[ back ]
Redevelopment plan may need alterations
(by Karen F. Mrnarevic - November 28, 2007)
On Oct. 29, when borough representatives met with Atkin’s Companies representative Scott Fishbone and Carl Goldberg of Roseland Properties to discuss the plans for the borough’s downtown redevelopment project, Fishbone made what the borough considers to be some disheartening revelations.
According to borough officials, Fishbone asserted that Atkins planned to begin development on the south side of the redevelopment zone, focusing on residential development, before moving on to the area north of Linwood Avenue, primarily a commercial zone. Fishbone added that the developer would also need to add 125 residential units to the project (the town’s original plan included only 50 residential units) in order to make it economically feasible. Furthermore, he stated, Atkins had no plans as of yet to acquire property within the commercial zone.
Mayor Louis Lamatina replied that the north and south areas of the redevelopment zone would have to be done “at the very least, simultaneously. [Atkins] was unable to commit to that during the meeting.” According to Lamatina, at the conclusion of the meeting, he informed Fishbone that Atkins would need to send a letter to the council stating its plans, which now seems to differ from the plans set forth by the borough, and with which Atkins had agreed to comply.
Lamatina met with Atkins again at an Oct. 31 meeting with
Bergen
County planners to discuss the reconfiguration of Kinderkamack Road in the redevelopment zone. Atkins was asked to provide a draft of the road reconfiguration plan to the County, which Lamatina said appeared to be a “cryptic google map.” The county’s response, according to Lamatina, was “not encouraging.”
During that meeting, Fishbone said that in order for the reconfiguration to work, Kinderkamack Road would have to be widened, something Lamatina pointed out could not be done without the developer first acquiring properties along the road. After the meeting, Lamatina said he had “a contentious discussion” with Fishbone on the topic of property acquisition. In response to the heated exchange, and in an effort to clear the air, Borough Administrator Joe Scarpa sent Atkins an e-mail on Nov. 3 requesting their presence at the Nov. 20 borough meeting. According to Lamatina, Atkns did not respond to the e-mail, and they were not present at the meeting.
Lamatina recently received a letter from Kenneth Alosio, the principal planner with the county, in response to the borough’s request that the county analyze the Atkins road reconfiguration plan. In the letter, Alosio states, “Based on our initial analysis of this plan with our traffic simulation software, we do not believe it is a feasible traffic pattern for downtown Emerson… We are working with our traffic model to develop viable alternatives to the plan presented by Atkins. As always the
county of
Bergen is committed to working with the borough of Emerson to achieve the beat possible outcome from your redevelopment efforts.”
Following Atkins’ assertion that it would need to increase the residential density in the redevelopment zone, Lamatina said, “We asked Atkins to run the numbers, and show us that based upon the market values that you cannot make money without increased density.”
As previously stated, the original redevelopment plan produced by Burgis Associates, included only 50 residential units in the redevelopment zone. Lamatina states, On Nov. 19, Lamatina appealed to Burgis Associates for some advice on optimal densities. What Lamatina got from Burgis was a file, produced in 2005, which detailed the assessed values of the blocks and lots in the zone, projected development costs based on the redevelopment plan, and projected market values.
“Prior to Nov. 19, I didn’t even know this economic assessment existed,” said Lamatina. At the bottom of the document is a projected profit for the developer, which Lamatina said is a negative number.
“When I see this,” Lamatina said, “I see red. If everything were done as set forth on this spreadsheet, the developer would lose money. The plan may have insufficient densities in it for a developer to take the project.”
According to Brigette Bogart, of Burgis and Associates, “that file was produced as an internal document,” which Burgis used to estimate “how the design would turn out financially.” She realized the revelation of the document at the Nov. 20 borough meeting caused a stir, but insisted that what the council did not know was that “it was not a final document. If you look at it closely… it does not include all the blocks in the zone, and it include some blocks that are not in the zone.” Therefore, said Bogart, the numbers are not accurate. She added that she has sent a memo to the mayor and council explaining the file, and will be present at the Dec. 4 council meeting to address their concerns.
Although Lamatina said he understands the exact numbers in the document are irrelevant, as asserted by Bogart, he believes that this could explain why two other developers who bid on the project were unable to comply with the plan and why Atkins is now changing its tune. “We need to hear from Atkins exactly what densities they need,” Lamatina said. “At that point the council will decide if the plan needs to be revised.”
Borough Attorney Philip Boggia has drawn up a developer’s agreement and submitted it to Atkins, along with a written mandate that it be reviewed and signed or contested by Dec. 4. The borough was compelled to formally request expedience in Atkins’ response because the developer has repeatedly failed to “comply with the time frames for performance set forth in the borough’s previous letter of intent.”
“We are not going to stand aside and let this thing languish,” Lamatina said. Atkins’ repeated foot-dragging has also led to the borough rejecting its proposal to partner with Roseland Properties, for which Atkins failed to supply requested justification to the mayor and council.
Lamatina had hoped that Atkins would have begun acquiring properties at this point. According to Lamatina, in early talks about the project, Atkins stated it had “never had to use eminent domain” to acquire properties. However, Atkins now says it is unwilling to invest in and hold the commercial properties in the southern end of the zone.
“Commercial [development] may be less profitable… [but] this project is about revitalizing the downtown. The focus of the project is commercial redevelopment,” said Lamatina.
He said that Atkins is free to begin making offers to property owners at any time, and as far as he knows, there are already owners waiting for offers. “I have gotten calls from owners saying, ‘Why isn’t Atkins buying my property?’”
Lamatina admits the development plan itself may need to be amended to increase density, but the borough has ordered Atkins to come forth with its own density requirements and supportive analysis of the properties.
However, “The [residential density] numbers themselves don’t tell the whole story,” Lamatina said. “We need to see how much area these buildings will have to cover.” One of the major aspirations of the project is to produce a “Green Downtown,” so open spaces must be factored into the design.
“We are still working with Atkins. We are still trying to salvage the project,” said Lamatina. “There happens to be a fundamental disagreement between the borough and Atkins.”
Despite the new hitch in the redevelopment plan, Lamatina maintains that it will get done. He said that he is now in the process of consulting with the Department of Community Affair’s “Office of Smart Growth,” in order to gain new insights on how to successfully complete the project.
Scott Fishbone of Atkins did not immediately return phone calls.
Karen F. Mrnarevic's e-mail address is Mrnarevic@northjersey.com
[ back ]
