5/4/16 Planning Board

PERTH AMBOY – Annie Hindenlang, Executive Director Office of Economic and Community Development Perth Amboy Redevelopment Agency was put on the hot seat at the 5/4/16 Planning Board Meeting.

Exec. Dir. Office of Economic and Community Development PARA Annie Hindenlang

This all stemmed from a communication that  was mailed out to business owners from Hindenlang’s Office. A brief summery of this letter stated: There is a possibility  that the properties listed here may be considered for the proposed redevelopment. The letters were sent to the owners of the addresses that were listed in the communication by Lot, Block and Address.

Hindenlang made it clear that this document is not related to the transit village. “This is to see whether or not these lots meet the redevelopment criteria.”

Acting Chair David Szilagyi responded to Hindenlang’s remark. He stated, “You are the one at the last PARA meeting who said that these addresses will be part of the Transit Village,”

Many of the business owners who attended this Planning Board Meeting were renters in some of these buildings.

Planning Board Acting Chair
Dave Szilagyi

Business Owner Frank Salado (Q&R Tax Service located at 240 Smith St.) came up to speak and wondered, “Where did this idea come from? I’ve spent 25 years in the area (Smith Street) building up my business. Once you designate an area, will we be compensated if forced to move?”
Szilagyi answered, “There are strict guidelines for relocating businesses.”
Salado responded, “Somebody planted a seed and you have to understand the decision you (the Planning Board) make will affect our businesses and families.”

Hindenlang stated, “Some parts of the area are owned by New Jersey Transit and may be used for the proposed Transit Village.”

Salado concern also stemmed from the fact, “A lot of us didn’t get the notice about our businesses being listed in this letter. I got this (letter) from my landlord. Some buildings are not going to be touched.” Salado mentioned the ETC Building located and the Wells Fargo Building which are located on the corner of Smith and Maple Streets. He wondered if politics entered into the picture here.

Planning Board Members Steve Nascimento (Secretary), Karen Kubulak, and Bill Petrick *Photos by Carolyn Maxwell

Szilagyi answered, “Notifications were sent to the building owners and not the renters.”

Salado said, “The property owners will be covered, but what about the renters?”

After Salado spoke, another business came forward from Leen’s Jewelry, 221 Smith Street. “I’ve spent tons of money renovating. The owner of the building never told me this was a redevelopment area. I finally found like I reached my dream of owning the building. This is the future for my children.”
Planning Board Member Karen Kubulak noticed that one of the addresses had a number of complaints from the police, but since it changed ownership the complaints had stopped.

Business Owner Virginia Lugo  came up to speak, “I’m for redevelopment, but these business owners (in the proposed redevelopment area) are paying the UEZ/BID which does have an impact because they are supposed to beautify the area. You can designate an area for redevelopment but not do anything. Look at the market value and see how it will affect the businesses and property owners. The cherry picking of some of the businesses must be answered. This is an old town, and some of the older buildings can be renovated.”

Acting Chair Dave Szilagyi cautioned, “At this moment there is no project for this area.”

Concerned Business Owners attended the Planning Board Meeting

Councilman Fernando Gonzalez (who was in the audience) came up to speak and questioned the stats of crime in  the proposed redevelopment area. “Did they intentionally put that in the report to show negativity in the area?”

Annie Hindenlang answered that question. She spoke highly of AICP/PP, LLA, RLA of Master Consulting, PA David  G. Roberts (Planning Board Consultant). She said, “He has written the handbook for redevelopment for the State of New Jersey. When looking at the addresses, the reports came from the police about criminal activity. We are not faulting any of the property or business owners for this.”

Another Business owner on the 200 Block of Smith Street wondered who would invest in an area if they don’t know how long it will be there.

Szilagyi said, “The Developer will have to meet the criteria and the property values will have to be negotiated with Developers.”

Planning Board Lawyer Joseph M. Wenzel said that the properties’ evaluations will be based on an income and sales based approach. “The appraiser has to provide facts that they use for evaluations. These recommendations will be made to the governing body.”

Councilman and Planning Board Member Bill Petrick wanted to know, “If the time line for this moves forward, how long will it take for the plan to move forward?”

Annie Hindenlang answered that question, “If it’s approved today (Redevelopment Study Area Determination of Need), then it has to go to the Council; RFS’s have to go out; it has to be sent to PARA; and back to the Council. We went Lot by Lot and got a lot of feedback, walk thru, etc. Money can be available to current property owners. The addresses listed were reviewed between May thru October 2015. You are allowed to remove certain properties that are listed on this report, but not add any new ones.”

Planning Board Lissette Martinez when looking at the list said, “The crime in some of these Blocks and Lots have decreased.”
Acting Chair Dave Szilagyi had even stronger statements to make, “This project includes a historic building and the Historic Preservation Commission was not informed of this. What he (David Roberts) said about the Catholic Charities Building was ridiculous. I thought the entire report was a joke.”

Kubulak was concerned because the Historic Preservation Commission has to review any properties that may be under redevelopment plans. “This is by an ordinance.”

“The public has to comment on the recommendations made by the Historic Preservation Commission. Each property identified must meet the criteria for redevelopment. You may change the properties that are listed only,” said Hindenlang.

It was decided at the end of the Meeting that the Redevelopment Study Area Determination of Need would be put on hold pending recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission.

Szilagyi said, “We are holding this off until next month’s meeting.”

The Master Plan was also a cause for concern. There were two items pertaining to this:

a.) Master Plan Re-examination Resolution with proposed changes as recommended by the Master Plan Sub Committee

b.) Memorialization of the Master Plan Circulation Element to be forwarded to the governing body.

Board Member Kubulak’s  concern was that the City Council’s Master Plan Report was different than what the Planning Board had.

This prompted Acting Planning Board Chair to say, “We are only Memorializing the Document.

Planning Board Secretary Steve Nascimentoa asked for clarification of why some items were removed completely.

City Engineer Jeff Rauch said, “There were additional changes. Some lots were put in that were in the south side residential neighborhoods. That was removed.

Planning Board Administrative Officer Lance Nelson said, “We had voted on the document and that’s what’s being memorialized.”

Item A (the reexamination) was being held. All members present voted yes for the memorialization.

Absent were Maria Garcia,  Chairwoman, C. Dispenziere, Vice-Chair, Mayor Wilda Diaz and the two Alternates: C. Farber and S. Diaz.

The next Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7 p.m.