Pompton Lakes council presses for clearer redevelopment plan amid concerns about density, parking and utilities
Loading...
Summary
Councilors and residents spent the bulk of a June 26 meeting debating whether Pompton Lakes' 2008 redevelopment plan still fits the borough's needs, raising questions about sewer capacity, parking strategies and pilot programs used to finance projects.
Pompton Lakes councilors and residents on June 26 engaged in an extended debate over the borough—s redevelopment policies, focusing on whether the planning framework adopted in 2008 still reflects current needs, how pilot programs affect downtown retail and tax revenues, and whether the Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) has the capacity to support more housing.
Multiple council members and several residents said they want a clearer vision before approving further redevelopment. One council member asked bluntly, "When is enough is enough," voicing a common theme: growth has to be controlled and aligned with parking, traffic and school impacts. Other speakers said redevelopment tools are necessary to leverage private investment to repair aging commercial buildings that otherwise would not be redeveloped.
Planning counsel and staff described the legal structure: the borough—s 2008 investigation study establishes study areas and policy, while specific redevelopment plans and negotiated redevelopment agreements set site standards and financing for individual projects. Counsel explained that redevelopment plans can be amended on a site-by-site basis but that negotiated redevelopment agreements make later amendments more complicated.
Council discussion centered on several concrete points: the Smith project (a proposed 50-unit development at Colfax and Wanique) and the easement that developer applicants are seeking across borough property; whether shared parking will actually meet demand given changes in commuting patterns; and how pilot (payment-in-lieu) agreements affect long-term municipal revenue. Staff said the MUA provided capacity estimates and that developers must coordinate directly with the MUA when capacity questions arise.
Several council members urged the borough to ask its planning board and municipal planner to prepare an updated redevelopment plan or an amendment that reflects post-2010 market, parking and infrastructure realities. Planning counsel said the council could request a planner briefing and cost estimate and later pass a resolution to direct a formal plan update. Staff suggested a first step: invite the planner to a meeting to explain options and costs before deciding on a resolution.
Residents who spoke during public comment described concerns about traffic at Colfax Avenue, loss of small downtown retail, and emergency-service impacts if density increases without concurrent infrastructure improvements. A resident said many in town do not follow redevelopment hearings but notice completed projects and ask, "What is Pompton Lakes doing?" Another resident urged careful traffic and parking studies and said some buildings downtown already appear to be deteriorating.
Council members said they support redevelopment —done responsibly,— and asked for more data: up-to-date parking and MUA capacity reports, analyses of pilot term lengths and fiscal break-even points, and clearer site plans for projects proposing easements. Several said a planner-led workshop and a cost estimate for drafting an updated redevelopment plan should be the next steps.
No formal policy change or vote was taken at the meeting. Council members directed staff to invite the municipal planner to explain the redevelopment plan process, gather updated parking and MUA reports, and return with options for a possible planning-board-directed update or amendment.
