Good news: The Zoning Board didn’t ok adding a convenience store to the Exxon station at the busy corner of Hillside & Main. Or rather they didn’t approve it at the December meeting.
But that doesn’t mean the Zoning Board won’t approve it on Tuesday, January 30, 2024, when the hearing on the Exxon application continues! (7:00 PM at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue)
That January 30 hearing may be your last chance to find out what’s going on and have your say before the Zoning Board votes to waive at least eighteen normal zoning rules for the sole benefit of the new owner of the Exxon station.∞
This hearing promises to be a fun one. We’re expecting to hear the new owner’s hired traffic expert testify that the intersection of Hillside and Main is ok, and can handle more cars and trucks on the road and darting in and out of the Exxon lot.
Please join your friends and neighbors at the hearing on the Exxon convenience store at 7 PM on January 30 at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. (Use the side entrance and take the elevator to the upper level Council Chambers.)
*The author has chosen to abstain from participating in or voting on this issue in her capacity as an alternate member of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Are you satisfied with the number of cars and trucks on Main Street?
Would you like to see more vehicles? More crashes?
Did you know our Zoning Board is considering waiving the rules in a way that would probably achieve just that?*
Get the facts at the public hearing set for this Wednesday, Dec. 20, 7:30 pm at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. (Use the north entrance & take the elevator to the upper level.)
(Yes, the hearing is less than a week before Christmas! No, that doesn’t give residents much chance to ask questions or make comments. Can the Zoning Board postpone the hearing? You’ll have to ask them. Email the Borough Administrator, [email protected])
Don’t you just love driving through the intersection of Main Street and Hillside Avenue, past the Exxon station?
Don’t you just love the narrow, misaligned streets? The challenge of turning left – or even right – without a crash?
Do you think it’s safe for a 12-year-old to cross there alone? Is it even safe for an adult?
Would you like to see more cars and trucks trying to navigate that tricky intersection, where children must cross on their way to school?
Would you like to see more cars and trucks crisscrossing the sidewalk to get gas at the Exxon station? No?
How about a stream of cars and trucks crossing the sidewalk to enter and exit the new convenience store (with bright lights, long hours, probably more litter, noise, and maybe some loiterers) that would replace the friendly car repair shop we’ve trusted for decades – and that currently closes at 6:00 pm?
Our Zoning Board is considering waiving the normal zoning rules to allow the new owner of the Exon station to do just that.
Wouldn’t that kind of place detract from our Historic District?
Why would they even consider taking such a risk without first correcting the street misalignment that makes that corner so tricky?
The corner indicated in red is not part of the Exxon lot. It is property of the Borough that could be used to better align the streets, improve traffic flow, and likely reduce accidents. (Amateur markup of Borough Tax map sheet 27)
The Zoning Board shouldn’t approve the Exxon proposal absent strong proof that it would serve Chatham Borough in some clear way, and wouldn’t undermine the purposes of our zoning laws or Master Plan. https://chathamborough.org/boards/zone
The hearing on that proposal is set for this Wednesday, December 20. This is your chance to get the facts and have your say.
Don’t wait until it’s too late to make a difference.
If you cannot get the public Zoning Board hearing postponed until after the holidays, come to the hearing this Wednesday, Dec. 20 at 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, take the elevator to the upper level.
The author has chosen to abstain from participating in deliberations concerning, or voting on, this proposal in her capacity as an alternate member of the Historic Preservation Commission.
The new owner of the Exxon lot was, and still is, an arm of a big business that operates some 70 gas stations and convenience stores across New Jersey and beyond. https://www.zoominfo.com/c/waseem-petroleum/348833162
For whatever reason, the founder and owner of that big enterprise wanted that particular evergreen tree gone.
On or about 5/8/23, the founder filed an application (linked above) for a permit to chop down that tree, which he described as “8” DBH”.
That 5/8/23 tree removal application was not decided because the trees were not marked, according to the DPW.
However, the new Exxon owner also designated that evergreen for removal in his pending application for variances necessary to replace the Exxon garage with a convenience store. (See p. 193 of the site plan in the 9/27/23 Zoning Board agenda package linked here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1)
Instead of waiting to resolve that issue at the next HPC meeting (set for 10/17/23) or at the Zoning Board hearing (then set for 10/25/23),** the new Exxon owner simply authorized next door neighbor Liberty Drug (195 Main Street, block 122/lot 1) to chop down the evergreen, according to DPW and the man behind the counter at Liberty.
On or about October 10, that evergreen tree vanished, stump and all, leaving no way to determine if the diameter of the trunk did in fact exceed 6” as the new Exxon owner had claimed on 5/8/23 and, as such, required a permit.
An official claimed the diameter of the trunk was less than 6” but so far has not provided any evidence.
Whether or not the new owner technically enjoyed the right to fell that healthy tree without a permit, by authorizing an intermediary (Liberty) to do the job before the Zoning Board could even hear his case, in effect the new Exxon owner sidestepped meaningful review of a critical aspect of his variance application.
At the October 17 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, and without mentioning the disappearance of the evergreen tree, a lawyer for the new Exxon owner presented a new store design intended to address many of the other concerns raised at the previous HPC meeting, but he was unable to answer several important questions, including some about that missing tree.
The lawyer agreed to return to the Historic Preservation Commission on November 21, along with an expert who can answer the outstanding questions. ***
More important than the loss of one tree is the principle at stake.
Will the Historic Preservation Commission and Zoning Board properly address the new owner’s flagrant flouting of the normal procedures for reviewing variance applications, or will they let it pass, in effect condoning similar behavior in the future?
*The author has elected to abstain from participating in or voting on this matter in her capacity as an alternate member of the Commission.
** The new Exxon owner postponed the Zoning Board hearing on his variance application to the November 15 meeting of the Zoning Board, but as of October 25, it appears the application won’t be heard until the December 20 Zoning Board meeting because the next HPC meeting isn’t until November 21. https://chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/zoning-board-2-1698276600
*** See meeting video, starting approx. minute 58:50. https://vimeo.com/875962789
With the hearing on that application set for October 25, the owner isn’t taking any chances. Last week, he polished up his proposal, with a new design.
Though not yet posted on the Borough website, the new design addresses some shortcomings identified by the Historic Preservation Commission at its September public meeting.*
This hearing is your chance to get the facts, ask questions, and comment on the proposal BEFORE the Zoning Board decides whether or not to waive our normal zoning rules to allow the addition of a convenience store to the Main Street Exxon station. Everyone is welcome to attend.
* The author has elected not to vote or otherwise participate in this matter in her capacity as an alternate commissioner.
On Tuesday night, 9/19 the Historic Preservation Commission** voted to advise the Zoning Board not to approve a proposal to convert the Main Street Exxon station into a combination gas station and convenience store. https://chathamchoice.org/2023/07/how-convenient/
Of course, even if the applicant can satisfy the Design Guidelines for the Historic District, it will still need to meet the other legal requirements for the variances necessary to complete the proposed project.
Stay tuned.
The Chatham Press, 4 Sep 1936
** The author has elected not to vote or otherwise participate in this matter in her capacity as an alternate commissioner.
Yes. Your Chatham school taxes will go up 4.5% next year.
State law allows our School Board to PERMANENTLY raise our school taxes by 2% each year.
This year, they’re also going to PERMANENTLY raise taxes an extra 2.5% ($1.75 million) unless residents vote that down at the polls in November.
Not only will that mean a 4.5% increase next year, it will also mean that our school taxes will increase faster in the future, and there will be no way to reverse the effect. Even the automatic 2% annual school tax increase will be based on a bigger number every year going forward.
Why would the School Board do that?
They say they need an extra $1.75 million next year. That includes $900,000 (a 1.3% increase) to provide health benefits for full-time teachers’ aides, and another $850,000 (a 1.23% increase) to put security vestibules in all the schools.
Before we vote on such a significant tax increase, we need and deserve some facts and answers.
For instance, what other options did the School Board consider? Why couldn’t they fit those expenses into the regular $86.3 million school budget?
Most important, why not simply raise just enough to pay for the security doors? Why a PERMANENT tax increase?
A permanent increase may make sense for recurring expenses, like health benefits, but not for the one-time cost of security doors. They say there will be other security expenses. But what are they?
At the very least, the School Board should spell out exactly what it intends to do with the extra $850,000 in each of the next ten years after the security doors are in place.
It’s your money. They’re your schools. Your children.
Get the facts.
Go to the School Board meeting on Monday September 18, 2023 at 7:30 pm in the High School auditorium.
Would you like to see a convenience store/gas station in Chatham’s Main Street Historic District?
Should our Zoning Board waive the normal rules to allow that?* **
Come to the public Zoning Board hearing.
NEW NEW Date!
December 20, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
What’s this all about?
The new owner of the Exxon station on Main Street hopes to add a convenience store that’s inconsistent with our Borough Zoning laws.. To go ahead, he must convince the Zoning Board that adding that store would be good for Chatham.***
The applicant operates a similar gas/convenience store that’s open 24/7 just over the border in Summit. 18 County Rd 649 – Google Maps
The main difference is that the Shell/7-Eleven on River Road has a brick facade, instead of the vinyl siding the applicant plans for the TigerMart on Chatham’s Main Street.
By keeping long hours – often all night – convenience stores average 1,400 transactions per day, and most patrons (65%) consume their purchases on the spot. “Litter can be a significant challenge,” notes the trade association that advocates for the industry. @
Come to the public hearing, postponed yet again to November 15, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
That is your chance to get the facts, ask questions, make comments, and show you care about your town.
If you cannot be there in person, you can Zoom or call in. You’ll find the directions by clicking on the Zoning Board Meeting to be posted on the Borough calendar:
** Exactly what is the applicant proposing to build? To see the complete application, visit the Clerk’s office at Borough Hall, 54 Main Street or click on “Agenda Packet” for the Zoning Board at this link: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1
Or download the basic application (no exhibits or supporting documents):
Delighted to see some fresh faces at the May 8 Borough Council meeting. Kudos to the four newcomers who stepped up to the microphone that night to talk about the biggest issue facing the Borough, namely:
Shall we use our Borough PILOT revenue from the new River Road development to reduce our property taxes and pay for urgent necessities like fire trucks? Or shall we spend that money on luxuries and gifts?
Before that night, every Borough resident who spoke out asked the Council to use our PILOT money for property tax relief and urgent necessities like fire trucks.
We heard a different point of view at that May 8th Council meeting, where three Borough residents – and a lady from Chatham Township – asked the Borough Council to spend some of our Borough PILOT money on gifts to our joint School District.
That’s understandable: Education is a worthy cause. If the schools need more money, then they should have it. And vigorous discussion can help foster informed decision-making.
Yet judging from the comments made at that Council meeting, we are nowhere near ready to make an informed decision about our Borough PILOT money. Some of the speakers seemed downright confused.
For instance, most of the speakers didn’t seem to realize that the PILOT money is OUR money – a Borough asset. If we give it away, we’ll have to raise our Borough property taxes to pay for necessities like fire trucks.
Also, most of the May 8 presentations to the Council rested on the mistaken assumption that the School District is is short on funds and has nowhere else to turn for help.
That simply isn’t the case.
In fact, the School District has far greater resources than does Chatham Borough – including a $86.3 million annual budget and the option to raise additional funds from Borough and Township taxpayers alike, using ballot questions like the two we’ll vote on this November.
As such, simply gifting scarce Borough funds to the School District makes no more sense than giving them to the local Post Office, New Jersey Transit, the Morristown hospital.
Important as those institutions are, they aren’t municipal functions, and neither is the School District. The Council has no business diverting scarce Borough resources to any non-municipal purpose without voter approval.
What’s more, the Borough Council has no right to meddle in School District affairs. It should stay in its own lane, and defer to the proper authority on local education: the School Board.
If the School District needs more money, the Township and Borough should share the expense – the same way they share every other cost of operating the schools- following the normal process the School Board has been using for years:
Residents pitch their ideas to the School Board. If the Board deems an expenditure worthwhile, it either fits it into its regular guaranteed annual budget, or else floats a ballot question, giving Borough and Township residents alike the chance to decide if the idea justifies raising our taxes. That’s the normal procedure. The Borough Council plays no role in that..
If the Council is determined to overstep its traditional role and consider diverting our Borough PILOT funds for a gift in excess of the Borough’s fair share of school expenses, it certainly should not do so without the consent of residents.
The Council should put the question on the ballot and let Borough voters decide.
At the very least, the Council should provide a timely forum for vigorous, robust public debate before even considering earmarking our Borough PILOT money for any particular purpose.
The Borough Council and voters alike should beware of making such an important choice based on false assumptions. For instance:
PILOT PAYMENTS: MYTH versus REALITY
MYTH: Only a selfish cheapskate – who values money more than the education of our children – would oppose gifting our Borough PILOT money to the School District.
MYTH: The School District deserves a portion of our Borough’s River Road PILOT money, because the District would have received nearly two thirds of the property taxes from River Road if it paid property taxes.
REALITY: Not so. It’s a question of accountability. For the Council to gift money to the School District is to do an end run around voters, diminishing the community’s voice in our schools – and potentially subjecting them to partisan political control.
REALITY: Not so. Given the 2% cap, the School District wouldn’t be entitled to any additional property tax revenue if River Road were a taxpaying development.
MYTH: Even if the School District isn’t legally entitled to a portion of the PILOT money, the Council should gift the District PILOT money in light of the additional schoolchildren at River Road.
REALITY: Nonsense. Absent voter approval, the School District’s portion of property taxes remains exactly the same whether enrollment plummets or soars. Why should the possibility of additional school children at River Road change that rule?
MYTH: If the Borough doesn’t promise to share our PILOT money with the School District, the quality of education will suffer.
REALITY: Nonsense. The School Board president has admitted it’s impossible to predict how much – or even if – the River Road project might increase school expenses. If it does increase expenses significantly, the District will budget for it – or else float a ballot question to raise more money, just like every other district in the state.
MYTH: If the Borough Council doesn’t share our PILOT money with the School District, it will unfairly burden Township residents with the cost of educating additional Borough school children at River Road.
REALITY: Preposterous. Borough residents are required to help bear the cost of educating additional children from new Township developments like the Enclave. How is it unfair for Township residents to help bear the cost of educating additional children from a new Borough development like River Road?
