Montclair Council Rebuffs Planning Board Member; Here’s His Reply

MONTCLAIR, NJ — The Montclair Town Council has issued a scathing rebuke to Planning Board member Martin Schwartz’s recent statements about MC Residences. His reply? “I stand by my opinions.”

On Thursday, the Montclair Town Council issued a joint statement in the wake of Schwartz’s comments during the Sept. 9 planning board meeting.

During that meeting, Schwartz demanded an investigation into circumstances that he says have allowed developers to "take advantage" of a misworded section of the Montclair Center Gateway Redevelopment plan.

In particular, Schwartz took issue with the site plan presented for a proposed mixed-use building at 33-37 Orange Road dubbed the MC Residences, which he says should be limited to 18 units per acre instead of the 46 units they’re applying for.

The mix-up may mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra profit for Pinnacle Companies and The Hampshire Companies, Schwartz alleged.

• See related article: Montclair Mix-Up May Mean Big Profit For Developers

TOWN COUNCIL: ‘FACTUAL ERRORS, FALSE IMPLICATIONS’

On Thursday, the Montclair Town Council issued the following joint statement.

“The Township Council and administration are deeply concerned with Mr. Schwartz’s assertions and suggestions of misconduct on the part of elected officials, Township staff, and members of land use boards, and with the gross factual errors in his statement. To begin, the Township Council denies any wrongdoing by its members involving the 37 Orange Road project. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that any Township employee or board member acted to further private interests rather than the public good. Mr. Schwartz’s claim that he arrived at his conclusion “after talking to almost every Council member” falsely implies that Council members agreed with his allegations, which is simply not true. At no time has the Council or administration alleged or suggested that any improper conduct occurred with respect to the property at issue.

“Moreover, contrary to Mr. Schwartz’s assertions and insinuations, the Manager did conduct an investigation as to the circumstances of publication and posting of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment, and as to whether anyone, Township official, employee or member of the public, had interfered or attempted to interfere with the process. The investigation resulted in no finding of wrongdoing, which was in fact communicated to the Council by the Manager, although the details of the investigation remained confidential.

“Previously, in March 2019, Mr. Schwartz made many of the same speculations and charges of misconduct in an email to members of the governing body and administration. As required by long-standing New Jersey procedure, his message was promptly referred to the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. The same was done with the video of Mr. Schwartz’s September 9 remarks and a written version of those remarks sent to Council members today by Mr. Schwartz. Because the matter is in the hands of the Prosecutor, the Township will have no further comment at this time.”

MARTIN SCHWARTZ: ‘THIS DOG STILL DON’T HUNT’

After reading the council’s statement, Schwartz offered the following reply.

“The bottom line is that the MC Residence developers got over on our Township and will likely get unintended density of units seemingly not agreed to by both the Council and Planning Board. Therefore, they will gain substantial added profits.

“I stand by my opinions and assertions derived after reviewing the fact history and after conversations with many involved -- including Township Councilors.

“I was specifically told no promised Manager investigation was reported back to the Council. Therefore today's C.Y.A. revisionist history response from the Town -- is really not surprising. If there was an investigation, the results could have and should have been made public. To clear up this imbroglio.

“Instead, no investigation outcome was reported publicly by the Manger, or even that one had been conducted. That the matter was resolved. That it was really just a mistake, a drafting error. Especially since the Planning Board site review was clearly coming and the density issue still open.

“Since that was not done, all this just leads to the same reasonable conclusion: ‘This dog still don't hunt.’”

Watch Schwartz’s statements during the Sept. 9 meeting below.

Don’t forget to visit the Patch Montclair Facebook page. Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site. Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com