The height of buildings in Newark’s Ironbound has long been debated. For over a decade, the city has wanted to allow skyscrapers, particularly around the Penn Station area. In 2013, when Senator Corey Booker was mayor, the city passed a redevelopment plan, allowing 30-story buildings along the riverfront. Four years later, the city was on the verge of allowing even 40-story buildings.
But Ironbound residents want to prevent their historic neighborhood, comprising mostly four-story buildings, from becoming the next Journal Square.
This was at stake last week when Chess Builders, a Bronx developer, came to the city’s Planning Board with a planner to build a four-tower building at the former Iberia restaurant site at 450 Market Street. Two of the towers would reach 30 stories, making it the tallest building in the entire East Ward.
The public comment section lasted longer than the testimony of the developer’s experts, as residents and activists begged the board members to vote down the application or table it. The construction of 1,408 apartments—with a 1,123 market rate—would have a ripple effect on the local real estate market and price out longtime residents while straining local infrastructure.
“This project, as is, will transform the community in the most negative possible way,” said Hazel Applewhite, CEO of Ironbound Community Corporation. “Something needs to be built but not at this magnitude.”
Earlier that day, Applewhite’s organization joined other groups, like Homes for All Newark, in a press conference speaking out against the development. But in the end, the Planning Board approved the project as many expected them to do.
In many ways, the board members were bound by a local redevelopment plan that was approved in December and expressly permits buildings of this height. The sixth amendment to the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan was unanimously approved by the City Council, including East Ward Councilman Michael Silva.
The developer did not request any variances and the Central Planning Board is reluctant to deny applications – even controversial ones – when a project adheres to the current zoning laws. Further, without variances requested for the Market Street project, the board was powerless to impose conditions of approval on the project.
The situation reminded many residents of a similar battle in 2018, when the City Council voted to amend the zoning laws in the Ironbound to allow taller buildings.
President of Homes for All Newark, Tanisha Garner believes these amendments are “tactics” used to accommodate developers in circumventing prevailing zoning laws and building out-of-scale buildings. “The developer comes to our community and laws are changed to benefit them,” Garner said.
In 2019, a local advocacy group, PlaNewark, took the city to court over a change to the zoning laws and won. However, Renee Steinhagen, who argued the case at the Superior Court, said the current case is a little different—amendments to the zoning ordinance have more legal hurdles than amendments to a redevelopment zone.
“The former requires the Planning Board to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency between the proposed amendment and the master plan,” said Steinhagen, executive director of New Jersey Appleseed. “If the amendment is inconsistent with the master plan, the City Council has to state its reasons on the record why it is passing a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the master plan and it has to be approved by a super majority of the Council.”
It is unclear whether the community will challenge the project at 450 Market Street in court. However, Steinhagen said that the architectural plans do not adhere to the Sixth Amendment regarding the proposed building’s setback and impervious lot coverage.
Still, Steinhagen said, if Ironbound residents organize to strike down the Sixth Amendment, it would not affect the proposed towers at 450 Market Street.
“I do not doubt that the community may try to change the redevelopment plan yet again regarding some lots that were changed from park space to residential, but such change or any other change would not impact this project,” she said. “The plan is filed and thus this project is allowed no matter if there is a seventh amendment to the redevelopment plan.”
