis-club-redevelopment-plan/


They already had one meeting with the planning board. Another one is scheduled for next week.

Copyability said:

Speaking of Orange Lawn; any recent news regarding that development proposal? I have not seen anything, but I may have missed it.



Have you seen the rents at 3rd and Valley? Their website doesn't mention that trash is extra, parking is extra, there are no individual water meters (water is a "shared" expense no matter whether you have a studio, one, or two bedroom), the list goes on and on.

A friend looked at an apartment there, and while she thought they were nice, she found the "cha-ching" factor was despicable.


before we moved here 6 years ago we briefly looked in Long Island City. Condos there charged 50k extra for a parking spot.


Not sure why the rent is an issue. Virtually every apartment and house in SoMa is too expensive for someone. 3rd & V seems clearly marketed as a luxury building, not a bargain.



cramer said:



good_neighbor2 said:









cramer said:
...
"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

So if the risk of a significant number of new students is low, why not let the developer and/or owner of the property bear it, instead of the town and its incumbent taxpayers? A PILOT is a special contract outside normal tax policy; could we write a special contract such that the payment varied based on the number of students?

I agree density near trains is good, but it does not make sense if there is no capacity on the trains, which Collum herself knows is a problem, and is currently, apparently, intractable.

I don't feel I or many other townsfolk knew what we were getting when we voted for these pro-growth candidates. Our fault for not asking explicitly. Does a majority of the town want these developments?

good_neghbor - It's late in the evening for me (I'm watching the Planning Board meeting where Landmark is making its presentation) but I'll attempt to answer the question you asked in the first paragraph. No, under NJ state law, a special contract can't be entered into that varies the payment based on the number of students. The NJ statutes only provide for PILOTs in areas in need of redevelopment or areas in need of rehabilitation. Otherwise, property owners have to pay the normal taxes. I explained the difference between PILOTs granted in redevopment areas and rehabilitation areas in the thread started by JBennett in the Education section "Finally, good financial news for the SOMSD" and I'll repost it here:






"Sheena Collum did say that the project might get a PILOT, but in this case it
would be a five- year PILOT instead of a long-term 20 or 30 year PILOT.
The Fourth/Valley project is in a Rehabilitation Area and not a
Redevelopment Area as are all of the redevelopments that have received
PILOTs so far. The difference between the two is that a redevelopment
PILOT can be up to 30 years and the proceeds of the PILOT (which is less
than the normal taxes that would have been paid) go 95% to the town and
5% to the county. With a rehabilitation PILOT, the first year is exempt and beginning with the second year, 20% of the normal tax is
paid which increases 20%/yr until beginning in the sixth year, full
taxes are paid. Plus, unlike a 30 year PILOT, taxes are paid in the same
percentages as normal taxes. Using the numbers supplied by Micahel
Palapiano of the Board of Adjustment in the Village Green article, this
results in the following:
Presently, the town receives $ 22,000 in taxes and the schools receive $48,000 for a total of $70,000.

With a five- year PILOT, in the second year the town receives 20% of $400,000
or $80,000 and the schools receive 20% of $875,000 or 75,000 for a
total of $225,000. This increases by 20% a year until year six when the
project pays the full amount, a total of ,275,000, with the schools
getting $875,000."

Now, I'm sure that you (good_neighbor) are asking why they should even be given a five-year PILOT. The reason for doing so is get a development built that would not have otherwise been built if a PILOT had not been awarded. I don't know if a five-year PILOT will be given, but I suspect that it will. The question is whether it is better to have the project built, or not. I personally think it should be built because it will be a big improvement compared to what is there now. The neighbors are happy with it, and SO will receive a lot of revenue from it, even with a five-year PILOT. South Orange is one of the most heavily taxed towns in the state, and the revenue from the project will substanially help in reducing the tax burden. .




btw - There has been a lot of discussion about the lack of affordable housing. Third/Valley set aside 10% of the units (25) for affordable housing as required by law and I believe that 't Fourth/Valley will have the same requirement.










Cramer, Thank you for explaining because this is an important distinction. It all comes down to the difference between "rehabilitation" and "redevelopment"



apple44 said:

Not sure why the rent is an issue. Virtually every apartment and house in SoMa is too expensive for someone. 3rd & V seems clearly marketed as a luxury building, not a bargain.

But there are supposed to be 10 percent of the units set as "affordable." I just don't get how "affordable" they can be when they nickle and dime you to this extent.


FilmCarp said:

before we moved here 6 years ago we briefly looked in Long Island City. Condos there charged 50k extra for a parking spot.


"Long Island City" and "Village of South Orange." There's the difference.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertisement

Advertise here!