Author Topic: CANCER CENTER HEARINGS  (Read 4490 times)

ericmartindale

  • Guest
CANCER CENTER HEARINGS
« on: April 19, 2006, 06:18:59 PM »
I guess I can no longer trust the County Seat to print an article.  The article I wrote appearing in their 4/17/06 addition was about the opposition present and the points they raised.  All that was edited out, including even the mention that there was opposition.  Also edited out were the unbelievable setback and lot coverage variances sought, as well as the next hearing date, May 4th.  When I inquired as to the reason for the deletions, I was told that it was all "opinion". Actually, it reflected what happened at the hearing, and there was no opinions.

Such editing would never happen with Excelsior III.  Anyone reading between the lines understands why.  I won't be writing any more articles for the County Seat. 

At least there is one last bastion of truth in Hackensack, this website.  So here's the original unedited article.  And if anyone thinks this is anything other than excellent reporting, please respond:

CANCER CENTER RAISES EYEBROWS

   --- By Eric Martindale  4/12/06

On April 5th, the Hackensack Zoning Board of Adjustment began hearings on a 155,000 square foot Cancer Center and a 900-car parking tower, both nestled tight against an established neighborhood comprised mostly of mid-rise and high-rise apartments and condominiums.  The application has all the signs of becoming one of the most contentious in recent years. About 25 residents, many from the Executive House condominiums, attended to view the plans.

Although Hackensack University Medical Center seeks to construct a world-class facility that will help advance the treatment of cancer, it faces an uphill battle due to the magnitude of the variances sought.  HUMC intends to prove to the Board that it deserves multiple variances, including a “D” variance for the construction of a medical center and a parking tower in an Office zone, where neither is a permitted use. The City of Hackensack recently adopted a new Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance creating a new Health Care Services zone extending from Prospect Ave to Railroad Ave.  The proposed project is not in the new zone which HUMC lobbied for. Other variances sought include 73% lot coverage instead of the 30% allowed, height variances, and setbacks of 3.15 feet on First Street, 6.0 feet on Atlantic Street, and 5.0 feet on Second Street, instead of the 25 feet allowed on those streets.

The proposed Cancer Center includes 120 underground parking spaces, a terraced façade facing First Street, and a 3-story glass atrium on Second Street. The 900-space parking tower would run along the north side of Atlantic Street from Second Street to the crest of the hill. It would be connected by enclosed pedestrian bridges over Atlantic Street to the main hospital campus, and over Second Street to the Cancer Center.  The bridges would be 16 feet wide and 14 feet high, similar in concept to the bridges at the Gateway complex in Newark. The proposed complex would be one of the largest commercial buildings ever built in the City of Hackensack. 

Due to the length and complexity of the case, board chairman Paul Marchal is allowing public comment at the conclusion of each meeting, rather than solely at the end of the application.  Among those speaking was Karen Scott, whose tidy brick Cape Cod would be sandwiched between the Cancer Center and a 4-story apartment building.  Scott doesn’t like that scenario, and said she was never approached to sell her home.  Adding her lot to the development would reduce or eliminate many of the variances sought.

Several residents of the Executive House voiced concerns that the parking tower would loom over their swimming pool. “We’ll be breathing all the fumes from the parking tower” said one resident. Concern was also raised that HUMC’s existing parking towers are unsightly concrete boxes which clash with the quality of the city’s neighborhoods. A resident of Dawn Manor on Second Street submitted into evidence a photo of a parking garage in Rutherford with handsome railings, brickwork, and other architectural details. “We like it”, said Marchal.  Board members Marchal and Guerra suggested that the applicant redesign the parking garage to reflect the architectural details of the Rutherford project, and to present the revised plans at the next hearing.

Quietly watching the proceedings was Bill Noonan of Concern For Hackensack, a non-political citizen group formed in 2003 to stop the construction of the Excelsior III high-rise over the Susquehanna Railroad at Prospect Avenue.  Concern For Hackensack’s scope includes what Noonan termed “the overdevelopment of the area”.  Noonan’s group has not yet taken a position on the Cancer Center.  Barbara Townes of the Executive House said she hoped to help organize more of her neighbors to attend the next hearing, which is set for Thursday, May 4th at 7:30 PM





James

  • Guest
Re: CANCER CENTER HEARINGS
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2006, 07:37:05 PM »
I am a resident of Hackensack and in favor of the Cancer Center. I believe that it will only bring positive attention to Hackensack locally, as well as nationally.  I am, although, opposed to the location of the parking garage.

But to comment on Eric's displeasure w/the County Seat...Eric, you do in fact state your "opinion" several times throughout your article. "nestled tight against an established neighborhood", "The application has all the signs of becoming one of the most contentious in recent years", "it faces an uphill battle due", "HUMC intends to prove to the Board that it deserves"... When writing an article not intended to be "editorial" you should simply state the facts. Who, what, where, when and how. Just some constructive criticism.

ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: CANCER CENTER HEARINGS
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 11:25:03 PM »
You are way off base on one thing, so I have to address it right away: The vote the Zoning Board takes is on the VARIANCES requested, not on whether or not the Cancer Center is a good thing for Hackensack. It could be a good project that will bring pride to Hackensack nationally, but not designed properly, so they board might force a redesign or deny the project.

I'm willing to support the Cancer Center, but not with setbacks of 5 and 6 feet from the streets instead of 25. They can build a building with the same square footage that is six stories instead of four stories, and that building will have 25 foot setbacks on First, Second, and Atlantic Streets.  There's a 13-story seniors building less than 150 feet to the south, so height isn't a real issue. I'm going to make that case loud and clear at the next hearing.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the plans, and you might respect my position more if you did. Don't assume I'm against the Cancer Center when I'm really against the variances requested.

As for your take on whether or not I stated opinions in my original draft, lets look at each you raised:

(1) "nestled tight against an established neighborhood".  That's a true statement, not an opinion
(2)"The application has all the signs of becoming one of the most contentious in recent years", "it faces an uphill battle due". There was 25 people opposed, and they pledge to return. Also, the board demanded HUMC to redesign the parking tower to reflect architectural details. And they want a scale model showing the relationship between the proposed buildings and the neighborhood. In my 20 years of experience in public affairs in Hackensack, that defines it as a "contentious" application. Again, that is a fact, not an opinion.
(3)"HUMC intends to prove to the Board that it deserves". Applicants typically state that in their opening statement. Why do you think that is my opinion?

Although I am stating it now in my post, my draft article does not express my opinion on the setbacks.  Read it and you'll see I just mention the setbacks requested for each street. The deletion of that from the County Seat article is what has really infuriated me, they edited out BASIC FACTS.

I did stick to the facts, and one of those FACTS was that there was heavy opposition to the project, both the Cancer Center and the Parking Garage. Doesn't the public have the right to know that such opposition exists? Just like Excelsior III. The County Seat thought the public deserved to know about that opposition.  What's the difference?

James

  • Guest
Re: CANCER CENTER HEARINGS
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2006, 02:59:22 PM »
I agree with you about the setbacks. HUMC should redesign the Cancer Center and I'm sure they will.

 

anything