The Master Plan Reexamination Report Overview prepared by the Township Planner to update residents is dated April 13, 2026, yet meetings were not conducted until late July and early August when many residents are away for vacation.
As the Township Planner conducts meetings ostensibly to perform the State mandated ten-year reexamination of the Master Plan, how forthcoming has she been with the public as to the Planning Department’s execution of recommendations included in the 2006 and 2016 reexamination reports?
A comparison of the 2006 reexamination report recommendations to 2016 and 2026 reveals the vast majority of recommendations have not been accomplished and ultimately have disappeared from the 2026 presentation.
Tap into Montclair 7/16/2026
The 2006 reexamination report included 154 recommendations, of which the Planner reported 19 were still valid in the 2016 reexamination report, but none are included in the 2026 reexamination, even though the recommendations were not accomplished. Of the 63 recommendations added by the 2016 reexamination report, 23 are omitted from the 2026 presentation, 27 are either not accomplished or being evaluated, or claimed to be included in another document. The remaining 13 represent only 20% and have no meaningful impact on the issues that plague the community.
Many ordinances were adopted but either not enforced in practice or waived using Spot Zoning when applications come before the Board of Adjustment. (See Mission, New, Washington and Wheeler Streets below).
Land Use General Recommendations include considering the impacts of private and public-school expansion plans to ensure visual compatibility and minimal parking and traffic impacts. The Planner cited Ordinance 05-73 as having satisfied this recommendation, however, the Woodman Field disaster demonstrates a complete failure and ineffectiveness of the Planner’s assertion.
There is further evidence of the Planner’s efforts to undermine volunteer boards and commissions, despite her claims that recommendations have been achieved.
Historic Preservation recommendations included in the Master Plan focus on preserving the rich architectural heritage of the Township and recommend protecting the Town Center from inappropriate adjacent development yet, when the Historic Commission was engaged to weigh in on the Centro-Verde (renamed Valley & Bloom) development, the Planner undermined the process. As reported in The Montclair Times, April 26, 2012, “Historic Commission gives its take on Centro Verde”, the Planner requested the HPC wrap up its review after only one hearing, even though the HPC typically holds a follow-up hearing shortly before a developer goes for construction permits to ensure alterations requested by the Commission were made in order to preserve “the aesthetic interests of the downtown.”
The Montclair Times quoted the Planner in the January 7, 2016, article “Is there an architect in the house”. “Talley said she received criticism for the ultimate design of Valley & Bloom and blamed the volunteer board for not taking the time for a comprehensive look at her dense report. I thought it would be better to have a third party who is more of a design professional than me, I am a generalist, to focus on those things”.
Years later, the Planner changed her story. As reported by The Montclair Times, February 21, 2019 “Rapid development poses some risks for Montclair”, “As more buildings rise, the trade-offs of development are becoming apparent: increased traffic, decreased pedestrian safety and less diversity”. The Sienna condominiums, Valley & Bloom, and MC Hotel have been criticized for their height, boxiness, lack of charm, and a report commissioned by the Historic Preservation Commission concluded that all have fallen short of the “pedestrian-friendly urban node” promised by the Planner. But Janice Talley defended the work of the volunteer planning board, claiming the board had 14 meetings over more than a year to vet the Lackawanna proposal. “What is happening here is out of the ordinary” she said.
It is concerning that the Planner has a selective memory of her own actions that have resulted in the botched redevelopment of Montclair.
Many of the Development Regulations recommendations included in the 2016 Master Plan Reexamination Report are duplicative of recommendations included in the 2006 Master Plan Reexamination Report (16 of the 18 recommendations listed). Those recommendations have now been reproduced in the 2026 Master Plan Reexamination Presentation as Zoning Recommendations. Of the 18 recommendations, 11 are omitted, 4 were Not Accomplished, 1 is required by State Statute and 3 were partially implemented by ordinance, reflecting a poor record of accomplishment.
Master Plan goals and objectives have not been met, resulting in disenfranchisement of the residents of this community.
References
- Montclair Times, 4/26/2012, “Historic Commission gives its take on Centro Verde”
- Montclair Times, 1/17/2016, “Is there an architect in the house”
- Montclair Times, 2/21/2019, “Rapid development poses some risks for Montclair”
Read Part IV, the next installment in the series Planning for Failure: Mission, New, Washington and Wheeler Streets – Part IV of Planning for Failure
Montclair Progressive or Corrupt 