Price of historic train station argued in court

BLOOMFIELD, NJ — A trial to determine the monetary value of the abandoned historic train station located on Lackawanna Place in Bloomfield, across from the Glenwood Village redevelopment project, began in Newark Superior Court on Wednesday, May 18. The trial is by a jury of six with Judge Robert Gardner presiding.

Township officials have hailed the historic train station as the focal point of the downtown’s transit village designation. It was cited because of its preservation value and the underground pedestrian tunnel, now derelict and concealed behind a padlocked entrance.

The tunnel is owned by New Jersey Transit but the property enclosing it is owned by investor Howard Haberman.

Haberman once proposed a mixed-use redevelopment project for the oblong parcel of land running parallel and buttressing the westbound track, according to courtroom testimony last week by real estate appraiser John Brody. Brody said he had appraised the property when the township was involved with its own downtown redevelopment across the street. His appraisal of the Haberman property at that time was $3.3 million.
According to Brody’s testimony, the township at one time shared Haberman’s vision for his property. Under questioning by Anthony Della Pelle, Haberman’s attorney, Brody acknowledged that the township eventually condemned the site.

Bloomfield officials have stated that the best use for the property was to access the pedestrian tunnel, providing commuters an easy access route to Manhattan-bound trains. The township had the site appraised for this use and the value was determined at $440,000.

The only witness last week was Brody. He was only questioned by Della Pelle.
Brody said his appraisal was the value of the land in June 2012. His conclusion was $3,275,000 but revised to $3,207,000. Della Pelle asked how the highest and best use of property was determined, and Brody said four factors were considered: was the proposal physically possible; was it legally permittable; was it fiscally feasible; and was its use maximally productive.

“What made you render your conclusions?” Della Pelle asked.
“It’s a long, narrow parcel, 27,000 square feet, three blocks from the center
of Bloomfield,” Brody said. “A good location.”

Brody said a development was proposed for the site back in 2005. It was going to have 34 apartments and 12,500 square feet of retail space. And it was included in the township redevelopment plan, so it was legally permissible, he said. The building was going to be five stories or be 65 feet tall, whichever was less.
“What about parking?” Della Pelle asked.

“It was to have shared parking, on block 228,” Brody said. “It was part of the redevelopment plan.”

Block 228 is the site on which Glenwood Village was constructed. Haberman’s property is on Block 220.

“You didn’t need on-site parking?” Della Pelle said.
Brody said the ordinance did not require it and that was not unusual. It was also intended that the residents in any building on the Haberman property would be able to park across the street in the parking deck being planned.

“Having parking, does it affect an appraisal?” Della Pelle asked.
“Yes,” said Brody.

The original January 2008 parking deck plans across Lackawanna Place had 950 spaces, according to Brody.

He said the number of spaces was reduced from 950 to about 450 in 2011, and Haberman was told he could not develop his property.

Della Pelle asked Brody if a development on Haberman’s property was financially feasible. Brody said market forces determine that.
“Build it and they will come or build it and they won’t come,” he said.
Glenwood Village, he said, was a $20 million investment so it would appear that if you build it, people would come, meaning that it would be profitable.

“And New Jersey Transit wanted a transit village here,” Brody continued. “That’s great. They have a history of success.”

Testimony concluded at this point and began again Monday, May 23, with Brody being cross-examined by Demitrius Miles, of the firm McManimon and Scotland, which represents the township.

Miles told Brody the 950 parking spaces he cited came from a study conducted in January 2008. He asked Brody for the number of parking spaces in the adopted site plan of February 2011. Brody said about 450 parking spaces. Miles said it was 439, revised to 468, in June 2012.

“Does your appraisal reference the site-plan application?” Miles asked.
“I don’t think it does,” Brody said.

Miles asked Brody if a site plan for a development proposal on the Haberman property was ever submitted to the Bloomfield Planning Board. Brody said he did not believe so.
Della Pelle asked Brody if the Bloomfield Parking Authority conducted the study decreasing the number of spaces in the parking deck. Brody said it did.

Della Pelle said, as a consequence to the decrease, Haberman’s property would have no deck parking. He said the resolution adopting the number of parking spaces in the parking deck, and the filing of the required paperwork to begin eminent domain proceedings against Haberman’s property, happened the same day.