Hoboken Reporter, July 4, 2004

Dear Editor,

The recent approval by the Zoning Board of the proposed 725 car Stevens garage on the waterfront perfectly illustrates how the majority of the Zoning Board Commissioners have no idea what their role and responsibilities are. To clarify this matter, the Zoning Board hears applications for projects that do not substantially comply with Hoboken's Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant carries the full burden of proof to show hardship or public benefit.

It was clear from the few questions asked by the Board during the many Stevens hearings (and the nature of their questions) that most Commissioners simply thought a garage was a good idea and when the time came, voted with that opinion. The problems is that the Commissioners are to walk in with a "blank slate", objectively hear the application, understand that there are serious deviations from the Ordinance and be convinced of the merits of the application solely on the evidence and testimony provided. In this instance, the many variances being requested spoke to the fact tat the City's Ordinance did not want a garage of this configuration on this site and the Commissioners' job is to uphold this unless substantial merit or hardship is provided.

For their burden of proof, Stevens rattled off a few unsubstantiated remarks such as their lack of parking making Stevens less competitive, this was the best and only site for a garage, adding 725 parking spaces will not increase traffic and the garage will ease the parking burden in the surrounding neighborhood. When questioned on these statements, Stevens was not able to provide any studies or experts supporting these remarks, yet this did not seem to faze the Board. Why 725? How will pedestrian circulation flow around the project? None of these items were supported other than with remarks like "we need 725 spots", "it will be safe for pedestrians" etc.

Having spent countless hours with many resources for the City's new Master Plan, I know first hand that there is no issue more contentious or troublesome for Hoboken than that of parking and traffic. The character and charm of our dense little town lies in the pedestrian friendly scale and is challenged at accommodating motor vehicles. While we know that more parking spaces are probably needed, we also know that enforcement of current regulations and better utilization of existing spaces are required first. Until drivers accept that they can no longer park for free in illegal spots, the garages will not be better utilized, and we won't know how many more spaces we actually need and where these spots should be.

New garages must be well conceived and well integrated into the existing city fabric or they will have a negative impact. While I do not agree with Ron Hine on many issues, he is correct that this Stevens garage does not belong in this configuration, in this location. The garage might be fine for car dependent, characterless areas in Houston or Jacksonville, but not in the center of New Jersey's finest waterfront.

It is a shame that the Zoning Board commissioners who supported this project ignored their responsibilities as stated in the NJ Municipal Land Use Law and did not require Stevens to support their case. Unfortunately this is not an unusual occurrence for this Board. Perhaps it is time for the Administration to step in and finally overhaul a Board which has ignored the public interests for too many years.

I am a member of the Planning Board but the above opinions are my own.

Hank Forrest