I live on Varick street accross the street from the proposed development plan. Members of the Bright Street Action group have met with Mayor Fulop and presented him with viable legal options he and City Hall might take in order to stop the ill conceived, inappropriate, development. The response is the "there's nothing we can do" status coming from council members. The community knows there are steps that can be taken. Why is the mayor not taking them ? Why is City Hall stonewalling the community that elected them? More than 200 community residents showed up at Brightside Tavern to hear a talk from the developer. He was not able to answer important questions ex: where is the trash going, do you have a license for your cafe, do you know what kind of environmental impact 87 units will have on the surrounding area, etc. He did tell us that Rushman/Dillon have never built in JC, they have never built this kind of project before, their "research" was from their personal observations, and they were not interested in making any changes, their business cards listed them in Vermont.
It's NOT ABOUT "PARKING", as council person Osbourne would have us think. It's about the density; conceptually it's like having a transient (the developer said "transient") hotel going up, it's the size; bigger than anything else around it.
It's also about the shaddiness of the deal that is allowing the project. It is barely legal and certainly dishonest to the community.

the project is being marketed as some new age SRO concept.

Bottom line is SROs never improved neighborhoods in Manhattan and most have been shutdown and re-developed. Been to the Bowery lately?

Of course the JCRA patsies fell for the developer's pitch which is nothing more than a scheme to get as much money per sq foot as possible...

No one has any objection to sensible development of the corner or the influx of young people. VVPA is not anti-development or developer. They actually have patted the backs of many developers including one who is completing a wonderful project across from proposed site. That developer worked hand and hand with the neighborhood. The developer of the Rosina on Wayne street also worked hard with neighbors and their concerns PRIOR to submitting plans. So it depends on the developer really. It's unfortunate that you were unable to meet this one.

We have seen this administration put itself out there to fix what were seen to be the flaws of the last one. We are asking the same effort here.

An influx of young people is exactly what downtown JC needs, in my opinion.

I didn't attend the meeting at Brightside mostly because I knew it would be oppositional to the development. I'm sure there was some good info there but, really, when was the last time there was ever a community meeting with a developer where the locals just went to pat them on their back and say "good job"?

Regarding whether this development is appropriate for the area:
If this was a block over on York I'd say absolutely not. But zoning, especially in the NYC area, rightly varies from block to block. Bright St. is wide enough to support larger development and, not to offend, but isn't the "prettiest" street in the downtown area. Every developement on Bright or Grand doesn't need to be four stories and brick. This is the same development pattern you can see at the fringes of landmarked areas of Brooklyn (4th ave in Park Slope, Myrtle in Fort Greene, for example).

I hope this new development will draw more people to this corner of downtown and think it's a good thing for the city. Not crazy about the way it all went down and hopefully the new administration does a better job handling these types of deals going forward but I also hope they don't deny permits due to parking.

And I also wanted to ask if you attended the meeting at bright side or just saw photos? There was a lot more discussed than parking although many people do see this as an issue

I don't think anyone in the neighborhood is against development. I believe it has to do with the density and appropriateness. Why not build something more in line with these of the community or develop more of the school so the kids don't need to be bussed out.

Quote:
This IS my area. I am a property owner two blocks from where this development will be going in. Bright street needs development. It's a wide street that can support larger development than other parts of VVP and this is an ugly, wire-fenced, paved lot. I'll take a new building there any day.

I know you say this isn't about parking but every time someone says that the next article/press release/forum post/whatever addresses "concerns about parking" first and foremost. Last time everyone was saying this wasn't about parking there was an article with photos from the community meeting at Brightside where picketers had signs about the developer having the gall to build without parking.

You can definitely make an argument about some shady dealings to get this project greenlit but I have absolutely ZERO problems with this project aside from that. Density of this type will only make JC better. Most cities clamor to attract this sort of development and the demographics it brings in. People here worry about their free parking spots.

The City Hall spin does not even begin to address the issues or put anything to rest. This statement is so misleading in so many way that we're just going to leave it to our attorneys to pull apart.

Amusing to see that someone in an official capacity finally thinks it's appropriate for the City to consider negotiating - after telling residents to do it months ago. Developer offered to move planters.

Please don't pass this off as a parking issue. The real issue about this development is the way that it was brought in through shady dealings of city hall and the blatant disregard to how this neighborhood has developed and what is appropriate to develop here. The current administration has legal options to stop this development but chooses to say their hands are tied. Sounds like money lining someone's pockets is the driving force. To all the people in the area that are saying this is about whining over parking, id like you to realize that these type of developments will happen in your area as well. You wouldn't be passing this off so easily then

dont give the developer a tax abatement.

does the city have any leverage to require improving the sewer system in the area ?

perhaps the city council could let the citizens know if there are other projects like this one (followed letter, but not spirit of the law) that are still in early enough stages where community action can be taken...

And there it is. Makes it pretty clear that the only real complaint about this project is that it doesn't include onsite parking.

Hopefully this puts this whole issue to rest and the parking whiners will start to realize they live in a city.

That's a good letter. As for parking, it's a huge road, put in angled parking, double the spots available and make everyone happy for the cost of some paint.

fyi -

http://www.candiceosborne.com/updates ... ment-on-bright-and-varick

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Development on Bright and Varick

In this week's update, I'd like to give neighbors a little background on the proposed development on Bright and Varick.

Though portions of the Van Vorst Park neighborhood were redistricted out of Ward E into Ward F following the 2010 census, as a resident of downtown Jersey City, all of Van Vorst is important to me. And together with our community, I share concerns about the proposed development at Bright and Varick.

While I know that the city followed the ?letter of the law? in advertising and making public proposed changes to the redevelopment plan covering the property at Bright and Varick, I do not feel that it followed the ?spirit of the law? in engaging the community for input. I also share the community?s concerns over parking. And while I appreciate the long-term goal of reducing citizen dependence on cars, I do not think we currently have sufficient public transportation, cabs or car-shares to justify no onsite parking of any kind.

So what can be done? Before giving my thoughts, I want to share some facts about the history of this land, the authority of the city council, and state laws regulating situations such as these.

Over two years ago, in 2011, the previous city council voted to ?blight? the land and turn it over to the Jersey City redevelopment agency. They also voted to amend the redevelopment plan which changed exactly ?what? could be built on this piece of property.
The city council has the authority and oversight over changes to redevelopment plans, the land use ordinance and zoning maps. The city council does not have any legal authority over anything else as it relates to what gets built where.
New Jersey state law dictates that a developer has the legal right to use the zoning that was in place at the time he/she filed the application to build a building, regardless of whether or not the zoning is changed in the future.

In light of these facts, the only legal route we can take as the newly elected council is to change the redevelopment plan itself. However, this action still wouldn't influence the Bright and Varick project since its developer contracted to build it under the earlier redevelopment plan .

If the council can?t do anything, what can the administration do? While I am not in the administration, and while I don?t have legal options available as a city council member, I can use my position to ask questions and explain the importance of working to resolve the community's frustration with this project.

So, I'm doing that. I?ve spent many hours working with Ward F Councilwoman, Diane Coleman, Mayor Steven Fulop and the Jersey City Law Department trying to find any way out of this. We?ve brainstormed, researched together, and hunted for loopholes, but there do not appear to be viable legal options at this point. And while the decision to pursue any loopholes rests solely with the Mayor and not the city council, after having been a part of the conversation, I stand behind the Mayor and I believe that it would be irresponsible to the tax payers of Jersey City to put ourselves in the path of a contract lawsuit we are guaranteed to lose.

I know many of us who live downtown are, like me, concerned by this, so I want to speak to you honestly and from my heart about what I believe can be done. While my search has not yet turned up viable options that I have control over as a council member, I'm asking you contact me to share with me any ideas that I can pursue within my role as your council person.

Moving forward. The communities? frustration is not lost on me. Since taking office, I?ve been working to get neighborhood input into changes to redevelopment plans well before they go to the planning board (and ultimately before the city council.) In the past month, I've been working with 30 members of the community to outline a more formal process, which will be released in the coming weeks.

Parking for this project. I do believe we have a shot at working on the parking situation for this project. To achieve that, I'm currently talking to our legal department about pursuing city ordinances that will alleviate parking concerns.

My ability to talk with residents about this project. If in the future the city is sued over its past actions, my oath of office will prevent me from being able to discuss the project with the community even though those past actions predated my term. More than anything, I want to be able to represent your needs by talking them through with you.

Thank you for all of your calls, letters, and conversations on this issue. I want to reaffirm my commitment to do my best to uphold my oath of office and to focus my work on what can be -- what must be -- changed to move our community forward.

It was packed and vocal. See the article above that User1111 posted on Micro housing.

Any thoughts from the meeting last night at the Brightside?

VVPA and Bright Street Development invite you to a meeting at Brightside Tavern at 7 pm on October 8. We will be hearing from the developer of this 87 micro unit building.

Who is on the JCRA board? The ball is with the mayor. Its not a done deal yet so he can do what he wants. I just would like to see his council vote down any tax abatement. Fulop is the darling of downtown even protecting them by holding off the reval. Let's see if he returns the love.

Quote:

I am not against development. The question that should be publicly answered here is WHO in the JCRA designed the plan for a parcel that ignored unit density, HOW did he get approved, and WHY was that specific developer selected for this parcel.

Jersey City should have some pride and go back to the drawing board on this one. It should never have been allowed, especially with that nonsense about the area being blighted....

And those rendering are about as historic as zip cars.

There are renderings in the Hudson Reporter story.

In general, in an urban environment, I'm all for a building taking the place of a sloppy looking haphazard parking lot/trailer depot. But in a residential neighborhood, any new structure should be tasteful and require approval from the community, especially in a historic district.

What procedures are being taken for that development on First Street? Same exact scenario - historic, residential neighborhood, and a new building is replacing a parking lot. By the way, does anybody have renderings for that building's design?

Minutes from the blight procedures --

"This is the only lot on that block that is not in the historic district.

It currently has been -- it's been used by the school
district for many decades as overflow classrooms. They
have trailers on the site that they at least used to
use, I'm not quite sure if it's still in use today, for
classrooms that was overflow from the old PS3 building
on Bright Street, and the remainder of the site has
been used as a parking lot. With just cars kind of
haphazardly fit in on the lot between the trailers and
the lots is surrounded by a chain-link fence in fair
condition at best.
I'll just read real briefly out of the
conclusion of study. "The lot is not properly laid out
for parking, and the parking has simply been
haphazardly fit in around the temporary trailers.
Parking area lacks proper drainage, grading, curbing,
landscaping, stall striping, aisle dimension, and other
facilities common and necessary for the proper and safe
functioning of a parking area. This is a faulty and
obsolete design constituting a deleterious use
detrimental to the welfare of the community. Parking
is not a permitted principal use and is detrimental to
the intent and purpose of the zone plan.
The surface parking lot creates a gap in
the development pattern in the historic district where
buildings are typically located adjacent to one another
with little or no side yard creating a continuous
street wall and closing the public streets and
sidewalks.
The gap in the historic pattern disrupts
the feel and continuity of the historic district making
a district feel less complete and less intact. This is
Criteria "D" as an area in need of redevelopment, which
speaks to buildings which by reason of delipidation,
obsolescence, faulty arrangement, or design, excessive
coverage is detrimental in the health, safety and
welfare of the community."


In other words, the lot should be blighted because it disrupts the historic feel of the neighborhood -- and then we'll grant variances, etc., to put up something so totally out of character with the historic pattern of the neighborhood. Makes perfect sense in Jersey City.

Thanks for the well written overview, JPhurst. I agree that they should not use blight to circumvent the zoning rules.

If it is sought after, then there is no need for a blight designation. And someone should be prepared to build according to the zoning for the area. And the developer should prepare to pay regular taxes on the property, not receive an abatement.

If not, then either let the development sit until someone is willing to come by and build as per zoning, or allow the school to retain the property to deal with overcapacity, or make it into a pocket park.

It's a somewhat interesting concept. I send my daughter to school across the street and don't think that this would affect her safety. I generally don't care about parking, and think the developer is probably accurate when he says that most residents of a place like this will not have cars.

But there is a zoning plan which limits density in this neighborhood. It's a residential neighborhood mostly with brownstones and row houses with a few mid rise apartments. Cramming 84 "micro apartments" into the space is not consistent with the neighborhood layout.

And to circle back, they are using "blight" to justify circumventing the rules, which makes no sense at all.

Quote:

-1

Yes it had TRAILERS on it.

This is a sought after urban environment. It's getting developed. Big surprise.

It was used for extra classroom space (held in trailers).