Author Topic: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue  (Read 148335 times)

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -24
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #300 on: December 07, 2013, 10:35:45 PM »
oh, you beat me to it with the posting, I saw it this afternoon while in Hackensack.  I was shocked.  I think all 4 houses were leveled, the 3 on Summit and they were demolishing the one on Prospect when I circled around the block to look.

This is a double-down strategy; in order to show the appeals court judge that they mean business about building this huge building on this property.

I wonder if they got all their demolition permits, or is this something they are doing in a quick sneaky way on a Saturday when the inspectors and city officials cannot be reached to stop the work.  And if they applied for demolition permits, you'd think that city officials would notify the activists of the permit request.  That leads me to believe that the developer didn't apply for demolition permits.

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -24
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #301 on: December 08, 2013, 08:09:07 AM »
1912 map showing the homes on Summit and Prospect Ave. The map is zoomable.  I think I can identify all 4 houses on this map.  All 4 were over 100 years old.

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/173108/Plate+019+++Midland+Township++Maynard+and+Hackensack+Right/Bergen+County+1912+Vol+2/New+Jersey/

Offline Homer Jones

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #302 on: December 08, 2013, 10:07:35 AM »
From the developer's perspective, the demolition of these buildings was the right thing to do. As long as the buildings are demolished prior to the end of the calendar year he will only have to pay taxes in the year 2014 on the land value of the property and not on the land and improvement value of the property. This is standard operating procedure in the real estate development business.

Offline swapcatsr@gmail.com

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #303 on: December 29, 2013, 08:22:39 PM »
53386 A birdseye view of the house at 329 Prospect Avenue last week then this week:

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -24
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #304 on: December 31, 2013, 07:28:31 AM »
Nobody ever posted whether the city issued the demolition permits, nor if the local neighbors were informed of the demolition request.

I hope eventually there will be 3 new homes on Summit Ave, and a 3 to 5 story condominium for the lot on Prospect Ave.  The lot is too small for a high-rise of any type.

Offline Whitey

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #305 on: January 02, 2014, 09:14:59 AM »
The Hackensack Building Department said the owner was issued all the necessary permits.  I don't know about notifying the residents.


Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #306 on: March 19, 2014, 09:15:08 PM »
55301 Filling in the foundation at 329 Prospect Avenue.

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #307 on: January 21, 2015, 09:43:57 AM »
68915

LTACH APPEAL UPDATE

Bergen County freeholders hear Hackensack opposition to medical waste disposal plan

JANUARY 14, 2015, 8:06 PM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2015, 8:06 PM
BY TODD SOUTH
STAFF WRITER | THE RECORD

HACKENSACK A group of more than 30 residents and Hackensack City Council members came to the Bergen County Freeholders meeting Wednesday to speak out against an application by a Prospect Avenue senior care centers owner to neutralize medical waste at the site.

...

Pineles is still in a lengthy zoning battle involving his application to the Hackensack Zoning Board to allow him to build the 19-story Bergen-Passaic Long Term acute Care Hospital on 1.15 acres on Summit Avenue that would extend to Prospect Avenue. The board denied the application on quality-of-life grounds in January 2012. Pineles filed a lawsuit and a state Superior Court judge upheld the boards decision in August 2013. That decision was appealed.

...

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen-county-freeholders-hear-hackensack-opposition-to-medical-waste-disposal-plan-1.1193246
« Last Edit: January 21, 2015, 06:55:21 PM by Prospect Avenue Coalition »

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #308 on: February 03, 2015, 01:56:58 PM »
69275 LTACH APPEAL UPDATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
PO BOX 006
RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
TRENTON, N.J. 08625-0006
DATE: Dec 24, 2014

KIRSCH & KIRSCH LLP
ATTN: LAURA S KIRSCH
TWO UNIVERSITY PLZ, STE 308
HACKENSACK, NJ 07601

RE: A-000702-13 T03

BERGEN PASSAIC LTACH, LLC
V
CITY OF HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

The above-entitled appeal is scheduled for argument before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015

LOCATION: ROOM 1114, VETERANS COURTHOUSE, 11TH FL, 50 W MARKET ST, NEWARK

PART: H

TIME: 10:00 AM

On all appeals, please endorse the enclosed copy with the name and email address of counsel who will argue this appeal, and forward same to this office immediately.

JOSEPH H. ORLANDO
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PHONE: 609-633-7079
PHONE: 609-633-7078
Name of counsel:
Email Address :

cc:
MC CARTER & ENGLISH LLP - GARY THOMAS HALL
MC ELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP - THOMAS P SCRIVO
WINNE BANTA ET AL - LORI A JOHNSON

Arguments times will occasionally be adjusted by the court. Prior to your argument please confirm the time for your appeal by going to our website, www.njcourtsonline.com.click on Calendars & Schedules and then click on Appellate Court Calendars. You may also call (609)633-7079 or (609)633-7078. Thank you.

ADDENDUM
APPELLATE DIVISION INCLEMENT WEATHER CLOSINGS
During the months of November through March, when traveling conditions may be hazardous because of bad weather, counsel may be in doubt as to whether the Appellate Division will sit as scheduled. For reports concerning unscheduled closings, delayed openings or cancellation of Appellate Division sittings, please check our website at: www.NJCourtsOnline.com and click on "Unscheduled Closings". This site will also provide links for receiving court information on Twitter or through SMS text messages.

If you do not see a cancellation notice, please report to court at the appropriate time and place.

As a last resort, you may call the Clerk's Office (609-633-7079) for a recorded message regarding any cancellations. If someone has been able to get there, you will be provided with whatever other information is available.
Sept. 2013

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #309 on: February 28, 2015, 11:29:24 AM »
70682 LTACH APPEAL UPDATE

Our neighbor who attended the Feb 4th hearing tells us that we may will need to wait 30 - 60 days from the argument date before any further updates on A-000702-13 T03.

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #310 on: May 07, 2015, 12:19:58 PM »
73702 LTACH APPEAL UPDATE

TO: THE RESIDENTS OF PROSPECT AND SUMMIT AVENUES

RE: A-000702-13 T03 BERGEN PASSAIC LTACH, LLC V CITY OF HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT


WE WON ... AGAIN


THANK YOU TO  MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF HACKENSACK FOR ITS SUPPORT.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 12:46:11 PM by Prospect Avenue Coalition »

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #311 on: May 14, 2015, 12:47:03 PM »
74170 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THE OPINION PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK (NEW jERSEY COURTS WEBSITE / Unpublished Appellate Opinions for May 7, 2015):

https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0702-13.pdf


Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #313 on: May 30, 2015, 08:38:26 AM »
74858 http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime-and-courts/court-upholds-zoning-board-s-decision-1.1340918?page=all

NORTHJERSEY.COM : NEWS : CRIME AND COURTS
Court upholds Hackensack Zoning Board's decision in LTACH case


MAY 29, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2015, 1:09 PM
BY JENNIFER VAZQUEZ
NEWS EDITOR | HACKENSACK CHRONICLE

HACKENSACK - The Prospect Avenue Coalition can breathe a sigh of relief now that an appeals court has upheld the Hackensack Zoning Board's decision to deny a site plan application by a nursing home developer who sought to build a multi-story care facility and dialysis clinic on that street.

...

Following 22 hearings, the Hackensack Zoning Board denied the proposal. The appellate court found that the board "concluded reasonably" that the development was bigger than the site would accommodate, would detrimentally affect the neighboring residential properties and that the proposal could not be reconciled with the city's master plan and zoning ordinances.

"We find nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Board's conclusion," the three-judge appeals panel said in their per curiam decision.

...

Attorney John N. Visconi, who was filling in for the borough attorney Thomas P. Scrivo during the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 18, said it is unclear if the plaintiff will seek further action. Scrivo represented the city during the appeals process.

"The appellate division upheld the trial court's affirmation of the board's decision," Visconi said. "It was a 3-0 decision...it's unclear right now if the plaintiff will appeal any further."

The unanimous decision makes the case's chances of being heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court less likely, but Pineles could petition the higher court for an appeal.

Pineles did not return request for comment.

Email: vazquez@northjersey.com

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #314 on: July 19, 2015, 07:51:11 AM »
78196 No new appeal has been filed by Richard Pineles. The time period in which to file an appeal of the denial of variances has lapsed.

Please email us at ProspectAvenueCoalition@yahoo.com or Facebook at ProspectAvenueCoalition if you learn of any news or updates regarding 320/322/324 Summit Avenue and/or 329 Prospect Avenue.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

26-2-6701 Bergen Passaic LTAC, LLC v. City of Hackensack Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, App. Div. (per curiam) (28 pp.) Plaintiff Bergen Passaic LTACH appealed from a judgment of the Law Division dismissing with prejudice its complaint in lieu of prerogative writs. Plaintiff sought reversal of the decision of the City of Hackensack Zoning Board of Adjustment denying variances and site plan approval so that plaintiff can build a high-rise long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) combined with a dialysis facility and adult daycare center in a residential zoning district near the Hackensack University Medical Center. The board reasonably concluded that plaintiff's proposed development is much bigger than the site would accommodate and would detrimentally affect the neighboring residential properties. It also reasonably concluded that the proposed development could not be reconciled with the City's master plan and zoning ordinances. Numerous bulk variances were required as well as the use variance for the facilities that were not otherwise permitted in the zoning district. The appellate panel found nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the board's conclusions. Further, the board considered contrary testimony from opposing experts and it rationally explained its credibility decisions relating to the detrimental effects of the project, including inadequate parking and unsafe vehicular circulation at the site, and the deprivation of light, air, and open space of neighboring residential properties. The appellate panel affirmed the Law Division's judgment.

Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202726503228/Unapproved-Opinions-May-713-2015#ixzz3gIpYsVpc

 

anything