Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008
-
Upload
perry-klaussen -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008
![Page 1: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008 Western Edge
Redevelopment Plan(RP). I discussed this memo with the
Council Subcommittee on September 10, 2008. Thereafter, a
new draft of the Redevelopment Plan dated September 2008 was
prepared.. I have compared the two drafts and made notes in
bold on the original memo as to the changes. Where no bold
notes appear, no changes were made to the RP in response to the
memo.
COMMENTS ON THE AUGUST 2008
WESTERN EDGE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
At the request of the Hoboken Planning and Zoning Committee, these comments are
submitted in response to the “August 2008 Western Edge Redevelopment Plan” prepared
by Phillip Preiss Shapiro (PPS) regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Western Edge redevelopment zone (RP). Comments also reference the Hoboken Master
Plan adopted in April, 1994 (MP) prepared by PPS.
A redevelopment plan should be viewed as one of the most important documents in the
redevelopment process. It defines the development and sets the parameters for developer
proposals, developer negotiations and agreements, development permitting and approvals
and build-out. Fundamentally, the more specificity that is in the document, the more
control the City will have over the project. The ability to maintain City control is the
benefit of doing redevelopment rather than simply rezoning. If the language in the
redevelopment plan does not establish that control, it will hinder control in all subsequent
documents and actions. Quite simply, if the redevelopment plan does not state the City’s
terms, conditions and demands for the project, the City will be at a serious disadvantage
at the negotiating table with the developer and thereafter. As the redevelopment agency,
the City Council will be held accountable for the project and thus control by the City
Council is critical.
I. INCONSISTENCY WITH MASTER PLAN
A. Predominantly Residential Development
![Page 2: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
2
The RP calls for predominantly residential development. Of the over 1.4 million square
feet of development, only 25,000 s/f (2%) will be devoted to non- residential
development. It should be noted that this is 5,000 s/f less commercial development than
the amount that was presented at the June 25, 2008 public meeting. There is no
explanation for this 20% reduction in non-residential use.
This high density residential development is not consistent with the Master Plan which
specifically calls for office development in the Industrial Transition Area on the westside.
This Western Edge area is designated as an “Industrial Transition Area”. The MP states:
“Limited industrial uses will continue to be permitted in these areas
with public facilities and office development permitted as well. (MP - p. 158).
In addition to this clear statement of intent for office development, the Master Plan
specifically states that:
“The land use mix in Hoboken is skewed towards residential and other non-
commercial uses. Even with recent growth in office space, it appears that the
office market in Hoboken can accommodate additional office space.” (MP- p 74)
Most significantly, the MP expressly recommends, “smaller scale offices around the
light rail stations” (MP- p.74). Since the western edge directly abuts the 9th
Street light
rail station, it is inconsistent with the Master Plan to ignore the recommendation for
office uses that would stimulate new businesses and jobs for Hoboken.
The Master Plan also recognizes that Hoboken has a tradition of mixing uses and that a
wide range of uses can coexist in even a small geographic area such as Hoboken. The
Master Plans specifically recommends that Hoboken should continue to “maintain an
appropriate mix of land uses.” (MP- P. 32) A predominately residential development is
inconsistent with this recommendation.
No discussion is provided in the RP as to why office development and the taxes revenues
from such development are not as capable as residential development of underwriting
some of the park land costs. There is no discussion in the RP with respect to the
increased tax burden that results from residential development. Recent press suggests
that the police department is outgrowing its space yet again. That growth is directly
related to the increase in population due to new residential development. Consideration
should be given to examining the tax impact of the existing NW Redevelopment zone.
Even, the NW Zone more commercial density than is being proposed for the Western
Edge. Commercial neighborhood services are seriously lacking for the new residents of
the NW Zone. The minimal retail proposed in the RP for the Western Edge does nothing
to alleviate this problem.
The effect of this RP is to create a residentially dominated development which will over
the long-term create an increased demand for City services that will outpace the tax
revenue it generates. It also provides no opportunity to for Hoboken to expand its tax
![Page 3: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
3
base to non-residential uses which would generate higher revenues per City services
required and create new jobs.
While some may say the office market is soft, that is also now true of the residential
market. Hoboken should not make its long term development decisions on the basis of
short term market demand. If this is truly the last frontier before Hoboken reaches full
build out, then Hoboken should provide for its land use needs rather than providing what
the short term development market desires to build.
B. Height
The 400% increase in building heights proposed by the RP( existing zoning 4 stories RP
zoning 16+ stories) is inconsistent with the MP. A review of the MP reveals that most of
the discussion of height in the MP is contained in the description of the exiting land use
regulations (MP – p.19- 20). Immediately following this existing height discussion, are
the recommendations. (MP- p. 22 -25) No where in those MP recommendations is there
any mention of a goal to increase height for Hoboken.
The MP map of the existing permitted building heights demonstrates that Hoboken is
predominately a low rise community consisting of mostly two to five stories (MP- p. 20
and 29, Table II-2). Pockets of higher buildings have come to Hoboken only after many
growing pains. Ten years of litigation and two voter referendums preceded the
construction of the south waterfront buildings; four years of appeals and litigation
preceded the Shipyard development. The failure to adopt zoning regulations for almost
five years after the adoption of the MP has led to major variance approvals of
controversial high-rise condominium projects (101 Marshall and 900 Monroe).
Page 9 of the proposed RP states that one of the goals and objectives is to “allow for
taller buildings in exchange for open space”. It should be noted that there is no mention
of this “height for open space exchange” in the goals and objectives in the MP Land Use
Recommendations for the West Side. (MP. p.124-126) :
“Hoboken is in need of additional open space and community facilities. To the
greatest extent possible, new development –particularly in this section of the City-
should contribute to the provision these elements”. (MP, p. 125)
There is no economic information in the RP nor any information provided at the public
meetings to substantiate the enormous height increase (400% of the existing height) in
exchange for open space. Thus, there is no way for the public or the City Council to
evaluate the trade-off.
The City should first consider what is an acceptable height and density for the long term
viability of the City. This decision can not be made without appropriate economic
![Page 4: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
4
information as to the cost and benefits of development. Such cost benefit analysis should
be done with the assistance of a qualified financial consultant.
C. Palisades
The RP proposes enormous height increases for the westside from the existing 4 stories to
as high as 16 stories. The RP states:
The goal is to keep the overall building height below that of the top of the
Palisades”
No where in the MP is there precedence or support for creating buildings the height of the
Palisades. It coincidently appears that the rationale for height in the RP comes straight
from the site plan application to the zoning board submitted by Tarragon to support its 12
story development on 900 Monroe. (RP. p 29 and 31, Figures 11 through 13). This calls
into question the rationale that the public has been presented that the height is driven by
the necessity to generate revenue to subsidize open space.
The RP recommendation for up to 16 stories also ignores the MP limitation on height for
the area bounded by the Palisades. The MP specifically recognizes the “visual relief”
that the cliffs of the Palisades provide to Hoboken, which is a “densely developed
community with limited open space resources.” The MP expressly recommends
“limitations on height” to protect the view of this natural resource from Hoboken. (MP –
p. 22).
The RP proposes that “buildings taller than five stories be oriented east/west so as to
preserve views through to the Palisades and also maximize views of project residents”.
(RP- p.30) Contrary to the MP, the RP language expresses more concern for protecting
the views of the project residents than that the views of the public. Nowhere in the MP is
there mention of protecting “project resident views” as a goal or recommendation. This
is clearly a developer goal. Certainly, the public is not interested in accepting higher
density development for the benefit of creating views for a select few.
D. Park and Recreational Space
Another clear mandate in the MP for the western area is park land. The MP clearly
identifies the critical lack of open space in Hoboken no matter what park standard
applies. (MP – pp. 41-44) It also specifically recognizes that the applicable park standard
is 2.0 acres of active recreational space per one thousand people. Thus, with Hoboken’s
current population in excess of 40,000, and estimates of well over 50,000 when built out,
Hoboken should be looking to acquire and develop more than 100 acres of active
recreational space. Hoboken has only 40 acres of such land, which includes both existing
parkland and that presently owned and being constructed but not yet on line. That
represents a 60 acre open space deficit which needs to be addressed.
![Page 5: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
5
With each new building built in Hoboken, we add new residents without providing new
open space and increase the park deficit. Many of the new developments in Hoboken
have not provided any open space. For those developments which have, much of the
open space is not active but passive space such as building plaza areas. The amount of
open space most often does not even meet park-to-resident ratio open space standards to
satisfy the increase in population from the development alone, never mind reducing the
deficit. Recognizing this significant problem, the MP specifically states:
“The City should aggressively pursue the creation of new parks and recreational
facilities.” (MP – pp. 41-47 and Map 4)
Map 4 identifies 6.53 acres of park along the light rail between 9th
and 12th
Streets
(Blocks 92, 93, 97, 101 and 105) as proposed new park land.
At both the first and second meetings on this proposed RP, the public clearly expressed
its desire for information which would justify the conclusion that it is economically
infeasible to create the MP park land as suggested in the MP on the Western Edge. No
data has been provided in response to that request by the public to date. Instead, the
public has only been repeatedly told that it must accept large-scale development of
undisclosed height and density in order for the public to receive any park land.
If the City sincerely demonstrates the economic basis of its decision to dispense with park
land on the Western Edge, as called for in the MP, it may very well be that the public can
accept that decision. But without any substantiated financial data, the public should not
be expected to simply accept the loss of MP proposed park land. Presently, the public is
being told that a developer paid a great deal of money for the land and that it is too
expensive to develop as park. Factual information about actual land values and zoning
variance changes should be provided to the public if that is in fact the justification for of
the City’s decision to diverge from the clear intention of the MP park recommendations.
II. VISION AND GOALS (RP p. 9)
Although the RP indentifies the goals of the plan as open space, additional retail and
affordable housing (RP p 9), the RP is written predominately to meet a different goal
which is residential. This residential portion of the plan has the most detail in the
language of the RP. Eleven pages are devoted to detailing building bulk standards. Only
two bullets are devoted to affordable housing, one paragraph to the community center and
just two and one half pages are devoted to open space and recreation. (RP 18-21)
III. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (RP p18)
Although the RP lists open space and recreation as the first key element of the plan ( RP
p. 1), the language of the RP lacks mandatory specificity and does not assure the parks
![Page 6: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
6
will be built nor assure the City Council will have control over park design or function.
At the very least, the RP should specify when in the course of the development the
community benefits will be completed so that those improvements are not built last.
Language should be included to enforce this by conditioning the issuance of certificates
of occupancy for the buildings on the completion of the community center, parks and
green circuit.
A. 4.4 Acres Open Space
The RP states that two large parks (3.2 acres), a green circuit (1.23 acres) and a 30,000 s/f
community center are key elements of the plan ((RP- p 1). The acreage sited in the RP
for these public amenities appears inconsistent with the overall acreage of the
redevelopment area. Under the RP, the acreage for the four properties totals 10.94 acres.
The RP also states that the acreage for the parks and green circuit totals 4.4 acres (RP p
1). The inconsistency occurs when the RP defines the” Building Zones“
(RP p 23) which is the area for residential and mixed use development. When one
subtracts the total redevelopment zone acreage (10.94) from the building zone acreage
(8.65 acres), it appears that there is only 1.99 acres left for parks and green circuit, not
4.4 acres.
B. Open Space and Recreation (RP p 18)
The RP lack detail as to parks other than to provide a general location for the parks. (RP
p 18) Missing from the language of the RP is any reference to the requirement that the
parks be “public” other than the reference to the public pool and in the “mews”
definition. Thus there is nothing in the RP regarding how the title to the land will be held
and who will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the park land and
community center. Without this detail in the RP, any developer proposal and pro-forma
will be incomplete in its understanding of the cost of the project.
The RP states that the following types of open space be provided:
“At grade, publically accessible open space (parks, playgrounds, plazas, trails,
green circuit, etc shall occupy at least 40% of the total area of the redevelopment
area, i.e. +- 4.4 acres, excluding public streets” ( RP p 18).
This definition is profoundly vague and may explain the discrepancy in the purported
open space acreage described in these comments above. Under the language of this
definition, open space can include any and all of the following - public sidewalks, public
rights of way, building entrance plazas, light rail buffer bushes, building setback areas
and even the truck easement and building plaza space from the 900 Monroe zoning board
approval. Thus, there is enormous latitude in what the developer can include in the
calculation of open space. Because the acreage is described as “plus or minus 4.4 acres”,
even the amount of open space is uncertain. Without a specific description in the RP of
![Page 7: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
7
the actual amount and location of the land devoted to open space, there is no assurance of
any amount of acreage.
CHANGE PG 18.
A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE DEFINITION OF
WHAT IS INCLUDED AND NOT INCLUDED IN MEETING THE 40%
OPEN SPACE.
INCLUDED IS:
“PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SPACES” (I ASSUME THIS INCLUDES
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS)
“AT GRADE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS”
“PEDESTRIAN - ONLY MEWS” (THE DEFINITION OF MEWS SAYS IT
INCLUDES ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING UNITS)
“BUFFER PLANTNGS ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL”
EXCLUDED IS:
MEWS THAT ALLOW DAILY VEHICULAR USE (THUS I ASSUME
MEWS WITH VEHICULAR USE LESS THAN DAILY WILL COUNT AS
OPEN SPACE)
PARKING OR ACCESS TO PARKING
LANDSCAPED ROOFS
DRIVEWAYS AND DROPOFFS
BUILDING SETBACKS FACING PUBLIC STREETS (THUS IT APPEARS
BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG LIGHT RAIL WILL COUNT AS OPEN
SPACE)
3FT PLANTER AREAS ADJACENT TO PARKING GARAGES
THE NEW DRAFT REMAINS VERY GENEROUS WHEN IT COMES TO
INCLUDING NORMAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (SUCH AS
BUFFFER PLAINTINGS AND SIDEWALKS) AS OPEN SPACE.
![Page 8: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
8
THE DEFINITION OF MEWS IS FOUND IN TWO DIFFERENT
FOOTNOTES (PGS.18 AND 19). ONE SAYS MEWS IS “PEDESTRIAN –
ONLY” AND THE OTHER SAYS THEY” MAY ACCOMMODATE
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC”. ONE SAYS THE MEWS SHOULD BE 25 FEET
IN WIDTH, THE OTHER SAYS IT SHALL BE SHALL BE ATLEAST
25FT IN WIDTH. ALSO, THE USE OF SHOULD AND SHALL IS
INCONSISTENT.
More disturbing is that all of the park land in the RP is referred to as “Passive Parks”.
(RP p18) The recent creation of passive parks by developers has been a serious problem
for the residents who have been anxiously awaiting new baseball, basketball and soccer
fields which have not materialized despite enormous development. Clearly, developers
have demonstrated their desire to prohibit active parkland adjacent to their residential
buildings (e.g. Maxwell Place and Toll 15th
Street). The RP does not address this, thus
ignoring the MP’s call for active recreation in this area.
CHANGE PG 18
WHILE THE ABOVE CONCERN REGARDING PASSIVE PARKS IS
NOT ADDRESSED, NEW LANGAUGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO
DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF PARK BLOCKS 1 AND 2. THE
LANGUAGE NOW INCLUDES THE LOTS AND BLOCKS THAT
COMPRISE THE PARKS. UNFORTUNATLEY, PARK BLOCK 1 HAS
BEEN REDUCED IN SIZE FROM +-1.4 ACRES TO 1.03 ACRES. PARK
BLOCK 2 HAS BEEN REDUCED IN SIZE FROM +- 1.73 ACRES TO 1.56
ACRES.
A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
PARK BLOCKS 1 AND 2 DO NOT ADD UP TO 4.4 ACRES AS RAISED
IN THE COMMENTS. IT STATES THAT THE MISSING 1.81 ACRES
MUST BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE GREEN CIRCUIT OR WITHIN
BUILDING ZONES. WITHOUT MORE SPECIFICITY BEING PUT
INTO THE PLAN, THE LOCATION OF OVER 40% OF THE OPEN
SPACE IN THE PLAN IS LEFT TO THE DESCRETION OF THE
DEVELOPER. BECAUSES THE GREEN CIRCUIT IS ONLY DEFINED
AS A 25 FOOT PATH ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL( PG 20), THERE IS NO
INFORMATION IN THE PLAN AS TO HOW MUCH ACREAGE A 25
FOOT PATH WILL PROVIDE PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT OPEN SPACE INCLUDES THE BUFFER PLANTINGS
ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL.
![Page 9: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
9
The City Council should pay close attention to the repeated references to the words
“may” and “should” in this open space section (RP p. 18 and 20). Whenever those words
are used, it is not a mandatory requirement for the developer and the City gives up
control. That is because the language of the RP that occurs as early as page 2 where the
word should is first defined as follows:
“Should means that the developer is encouraged to comply but not required to do
so. If the exact recommendation can not be met, the planning board will entertain
any modification that meets the underlying spirit and intent of the regulation and/
the Redevelopment Plan.” (RP p. 2)
NO CHANGE PAGE 2,
THIS LANGUAGE WAS DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL AT THE
COMMITTEE. WHILE THE REVISED PLAN CHANGED THE WORD
FROM “SHOULD” TO “SHALL” INCERTAIN PLACES, THIS
PARAGRAPH REMAINS AND CREATES A SEROUS SHORTCOMING
IN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE
REDEVELPOMENT AGENCY.
This language creates a very broad loophole for the developer in the document. The
Council must look very closely at all instances in the RP where the word “should” is
used. In any instance where the term is used, it is not a mandatory requirement. More
significantly, any place where the term “should” is used, the Council’s control over the
development is ceded to the developer and planning board.
One example of this is the use of the word “should” in describing the mews. Even
though the RP show pictures of the mews as a community benefit, the actual language
about the mews does not mandate them:
“Either a mews or circular hardscaped plaza should be provided at the end of
each of the numbered streets to provide a sense of arrival to the open space as
well as a to provide a terminus along the streets” (RP p 18)
CHANGE PG 18.
“SHOULD” IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN CHANGED TO
“SHALL” IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT.
“SHOULD” WAS NOT CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN THE FOLLOWING -
“PARKS SHOULD BE LOCATED AT GRADE OF THE SIDEWALK,
WITH BARRIER FREE ACCESS”. THUS, A DEVELOPER CAN
PROVIDE A PARK THAT IS NOT AT GRADE PROVIDED THE
PLANNING BOARD ALLOWS IT. THIS DISCRETION IS PROVIDED
![Page 10: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
10
TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE LANGUAGE ON PG 2 OF THE
RP (SEE DISCUSSION ABOVE)
“SHOULD” WAS ALSO CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN THE GREEN
CIRCUIT SECTION. THE GREEN CIRCUIT SECTION RAISES A
QUESTION BECAUSE IT STATES ( PG 20) THAT “A PORTION OF THE
GREEN CIRCUIT SHALL BE BUILT ALONG THE HBLR”. THERE IS
NO EXPLANATION ABOUT WHERE THE REMAINING PORTION IS
OR WHERE IT WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROJECT. THE WIDTH
OF THE CIRCUIT IS STILL UNLCEAR. IS THE 3 FT BUFFER NEXT TO
BUILDINGS AND THE 5 FT BUFFER NEXT TO THE HBLR INCUDED
IN THE 25 FT WIDTH CIRCUIT? IF SO, THE PEDESTRIAN PATH IS
ONY 17 FT WIDE. BUILDING LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT
ENCROACH ON THE 25 FT PUBLIC WAY.
Because of the word “should” in the language above, the developer and the planning
board have the discretion not to require the mews in the development. (RP p 2)
In both the definition of open space (RP p 18) and the design guidelines for the park
blocks (RP p 20), the RP uses the word “may” in describing the park amenities. The only
mandatory element for the new park area is a dog run and tot lot. The effect of this
language is that the City gives up control over the design of the community benefit and
has the potential to get no more than grass, bushes and two fenced in areas for tots and
dogs. Certainly, the public expects more then this in exchange for three blocks of up to
16 story buildings.
C. Community Center and Pool (RP p 21)
Perhaps the most significant example of non-mandatory language problem in the RP is in
the description of the location of the community center:
“The Plan requires the development of a community center with an outdoor
public pool that may be developed on or off-site” (RP p. 18)
CHANGE PG 18
THE LAST 7 WORDS OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE HAVE BEEN
DELETEED IN THE REVISED RP. THE LOCATION OF THE POOL
AND COMMUNITY CENTER REMAINS UNKNOWN AND IN THE
DEVELOPER’S DISCRETION pg 21). THIS IS THE MAJOR AMENITY
BEING OFFERED FOR THE PROJECT AND YET THE RP CONTAINS
ALMOST NOT DETAIL. IT IS UNCLEAR WHY THE POOL IS
DESCRIBED AS “PUBLIC” BUT NOT THE COMMUNITY CENTER.
![Page 11: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
11
In effect, the language fails to establish any location for the community center and leaves
that decision to the developer. Curiously, the one thing mandated in this section is that if
the community center is to be located off-site, it must be within 500 feet of the
redevelopment zone. There is no explanation for this odd requirement other than it is an
attempt to refer to the location of the land next to the electrical transformer substation
without mentioning the transformer substation. Most worrisome is that the RP puts the
control over the location and design of the community benefit in the hands of the
developer not the public.
The community center is a very important element in this plan. It is critical that the
location of the center be determined by the public and the City based upon the location
that is most beneficial to the residents not based upon whatever land is left after the
developer fulfills its desired FAR building ratio. The one paragraph description of the
community center in the RP (RP p21) is not the level of detail needed to assure the public
and inform the developer that this time they will get a community center. A question also
exists as to whether the City Council can require a community center to be built outside
of the redevelopment area without properly zoning such land for that use.
When referring to the community center, the RP states that the facility shall provide for:
minimum 2 story 25,000 square foot building designed to accommodate. gymnasium space with basketball courts; men’s and women’s locker rooms, arts
and craft and dance studios, a computer lab; offices; and an outdoor swimming
pool and kiddie pool”( RP p 21)
This language can be construed to mean that the only thing the developer must build is
the shell building of 25,000 square feet that would “accommodate” the amenities.
CHANGE PG 21
THE WORDS “DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE” HAVE BEEN
DELETED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT
There is no language which expressly provides that the developer must build the
amenities listed. There is also no reference to the land ownership. Even thought there is
more detail as to the amenities for the community center than for the parks, there has
been no public process to design the facility. Among other things missing from the detail
is how many basketball courts and what size the pool will be.
The City must be informed of the operation and maintenance expenses anticipated to be
incurred annually for the community center so that the expense related to the facility can
be properly budgeted. While it has been presented that a developer would pay for the
construction of the facility, no information has been provided about the operation and
![Page 12: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
12
maintenance expenses of such a facility and who would be responsible for such ongoing
expenses. The RP should include specific language as to what the developer’s financial
responsibilities are with respect to both construction and ongoing maintenance so that any
developer pro-forma submitted in response to the RP addresses the same.
Under an appropriate redevelopment plan process, the residents, with the assistance of a
professional landscape architect, not the developer, would decide what community
benefits should be provided and where. Such a process would allow the community to
decide if it is appropriate to locate a community center next to an electric transformer
station and to provide design input on park facilities. The RP should contain language
that specifies this design process and indicates that not only will the developer be
required to pay for the design process the developer will be required to build the results
of the design process. Developer proformas must reference this budget to be considered.
D. Green Circuit (RP p 20)
The RP again uses the word “should” throughout the section describing the green circuit.
Mandatory words are only occasionally used such as with respect to the location of the
green circuit along the light rail and the requirement for trees to mask the tracks. In
describing the width of the green circuit the RP states:
The green circuit should be no less than 25 feet in width at any point and should
include a landscaped buffer of between 3 to 5 feet abutting the HBLR tracks and
the building zone.” (RP p 20)
CHANGE PG 20
WHILE THE WORD “SHOULD” HAS BEEN CHANGED TO “SHALL”,
THE WIDTH OF THE CIRCUIT IS STILL UNLCEAR. THERE
REMAINS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE 3 FT BUFFER NEXT
TO BUILDINGS AND THE 5’ BUFFER NEXT TO THE HBLR ARE
INCUDED IN THE 25’ WIDTH OF THE CIRCUIT THUS MAKING THE
PEDESTRIAN PATH ONLY 17 FT WIDE FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
BUILDING LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE 25 FT
PUBLIC WAY. SINCE THE RP ONLY STATES THAT A “PORTION OF
THE CIRCUIT SHALL BE HARDSCAPED”, THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF
THE HARDSCAPED PORITION OF THE CIRCUIT IS NOT SPECIFIED
AND MAY NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH FOR BICYCLING.
Benches and lighting should be provided along the green circuit (RP p 20)
CHANGE PG 20
![Page 13: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
13
“SHOULD” HAS BEEN CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN RESPONSE TO
COMMENT.
Again, significant City control is given up by the use of the word “should” in the above
description of the width of the green circuit. Although the RP states that a “portion of the
green circuit shall be hardscaped so as to allow to provide barrier free paths and to
allow cyclists”, the RP fails to delineate the width of the hardscape. Thus because the
width of the entire greenway is not a mandatory 25 feet (RP p 20), there is no guarantee
that the hardscape will be a functional width for bicycling.
From the rendering of the green circuit, it is unclear where the right of way for the light
rail ends and the proposed path begins. For example, a portion of Block 92 (Lot 00002)
and Block 97 (Lot 00001), which border the light rail and amount to 13,276 sq/ft of land,
are owned by NJ Junction Railroad. It is unclear if this land is being included in PPS’s
calculation of 4.4 acres of open space. In addition, all of Block 101 (8,034sq/ft) and
Block 105, Lot 1.2 (9,391sq/ft), are shown on PPS’ rendering as part of this path. This
property is owned exclusively by NJ Transit. The RP must include more clear and
specific delineation of the land devoted specifically to the green circuit.
IV. LAND USE, HEIGHT BULK AND PARKING (RP p. 23)
A. Building Open Space Ratio (RP p. 18 and 23)
According to the RP, the total building area is 8.65 acres and the total acreage of the site
is 10.94 acres. If these numbers in the RP are accurate, the total non- building area is
2.29 acres. Accordingly, it appears that of the 4.4 acres of open space referenced in the
RP, only 2.1 acres of space is not associated with the buildings. There are also various
references to “building plaza areas” in the definition of building setbacks for all zones
(RP- p 30). Thus the RP appears to include the building plaza setback areas in the
calculation of the of 4.4 aces of open space.
CHANGE PG 23
THE BUILDING ZONES LANGUAGE ( PG 23) HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO STATE THAT PARKS AND OTHER OPEN
SPACES ARE PERMITTED IN THE BUILDIONG ZONES. THIS
CHANGE WAS NECESSITATED BY THE FACT THAT 1.8
ACRES OF OPEN SPACE WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE
PARK AREAS BLOCKS 1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL RP. ALL
REFERENCES TO THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE BUILDING
ZONES HAVE BEEN DELETED IN THE REVISED RP.
B. Parking (RP p 32)
![Page 14: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
14
The RP states that if the non residential uses in Building Zones 1, 2 and 3 total less than
30,000 s/f, no parking is required. This amounts to an incentive to developers to reduce
the non-residential uses in the development to the minimum (which is 25,000 s/f) in order
to avoid producing parking. Thus the RP contains a disincentive to produce even the
minimum level of non-residential use and assures that the development will be
predominately residential contrary to the MP. The RP states that because Hoboken is a
walkable City parking is not required for open space and recreation uses. Consideration
should be given to the fact that the pool and community center may need parking to
function appropriately. At the very least there should be a provision for some sort of
family drop- off area.
CHANGE P6 32
A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED REGARDING CAR
SHARING:
In order to use garage space efficiently and make it convenient for residents to own fewer or no cars, development is encouraged to explore with car-sharing services such as Zipcar the possibility of dedicating one or more parking spaces for shared vehicles.
C. Non-Residential Yield (RP p26)
Under the RP, a minimum of 25,000 square feet of residential development is to be built
at 900 Monroe. Thus, the only location where non-residential development must occur
will be at the southernmost portion of the entire development site. This small amount of
non-residential use will unfortunately minimize street activity in this redevelopment zone
and will not solve the problem already expressed by residents of the westside that retail
services are sorely lacking. The RP should have a major increase in the required amount
of commercial development.
Notwithstanding the clear mandate for office space in the MP for this area, the RP does
not even list office space as a secondary permitted use (RP p 24). In fact, the only use
akin to office use is the reference to banking and financial institutions. There is no
language or goal mentioned in the RP for the creation of jobs.
D. Green Space and Open Space Frontages (RP p 26)
During the public meeting, residents expressed much concern that the green circuit would
amount to dead space behind the back of the development next to the light rail. The
language of the RP does not to fully address the concern. The RP simply state that:
Adjacent to the green circuit and other open spaces, primary and secondary uses
are recommended, but not required along the first level of buildings” (RP p. 26)
![Page 15: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
15
This non-mandatory language allows the developer to place parking next to the greenway
and open space frontages. Again, the RP creates an incentive to do less not more. The
greenway is also further compromised by the fact that the RP requires the off-street
parking loading spaces to be located at the rear of the building away from street facing
frontages and thus next to the greenway. Under this language it is most likely that the
greenway predominantly abut parking garages. (RP p 24).
E. All Building Zone Heights (RP p. 28)
As discussed earlier in these comments, no where in the MP is there precedence or
support for creating buildings the height of the Palisades. The RP calls for 120 feet for
all three building zones (RP p 28) and thus simply duplicates the 900 Monroe zoning
board approvals for all the building areas. Despite the MP’s call to protect the Palisades,
the RP exempts rooftop appurtenances (18ft) and rooftop screenings from the height
restrictions.
F. Building Setbacks ( RP p 28)
The RP provides that “along the light rail tracks the building should be set back 40 feet”.
(RP p 28) . This width of setback is insufficient for a greenway and the language in the
RP does not even assure this width. In fact, it is possible under this language that there
will be no greenway provided at all because of the use of the word “should” in this
language. In effect, the developer is simply not required to comply with this setback and
it can be changed by the developer and the planning board. In order to assure the public
that a greenway will be built, much more detail needs to be provided in the RP mandating
the exact location and widths of the greenway.
CHANGE P6 28
SHOULD CHANGED TO SHALL IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT
The language in the RP also creates the potential that the 40 foot width will be
compromised and much narrower in reality. The RP states that the setback areas “shall be
landscaped and may provide fencing, gates or walls not to exceed three feet in height
along the front of the setback area”. (RP- pg28) This language has the potential to
interfere with publically useable width of the greenway. Without more specificity with
respect to the exact dimensions and location of the public greenway, the public’s use will
be compromised. In addition, because the light rail right of way is not clearly delineated
as part of the RP, it is entirely unclear whether any portion of 40 foot setback for the
green circuit is possible.
A greenway without mandates and left to the discretion of the developer will result in
nothing more than a building setback. Without more detail, the greenway will function
more as a shield for the lower floor residents from the noise and view of the light rail
tracks than as a public greenway amenity. Perhaps an alternative should be explored to
![Page 16: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
16
push the backdoor of the development closer to the tracks and create a more appealing
green circuit in front of the buildings.
G. Screening (RP 36)
While there is language in the RP attempting to screen the green circuit, it is insufficient.
The RP states that “large areas of blank, solid walls are prohibited along street-facing
parking areas” (RP p 36). This language would not apply to parking areas facing the
green circuit because the green circuit is not defined as a “street”. Thus, the benefit of
the screening does not apply to the green circuit and the public’s concern over the
“backdoor” feel of the green circuit is not addressed.
CHANGE PG 36
THE DELETION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. INSTEAD, THE
PROHIBITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPANDED TO MAKE SURE
THAT BLANK WALLS ARE PROHITED ALONG BOTH STREET-
FACING AND GREEN CIRUIT- FACING PARKING AREAS.
Moreover, there is a requirement that façade of any exposed parking structure shall
include a three foot deep landscaped area to soften the appearance of the parking garage.
(RP p.36) As indicated above, the City Council should determine how much useable
greenway will remain if three feet is taken up by building landscaping. While
landscaping is appropriate, there should also be mandatory width requirement preserved
for the greenway. Most importantly, building landscaping should not be included in the
4.4 acres calculation of the acreage of open space.
The RP also states that the screening of parking structures with active uses is one of the
key elements of the RP (RP p 2). Nevertheless, this screening is not required “except
along public streets” which means that the greenway will not benefit from active uses in
front of the parking garages unless the greenway is defined in the RP as a street.
H. Building Transparency (RP p 39)
The MP recommends avoiding the monolithic structure of the NW Zone yet the RP
appears to allow that type of development. In the lower buildings, front stoops are only
required every fifty feet. This is much less than the average stoop distance for Hoboken.
In fact, the 50 foot stoop distance is also the same distance that the RP uses for retail
entrances. (RP- p 39)
It is unclear how this development will differ from the monolithic feel of NW Zone.
More problematic is the effect on the green circuit. The RP states that, “ancillary
entrances are encouraged along the green circuit and other park spaces and open
spaces” (RP- p39). That means that they are not required. Without a mandate for
entrances from the buildings to the green circuit, the buildings will not provide any
interplay with the greenway. Thus, it is highly likely that the border to the green circuit
![Page 17: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
17
will be parking lots walls with ornamental window holes. This is precisely what the
public criticized in the plan when it was presented at the public meetings.
I. Materials (RP p 40)
While the RP states that one of the redevelopment goals is “high quality building design”
(RP p 10), the RP contains little in terms of building material mandates to assure this goal
is met. One of the most important things that a redevelopment plan can do is allow the
City to regulate building design detail. The RP creates a laundry list of possible materials
for facades yet uses word such as “should” and “preferred” throughout the language
undermining the effect. No mention is made of LEED in this section. No mention is
made of the use of energy saving and recycled materials. Of particular concern is the fact
that none of the language on the façade materials applies to the green circuit side of the
building. This means that the materials used on the building side that abuts the public
greenway are not mandated and could be of a lesser quality (RP- p 40)- Again the use of
the word” should” when describing the ornamental grillwork, etc. means that the
developer is not required to provide it.
CHANGE PG 40
CHANGED SHOULD TO SHALL IN ONE SENTENCE REGRARDING
FASCADES. UNCLEAR WHY THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT CHANGED
THROUGHOUT SECTION.
J. Green Design and LEED Certification and Site Design (RP p 41)
Hoboken has the opportunity in the westside to do what it has lost the opportunity to do
in the last ten years of development. Hoboken can create a 21 century city that embodies
the latest thinking and technology. If Hoboken simply sits back and allows a developer
to design this project, Hoboken will get buildings based upon short term returns and
cookie cutter architecture. Hoboken deserves better. Hoboken will not achieve better
unless it demands better. We are fortunate. Hoboken has enormous real estate values
even in a down market (location, location, location) and unique natural resources
(Palisades and Hudson River). For Hoboken to diminish this value by allowing less then
excellence in development unacceptable. If Hoboken allows a developer to determine the
level of green building, the developer’s twelve month investment revenue- return mindset
will deprive Hoboken of its 21 century city.
The RP devotes only one page to a topic that is of extraordinary interest to the residents
of Hoboken and has been mentioned repeatedly in the public meetings- green building.
As was pointed out by the City’s planning consultant at the NJ Transit redevelopment
area meeting, Hoboken developer’s can achieve a certain level LEED rating by simply
building in the location of Hoboken. Thus, if Hoboken expects to achieve true LEED
benefits for its residents, Hoboken must be very specific about LEED certification and
requirements. The RP does not contain the specificity required. For example, the RP
uses words such as LEED “qualified” rather than “certified” when referring to the green
![Page 18: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
18
roofs. (RP p 41) It does not require LEED at all if the developer provides decks to
residents on 25.1% of the rooftop and simply landscapes the rest. As with other sections
of the RP, the language in RP contains an incentive to produce less. Much research and
engineering exists with respect of green roofs. Just over the River and around the country
initiatives are underway to green roof many buildings that are new and old. Hoboken
must adopt specific regulation to achieve a standard that is more than just landscaping on
a roof.
While the RP states that site design shall “minimize environmental damage and reduce
energy use” it provides no teeth for these lofty goals. (RP p 41) The RP simply defaults to
existing NJDEP storm-water regulations which the developer would be required to
comply with anyway. (RP p. 41) There is no language about building configuration to
maximize solar energy. There is no requirement for recycling of storm water and building
grey water. Hoboken needs to look no further than uptown for lessons in green
development.
CHANGE PG 41
THE ROOFTOP LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO REFER MORE
SPECIFICALLY TO LEEDS. I AM NO EXPERT ON THIS SO HAVE NO
IDEA IF THIS IS GOOD LANGUAGE (PG 41 TOP). IT ALSO ADDS
LEEDS FLOODING LANGUAGE WHICH AGAIN I AM NOT ABLE TO
COMMENT ON.
K. Signage (RP p 42)
In order for the greenway and other park areas to be successful proper signage both in the
open space areas and directional signage to the areas must be provided by the developer.
The existence of the greenway if located in back of the buildings will not be readily
apparent to most of the public. The RP makes no mention of this signage.
V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RP p.26)
The RP only requires 100 units of affordable housing. Since the RP does not specify or
impose a limit on the total number of units allowed in the development, there is no way to
determine how much of a deficit of affordable unit the RP creates. The casual reference
in the RP to the rules of the Council on Affordable Housing is insufficient. Specific
reference should be made to the ratio of units required by the regulation. The regulations
provide that for every 5 units of market rate housing constructed, one affordable unit
must be constructed. Reference should also be made to the fact that the developer shall
be responsible for providing any increase or decrease in units that may be caused by
further regulation until site plan approval is obtained. This issue will inevitably be raised
by the developer in negotiations and thus the City’s position on the issue should be clear
in the RP.
![Page 19: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
19
As of June 8, 2008, the NJ Department of Community Affairs adopted final regulations
for affordable housing. There is a requirement for the City to provide a growth share
obligation regardless of how many units of affordable housing already exist in the City.
The obligation is imposed based upon new units constructed which receive a Certificate
of Occupancy as of January, 2004.
The RP also lacks specifics requirements for bedroom count for the units. This effects not
only the ability of the City to impose the bedroom counts for affordable housing but it
also does not give the City control over the number of bedroom that the units will
provide. If the City desires to provide more family units, there should be a specific
requirement for the same in the RP.
The RP states that affordable housing is required but fails to provide detail as to how it
will be provided. There is no requirement in the plan that the affordable housing will be
constructed at the expense of the developer. There is also no reference to whether the
City will entertain a tax abatements and whether tax abatements would be limited to
financing only the affordable units. The issue will most definitely be raised by the
developer in the development agreement negotiations.
Without a specific reference in the RP to the affordable housing obligation being
undertaken by the developer, the City is at risk of falling short and having the overall,
City-wide obligation imposed upon the taxpayers elsewhere in the City. Without an
explicit reference to the number of affordable units in the redevelopment plan, developers
responding to a request for proposals may not properly account for the obligation in their
pro-formas. The RP should explicitly address the affordable housing obligation so that
there is no question when the designated developer’s site plan is submitted to the
Planning Board that the affordable housing obligation will be a condition of site plan
approval. This will assure that the financial burden of producing the units will not fall to
the taxpayers
VI. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS (RP P 45)
A. New Construction (RP p 45)
The RP makes only a casual reference to the selection of a developer. This section should
be much more specific with respect to the process and criteria for developer proposals
and selection. If such a process is not included, the City risks site owners and developers
proceeding to the planning and zoning board to seek approvals without being the
designated developer. The RP is the fundamental document which defines the terms and
conditions of project, future developer negotiations and the developer’s agreement. Thus
the RP should be as specific as possible about the expectations regarding the developer
qualifications and profromas.
![Page 20: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
20
The RP states that the developer’s agreement will stipulate “precise nature and extent of
the improvements to be made and their timing and phasing” (RP p45). While certainly
those things must be in the agreement, it is also appropriate for the City to specify its
expectations regarding the development in the RP. For example, if the City has a
timeframe within which is desires the community benefits to be produced and the
development to be completed, it should say so in the RP so as to alert the potential
developers to address the same in their proposal.
B. Other Actions (RP p 45-47)
This section refers to other actions that may be taken by the governing body to further
goals of the plan. It lists infrastructure improvement, public utilities and environmental
remediation without details. This language can be interpreted to mean that the City will
undertake environmental remediation. At the very least, language should be clarified to
indicate that the City does not intend to undertake any expense in investigating or
remediating environmental issues in the redevelopment zone.
C. Site Plan and Subdivision Review (RP p. 49)
This section requires the submission of site plans for approval by the planning board prior
to commencement of construction. No where in the RP is there a requirement that the
developer present its development plan to the redevelopment agency. This is a serious
omission in the RP which deprives the City Council of the control that is so fundamental
to redevelopment. City Council approval of the final plan for the development must be a
precondition to the developer submitting any plans to the planning board.
CHANGE PG 47
A CHANGE WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT TO
REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN PRIOR TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FURTHER
CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CLARIYING THAT ANY
CHANGES IN SITE PLANS MADE AFTER INITIAL REVIEW BY THE
CITY COUNCIL MUST COME BACK FOR REVIEW BY CITY
COUNCIL TO DETERMINE IF SAID CHANGES COMPLY WITH THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
This is critically important because it is the City Council, not the planning board, which
executes the redeveloper agreement. The conditions of that agreement will not be known
in detail by the Planning Board. The City Council must have the opportunity to assure
itself that the benefits it bargained for are addressed in the development project. While
the RP does require that developer to provide the City with “all application to federal,
state and county agencies”, it does not require the City Council be provided with any
local applications (RP p. 47-48). To maintain control, the City Council must be given an
![Page 21: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
21
opportunity to thoroughly review the development plan prior to the developer proceeding
to the planning board.
D. Deviation Requests (RP p.48)
This section creates very board powers for the planning board to deviate from the RP.
Essentially this language can be interpreted to allow the planning board to award any and
all C variances to the project without any prior approval from the City Council. Thus
increases in height and changes to bulk standards can be done without oversight by the
City Council. This language combined with the very loose language about planning board
authority on page 2 of the RP leaves very little control in the City Council. Under the RP
language, only “changes to the uses in the Redevelopment Are shall be permitted by an
amendment to the Redevelopment plan by the governing body” (RP p 49). Thus the City
only has control over changes in land uses (D variances). This creates a very significant
loophole for the developer. The RP should be changed to require all changes to the plan
to be pre-approved by the City Council. Under no circumstances should the RP language
deprive the City of the sole discretion to determine whether there will be variances.
E. Escrows (RP p.49)
While the RP appropriately includes a provision regarding developer escrows, much
more detail should be provided in the RP as to the types of requirements that the City will
expect. This will assure that developer proposals and proforma reflect the overall cost and
responsibilities and that developer are not surprised by the City demands. Such
provisions should include:
1. Developer selection process and provision to assure that all developer
proposals provide detailed project pro-formas and consent to evaluation of
developer financials by a financial consultant retained by the City;
2. Determination of whether the redevelopment area can be divided for
development by more than one developer;
3. Specification of affordable housing unit count and the process to assure that
construction of these units will proceed at a proportional pace as other units being
built in the development;
4. Provisions specifying the nature and types of conditions that will be required
in any redeveloper agreement, including financial due diligence, developer parent
guarantees, a comprehensive project schedule, requirements and specifications for
public amenities, assurance of funding for completing public amenities, school
impact analysis and fees, project oversight process, how any environmental
liability will be addressed, property assemblage, statutory covenants, transfer
provisions, termination and penalty provisions for non-performance, and any
other provisions the City deems necessary.
![Page 22: Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052702/568bda521a28ab2034aa5d09/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Hoboken411.com
22
F. Infrastructure (RP p 49) The RP should be specific in requiring the developer to provide “underground utilities”
and new road paving throughout the redevelopment. In connection with road
improvement, the RP and Hoboken’s land use ordinances in general should address the
ongoing problem of repaved road opening that collapse and pose a hazard to pedestrian,
bicyclists and vehicles. Specifications should be adopted to assure that the fill used to
refill any road opening is of the density and composition to prevent sinking and collapse.
These specifications exist in other town and should be adopted by Hoboken to apply
City-wide,
Submitted by Leah Healey