| Author | Message | ||
     Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1980 Registered: 9-2003  |
I was thinking small weddings, like 25 -40 people or so. My neighbor has parties with say 25-40 people coming and going, from around 3-11 p.m. Does it about once a month in warmer weather. Having been to Art's, which is a bigger home and grounds than my street, that was what I was imagining. Bigger than that I don't see how the b&b could accommodate, especially in terms of parking. I don't know the history on the b&b. Was just trying to say that something no worse than what neighbors might routinely do, and are allowed to do, would seem an appropriate guideline. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 849 Registered: 2-2002 |
Question: How does a discussion of whether to have a nice, quiet charming, useful B&B, (or two or three) in Maplewood turn to whether someone should also be allowed to basically have a small wedding/conference hall? The answer is that there is history in that regard which proved to be a problem. -A problem not just for a few individuals but for the town council and the town taxpayer's and the police as well. I believe that any attempt to push for inclusion of such a business would prove to be a mistake given the town's time, energy and tax-payer lawyer's fees involved in the past. From the town's point-of-view, a B&B need not de-facto also be considered as needing some allowance for events and in particualr to what sudden intrusion of noise level generated should neighbors oddly be considered required to put up with as "part-of-life". Given that the subcommittee first recommended no B&Bs AT ALL it would be wise to "be quiet" on the subject of allowing any events if there is a hope of getting a quiet charming, useful B&B any time in this century. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4399 Registered: 9-2001  |
I guess at this point it’s appropriate to comment, so FWIW, I agree with almost everything said by Fred, Greene, Bobk, and Steel. Meanwhile, Cynicalgirl makes several good points about guests being allowed to eat outside in nice weather. Listen, as Steel said, I’m sure guests could manage to live without it once in awhile, however, I don’t believe it’s because it “ain't a resort town”. That’s not really a valid reason to tell guests they’re forbidden to eat outside. Actually, IMHO, these types of one-sided restrictions are silly when you come to think about them. Should guests also be forbidden to take a walk outside in the gardens? What if they need to go out for a smoke? Should they be stopped from saying their goodbyes outside also? And, what about the innkeeper and their friends and family members, will they allowed outside in nice weather? And finally, what about the neighbors eating outside when the B&B guests are trying to sleep in? Hey, maybe Steel has a point here too, “who needs to be listening to strangers blah blah blah on Sunday morning? Tryin' to sleep Dammit!” ;-) BTW, as long as the subcommittee report is out for all to read, and Fred has asked for some comments, I’ll share some of mine on the report tonight or tomorrow when I get back. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 850 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Art, Upon your future guests checking in, you must first issue them chains to keep them in their rooms, (actually you could become a specialty B&B in that regard). But seriously, in answer to all of your questions in your third paragraph above, -yes, guests should of course be allowed all those things but I believe that you are asking for trouble with the eating thing given the history of the past. As to being "one-sided" restrictions, -One side is a business and the other side is people's homes and therein lays the obvious difference, -not "silly" just common sense. -Good luck tonight. _________________________ To all other Maplewoodian's, this discussion has naturally settled on Art but it really is not just about Art's place. It's about establishing guidlines for a local industry, (if that word can be considered) -It is about foresight into preventing potential problems down the road at multiple establishments with multiple neighbors, -(maybe YOUR neighbors), while allowing the opportunity for a useful local service and business. Once Art opens his doors, (and I have no doubt that he will be able to), as a B&B, there will be others, -what will they be allowed to do or NOT do as YOUR neighbors down the street or next door? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 851 Registered: 2-2002 |
For the record: I'm thinking of opening a new B&B called "Pandora's Box", -I hope none of my neighbor's will mind. But seriously, (again) the small houses in my humble neighborhood are close enough that we can toss each other rolls during dinner so I doubt that any B&Bs would be happening around here. -It does occur to me however, that it is the neighborhoods with larger homes with real lawns that would be the likely spots. -Perhaps some stay-at-home folks, (or those who would like to stay-at-home) who are tired of paying those huge property taxes and who might think it would be fun to supplement their income by running a fun and charming B&B. Best make your voice heard if you have any thoughts or concerns on the matter or (potentially) forever lose your peace. OK, I've devoted enough brain cells to the matter. Rock on. Sleep tight tonight. | ||
| softparade Citizen Username: Softparade Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2002 |
There are some fundamental questions of operation, activity, length of stay as well as safety. Would you feel comfortable with your children around a house where there are unknown transients coming and going any time they chose? This is a real Quality of Life issue. Enforcement issues need to be discussed as well as the entire reason for this industry. How much money will the Township get versus cost of inspections/enforcement? How much of a reduction in taxes did the EDAC predict- It would be most helpful to see information that they based their recommendation to allow this industry to start up here. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4400 Registered: 9-2001 |
Thank you Steel for your input, but just allow me to say this about the eating thing. Given the history of the past, the last thing in the world any innkeeper or I would want to do is allow our guests to make inappropriate noises or to disturb any of our neighbors. Listen, I agree the ordinance when written has to consider the effects this type of business has on neighbors. As for how to regulate a B&B, there seems to be a tendency with some of the comments to try to recreate the wheel. B&Bs are a well-established worldwide industry. Excessive noise is an issue in communities everywhere, but NOT as it pertains to B&Bs. B&Bs traditionally need peace and quite as much, if not more than the average home would. People don’t go to B&Bs to be disturbed by barking dogs, noisy neighbors, or busy traffic. However, my circumstances are unique. It has to be clear to even the most casual observer that the dispute between me and two of my neighbors is personal. If things were a fraction as bad as they would lead everyone to believe, I would have been run out of town on a rail long ago. Furthermore, trying to rehash and dispute all their “stories” about people peeing on their property, buses illegally parked, and noisy parties is just another “He said, she said scenario.” Given the past history, we should not base the future of B&Bs for Maplewood on the obvious tenacity of my neighbors and myself in the matter. The facts are there are hundreds of books and untold sources of information readily available about the positive aspects of bed and breakfast homes. But, to the best of my knowledge, there’s never been one written about the negative aspects. There are literally thousands of B&Bs throughout the country that live in perfect harmony with their neighbors. As such, my issues with Mr. Ryan’s subcommittee report is they’re not experts in this field. In retrospect, I have years of personal first hand experience, have been a member of the state B&B association board, active on a national and international level with other organizations, and have taught the do’s and don’ts of B&B for the towns night school program. Actually, I’ve been in the hospitality and “inhospitality” business before Mr. Ryan was born… ;-) One more thing about this matter of "one-sided" restrictions, -One side may be a business and other side is certainly about respecting other people's homes, but say what you will, in the B&B business, it’s also about "our homes" as well. I understand the argument about "Quality of Life" issues, but life doesn't always stay the same. Most towns in America have "Home Based Business" regulations. The State of New Jersey in particular has mandated the importance of all towns providing regulations. Choosing sides between one type of business and another is a slippery slope. (Shall we look at day care, baby and/or a dog sitting, the list is endless.) The only real concern for all circumstances is, no one should have to forfeit their home life because they have a “home based business.” That’s not "silly" either; it’s just common sense... More later on my follow up of the subcommittee report and an answer to Softparade's comments. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6019 Registered: 5-2001  |
Art- obviously, I support you, but I think that a fundamental problem is lumping together the rights of a homeowner with the rights of a business owner. Yes, B&Bs operate world-wide. In this community, a B&B needs to work with our community and culture. It is lofty and noble of B&B owners to open their homes to strangers to rest their weary heads. But, B&B owners are also in this as a business. And, as they are choosing to use their homes as revenue-generating places of business, part of that choice involves making some sacrifices to their home life. All home businesses have restrictions. That's the choice business owners make. I absolutely disagree that B&B owners do not have to make sacrifices that other home owners don't. It is a choice to operate this kind of business and a privilege to be allowed to do so in a residential neighborhood. As for guests having the right to eat breakfast in peace, well... They know that they are choosing a room in a residential neighborhood. As someone who travels quite frequently, I will tell you that I often choose overnight accomodations based on facilities and my needs. If I need to eat breakfast in absolute silence with no disruption, I will choose a facility with room service. And all neighborhoods are not equal. Strangers coming in and out in a neighborhood with lots of kids are a real concern. Although, private homes can have some freaks as well. In the end, this is not about the convenience of the B&B owner or the guests. It is about finding a way to fit this needed service into the community so that the homeowners and community members are not disrupted. I would have a dramatically different opinion of the matter were it about the former. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 852 Registered: 2-2002 |
Art , -You don't have to convince me of anything, frankly I have no personal stake or official say in this matter. I do find it to be a very interesting small-town issue for no apparent reason other than to see how the surprisingly complex machinations play out, (somebody please stop me). -However, having read the highly reluctant and negative tenor written in the pdf file posted above from the subcommittee I would suggest to you that if you want a B&B at ALL that when you appear before the TC that you would be wise to go easy. They are under NO obligation to grant you ANYTHING and in granting you and any other potential future B&B owners ANY shot would obviously be very much going against the recommendation of the subcommittee. You should also not make the mistake of acting as if those persons sitting before you have short memories and will not recall both sides, (yours and several of your neighbors) of the stories from the past, -memories of the looong, arduous, hostile, legal, (expensive) battles that required all kinds of time, expense and energy. You speak of the wisdom and record of B&Bs living in deep harmony and to the benefit of their neighbors and yet the TC is confronted with a story ALREADY from the past right here in Maplewood of quite the opposite. -What would be the safeguards that they could now consider that would allow them to believe that such circumstances where unigue and unrepeatable or worse? Frankly I doubt that they would consider the past stories simply to be "he said/she said" and in fact more akin to; "he said/THEY ALL said". I'm telling you this for your own good. The TC and planning board is not going to be in any hurry to make only you happy and will rightly consider everything you say with your own clear vested interest in mind as weighed against other future unknown citizen's individual or collective risk of loss of any value. Also, once again, it is not just about your place and how you would run it but about the potential harm or benefit of B&B's mushrooming all over town, (-good or bad?) despite the subcommittee's belief that there is little demand. Good luck. Be cool. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 853 Registered: 2-2002 |
I think that I have determined what it is about this case that so fascinates me. It is about boundaries. About one individual's rights versus others. About what one finds to be a threat to freedom and the sanctity of the home. On the one hand someone is not utterly free to conduct their home and business as they see fit. Their "lifestyle" is compromised and contained by the insistence of others that their own home remain inviolate. This person is frankly not so much what most people are but what they wish themselves to be, -to howl at the moon and make money doing it. On the other hand you have what most people are, responsible citizens trudging to jobs, overwhelmed at times, happy to be home at last with our families and our small diversions of TV, reading and conversations over some light refreshments. It is so little to ask of and so hard worked for to simply feel safe and comfortable if nowhere else but at home. What some people will do to protect their sanctity from what they perceive to be an an offense can in turn become an equal or greater offense. There is ample evidence of such here on this very board in a different thread about "bad" neighbors or each of us can simply search our own memories. When I was a kid we had a neighbor who pored bleach around the base of our willow tree and killed it because he didn't care for the shade over his garden, ("Nasty old a-hole! Our tree!"). My brothers and I put firecrackers into the center of apples from our crabapple tree and tossed them into his garden like handgrenades, ("Damn kids! My mums!"). Only years later as an adult did I realize that my father didn't reeeally have to plant the willow where it would shade Mr Grants mums. He just liked the way it looked there. He figured, "screw the flowers, they're only there in the spring anyway and the guy's got a whole yard to plant stuff, plus he's an idiot and I don't like him", (secretly applauding his tiny army of three grenadiers). -Such is how it often goes on every street in every neighborhood in ways more innocent and more severe. Sometimes we bite our tongues, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we think, "I won't do this, it's not fair to my neighbors". Sometimes we think, "that's too bad if they don't like it, I gotta do what I gotta do". If we are lucky as I am, our neighbors sometimes annoyances are more than well balanced with greater mutual concerns and protections. But not everyone is lucky. And so therein lays the dilemma. Not everyone can have what they want and so there is retaliation and the painful search for recourse and relief, (although the firecrackers were fun). It is the old story of people and nations in microcosm. At the center is the arbitrators, the authority, those that we have decided will decide for us and beyond that the mystery, -what will happen next? | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6037 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred? Oh, Fred? You still out there? Are you getting what you need or, now that people are chiming in, does it give you some more specific questions to ask? | ||
| softparade Citizen Username: Softparade Post Number: 96 Registered: 8-2002 |
I am still waiting for Mayor Profeta to submit the EDAC documentation that he referenced as the basis of this ordinance. This is quite a big deal as it affects zoning in residential neighborhoods. I am sure that as an attorney Mayor Profeta and the Town Council had reviewed all the testimony and reports and that there was a prepondence of evidence to support this change to the Township of Maplewood current zoning restrictions on rooming houses in the township. I believe there is already an ordinance that allows residents to legally rent one room and that home busineses have restrictions as to size,scope, etc and that information was factored in to his decision to champion this ordinance on behalf of the EDAC. It would really help the discussion if the memos, testimonys, charts, numbers, figures from EDAC were posted here in pubic to review as well as independant expert witnesses. The names of Planning Board sub-committee are now on MOL so also please post the names of the EDAC members- current or past who participated in the study recommending the industry of B&B's in Maplewood. Thank you Mayor Profeta. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6039 Registered: 5-2001 |
Good point. I think that there should be a limit on the number of consecutive stays by the same person. And (some people ain't gonna like this) there should be a mandatory # of days/weeks that the B&B must close for business over the course of the year. There are so many issues with illegal residences in town that this precaution is a "must" to make it more difficult to game the system. I also assume that smoke detectors, escape ladders (those rope/chain portable things) and fire extinguishers will be mandatory in all guest rooms. The owners should be willing to submit to random, surprise inspections to ensure that safety equipment is on site and there are no signs of permanent residence in a guest room. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7942 Registered: 4-1997  |
Short version of new ordinance: 1) No banjo playing. Ever. 2) No more than 2 guests per bedroom and only 1 guest can sleep on the kitchen floor (weekends only: exception: Ed May can do weeknights). 3) No pancakes prepared on premises without supervision of health inspector. 4) Wedding receptions limited to 20 people and 1x per month except for Indian weddings, which may have up to 900 people and a full Bollywood film crew of 40 to record the event for family members unable to attend. 5) No pointing loudspeakers and spotlights at softparade unless softparade is running a lawnmower or leafblower for more than 3 hours. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14216 Registered: 10-2001  |
6) Overflow crowds must stay with neighbors. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4401 Registered: 9-2001 |
You guys are too funny... Hey, I just got home and I'd be up all night trying to respond to all of you. Tomorrow's another day. BTW, I don’t believe this matter is as complicated or difficult as some of you are making it sound. I'm sure all this analysis is helpful and well intended, but I feel the best thing for everyone is to just respond to the objections of the subcommittee’s report. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6040 Registered: 5-2001 |
Art - I know you are tired, but it's OK if people respond/suggest where they feel important and not just where you want us to, right? FWIW, I think that answering Fred's general questions by giving our thoughts on what it would take for us to support the ordinance is a response to the report now, isn't it? I'm sure that you don't intentionally mean to cut off community debate. We're on your side. Along with all of Bollywood. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4402 Registered: 9-2001 |
“They are under NO obligation to grant you ANYTHING and in granting you and any other potential future B&B owners ANY shot would obviously be very much going against the recommendation of the subcommittee.” Greene, last night I was responding to Steel’s post. Of course I appreciate all the additional negative, positive, and comical responses as well. However, I agree with Steel that the recommendations of the subcommittee are important, and IMO, a good idea to address before we all get to far ahead of ourselves Customarily, the Township Committee will respond first to the report from the Planning Board. I personally have not responded in detail yet to the report because I feel it’s probably a good idea to allow others like yourself to have your say first. So please continue doing what ever you feel is best... | ||
| Jennifer Pickett Citizen Username: Jpickett Post Number: 95 Registered: 4-2005 |
I support B&Bs in Maplewood 100%- I think they would encourage/sustain businesses I enjoy (restaurants and boutique shops), I'm for anything that might help with property taxes, and it is also a business that services guests of residents of M/SO. I agree that I would not want to live next door to an event hosting factory, but I can't imagine objecting to guests' breakfast conversations? The sight of them can be screened by proper landscaping, and who in hell could possibly *hear* them over the incessant, all-year, ordinance-defying whine of leafblowers in this town anyway??? | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 652 Registered: 7-2004  |
I would have no problem with it if all the neighbors thought it was a good idea. (Even 95% of the neighbors would do, there is always one or two crazies) Unfortunately they do have a problem with it, so I find that I cannot support this until they support it. | ||
| Drew Hearon Citizen Username: Dhearon Post Number: 31 Registered: 2-2005 |
My wife and I frequently stay at B&B's, and in many cases, they are cash only enterprises. In a question directed to those who know more than I, is this to skirt local town business taxes? | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3091 Registered: 1-2004  |
Art- Did you know your place was mention recently in another area newspaper? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4403 Registered: 9-2001 |
No JTA, can you remember what newspaper? BTW Drew, all businesses that are cash only don't do it to skirt local business taxes. First of all, there is a fairly high monthly rental fee for the machine, and an additional service charges per sale. Most B&Bs not in resort areas are too small to afford these extra monthly charges. Also, all businesses are required to keep some sort of business records, plus most B&Bs will usually accept personal checks... | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3101 Registered: 1-2004 |
I do remember and saved it for you! I'll drop it off at Heres2thearts over the weekend.... Nothing bad... | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4405 Registered: 9-2001 |
”Unfortunately they do have a problem with it, so I find that I cannot support this until they support it.” Dear Mayor McCheese, I feel it's important as this matter continues to be discussed that we are aware of all the issues, both in favor and against B&Bs in general. Therefore, after rereading you post several times I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Please allow me to paraphrase it as to how I’m reading it… You would have no problem with any B&B if “all” the neighbors thought it was a good idea, even if 95% of them did, however, if there were one or two crazies against it, unfortunately you wouldn’t support it until those one or two crazies approved it as well. In other words, it's 100% approval, all or nothing? | ||
| Meandtheboys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 2029 Registered: 12-2004  |
Off topic, ajc, and I apologize. It's just that I've been trying to reach you for a couple of weeks now. I sent you an e-mail and left you a message at the B&B number. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4406 Registered: 9-2001 |
I should apologize to you... I keep the B&B line (973) 762-3416 off the hook and my mail box full. I've been thinking of just disconnecting it because the damn thing keeps ringing night and day. I also get tons of e-mail that I delete everyday, mostly without opening them. I'm sorry I may have missed yours... I'll try e-mailing you, maybe that will work? | ||
| Meandtheboys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 2030 Registered: 12-2004 |
Well, I was able to leave you a message on whatever number I called you on (not sure what the number was because I was connected directly from 411). That was just this past Tuesday. The e-mail was a couple of weeks ago. I'll look for an e-mail from you. | ||
| Meandtheboys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 2031 Registered: 12-2004 |
Got your P/L and tried you on your cell, but got voicemail, so I left you a message. Also, look for P/L from me. Thanks. | ||
| weekends Citizen Username: Weekends Post Number: 82 Registered: 1-2002 |
Steel, Your "it's about boundaries" post is very perseptive. Liked it a lot. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 856 Registered: 2-2002 |
I thank you for the compliment. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4407 Registered: 9-2001 |
"it's about boundaries" I liked it too, Weekend... and although it doesn't provide the answer to the dilemma, it does give us all food for thought. Not everyone can have what they want and so there are the arbitrators. This is why I found Mayor McCheese's post so interesting. How can government rule if everything required 100% approval by the public? Is there anything to say for the majority rule, compromise, or the overall good of the community? Yes, beyond that the mystery, -what will happen next? Very well done Steel, thank you. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6066 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, I don't know that Steel's post doesn't help with an answer. It is, indeed, an eloquent post. So well thought out that I will forgive Steel for trying to unseat the infallible Greenetree from her self-appointed leading MOL advisor role (in secret competition with Joan Crystal). If the perspective raised by Steel is given careful consideration, and the Powers That Be keep it in mind while crafting the ordinance, they cannot help but be guided by the perspective that boundaries exist, none of us live in a vaccum (or ranch in Waco) and need to be acknowledged. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 857 Registered: 2-2002 |
It seems to me that the crux of the subcommittee's objection is not whether there could be negatives associated with allowing B&Bs. Apparently they are absolutely convinced that there will be. I sense that that determination may largely have come from anecdotal evidence taken from opinions etc around town, (though I could be wrong about that). The crux of the negative report centers on whether such a thing is worth it, -whether it may be more trouble and expense than it is worth to the town overall. Whether it is of sufficient value to overcome the potential harm to neighbors and expense of monitoring/enforcing etc. -Balance. The subcommittee would seem to argue that given what they perceive to be of relatively smallish value, (but to a few on occasion) as weighed against ANY possible objections of neighbors, (which is a holy thing here in Maplewood) and that it could potentially cost more to the town in taxes than it might receive in revenues , -they say nay. However dear Art, -as you look at the chess board in this situation, realize that the planning board sent the subcommittee back, (after the first "forget it" recommendation), with the admonishment that the subcommittee had not fulfilled it's charge. That indicates to me that the planning board is inclined to allow B&Bs if they are not convinced otherwise. -In other words the game is yours to lose. You represent not only yourself in this matter but the potential starting-point model of all and any future Innkeepers. The Planning board needs to very much bear that in mind, -in other words what sort of unknown other "Innkeeper from Hell" could be spawned and what would be the town's possible quick-remedy legal recourse once such a beast were unleashed. The subcommittee rightly points out that once a certain type of business is allowed that there is later little legal basis for then restricting the number of them, (except for such things as distance from each other, as with the nail salons which would be of little practical application in this case). And so the subcommittee sez, -"Well if you MUST allow these horrible perversions of charm than you MUST create amazingly strict and narrow guidelines to keep the unruly under control". -I would tend to agree with that portion of their logic. All of that said, (Jesus, I can't believe how wordy I am on this subject but it tends to focus my inflamed little mind in the morning), -anyway, I think that a few little B&Bs has the potential to be a cool thing and could even help influence the whole Springfield Ave thing, -antiques stores, cute restaurants, more visual arts and music venues, -a destination, -the whole nine yards, (disgustingly charming). Also, bear in mind that if South Orange ever builds, (starts?) their mighty "Arts Center" that that could also add to the total package. Carry on. | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2005 |
Couldn't have said it better myself. carry on mr Steel , look forward to reading your daily postings.. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4408 Registered: 9-2001 |
“I think that a few little B&Bs has the potential to be a cool thing and could even help influence the whole Springfield Ave thing, -antiques stores, cute restaurants, more visual arts and music venues, -a destination, -the whole nine yards, (disgustingly charming). Also, bear in mind that if South Orange ever builds, (starts?) their mighty "Arts Center" that that could also add to the total package.” Thanks Steel, I agree with you. However, many others are mostly looking forward to the conveniences of having family and friends stay close by. If a few B&Bs will help in this regard, all the better for Maplewood. The truth is, given some of the present problems in and around the Avenue, we'll need all the help we can get to help maintain that “One of the Best Places to Live in America.” BTW, with some of the proposed limitations mentioned thus far, including property lot sizes of half acre, the chances of more than a few little B&Bs are very unlikely. Even less likely are the million-dollar Mac Mansion’s west of Maplewood Avenue. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 858 Registered: 2-2002 |
Sadly, speaking for myself I'm not sure how much I could look forward to family staying close by, (at least not my side of the family), particularly during the holidays. Although we do look forward to some of the old traditions at Christmas time such as the annual opening of old wounds. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4410 Registered: 9-2001 |
NEWS RECORD - front page Nov. 17, 2005 “The ordinance raised eyebrows among those who suspected the ordinance was Profeta’s way of doing a favor for Christensen, who was once a political rival.” Talk about political spin... What the hell is this all about? And, who’s eyebrows among us is he talking about anyway? I’d like to see Staff Reporter, Phillip Sean Curran, put on ice until he tells us who handed him that line of crap. To add insult to injury, “Christensen, who was once a political rival.”. To suggest Fred is no longer my political adversary is insane... Sure, we’re both long time residents, we went to Columbia H.S. together, and I like and respect him both as a person and as our Mayor, but to suggest we’re not political rivals is going to far. Philip’s article, like the subcommittee’s report, IMHO, is one sided and bias. As I said earlier here, I would wait to comment on the subcommittee report posted for public consumption by our leader Dave Ross, until everyone had their chance to comment first. Seeing a lull in activity, I assume it’s my time to say how I really feel about it. My comments are not for the weak of heart, and I suspect those who get through it are seriously interested in the consequences this ordinance will have on our community. Let me begin by saying, IMHO, the subcommittee report showed a bias and clear defiance to follow their basic simple instructions. In their very first paragraph, the subcommittee acknowledged their responsibility. “The Maplewood Township Committee asked the Planning Board to draft an ordinance creating an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit Bed and Breakfast to be located within residential zones with certain conditions.” The Planning Board chair appointed this subcommittee to create the requested ordinance draft language for submission to the Township Committee.” Reading their opening remarks, one would assume it was very clear what would follow. As the Chair began to read further, it immediately became clear that the subcommittee had its own agenda and had no intention of compliance with the TC's request. “The subcommittee has not completed draft ordinances for review by the Planning Board and Township Committee. Several questions of policy arose during deliberations that need to be aired.” The report goes on to say, “The subcommittee feels confident that after discussion of the issues raised, draft ordinances can be completed in short order should it be the Township Committee’s decision to do so.” The Township Committee had already made up its mind that it wanted an ordinance to be brought up for public debate, yet in spite of almost a decade of discussions, untold numbers of public and committee meetings, subsequent newspaper articles, years of litigation, favorable recommendations from the EDC, the Chamber, the Master Plan, a prior Planning Board, and of course the decision to move forward with an ordinance by the Township Committee, this four-member subcommittee rejects its responsibility, hijacks the direction, intent, and purpose of their charge, then makes up its own mind by stating: “The subcommittee believes that, for a number of reasons, it would be a mistake to allow B&Bs in Maplewood.” The nerve of them!!! Now this is what I call conviction in ones own personal opinions! Is it possible to believe that in just one short subcommittee meeting that this group of four could have made up their mind so clearly that they were able to come to this decision without additional debate and NOT introducing any of the positive criteria for their report? Were they really able to meet this one time on October 12th, and sift through all the written materials provided to them, and be so sure that there was no need to write an ordinance because they felt “it would be a mistake to allow B&Bs in Maplewood.”? IMO, it would be near impossible to reach this conclusion without some preconceived opinions on the subject matter. I feel upon recognizing their own bias and collective agreement to forego writing an ordinance, they should have immediately referred the responsibility back the chair of the Planning Board to reassign others to complete the request of the Township Committee. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that after more than five years in the public eye, the Township Committee realized that the matter of bed and breakfast for our community needed to be brought to the fore. Its time had finally come to be presented for open public debate and a vote one way or the other. The decision to thwart this opportunity is not only disappointing, it down right depressing. However, to their credit, the subcommittee correctly recognized that … “these issues would come up on introduction and hearings on any ordinances, and were thus best raised now.” Unfortunately, without bringing forth any positive criteria, how can there be any meaningful debate? Customarily, ordinances are drafted to provide either a positive result, or prevent a negative one. The Township Committee was clearly not requesting the Planning Board for an ordinance to prevent the development of bed and breakfast homes in Maplewood. Unfortunately, the committee failed to recognize the underlying purpose of drafting this ordinance in the first place. Should this ordinance pass, it would in affect replace the need for a Use Variance, which is required should anyone wish to open a B&B in town. To present this type of variance before the Board of Adjustment it must contain both the “positive” and the “negative” criteria before any decision can be made in favor of it. Although they recognized the need to raise issues they believed would have a negative effect, they failed to recognize any positive ones. After reading through the complete report, nowhere is there any positive criteria or recommendations for bed and breakfast. It is also unclear why the subcommittee felt it unimportant to provide any statistical facts in their report, and saw no reason to seek expert advice to support their personal opinions of what is right or wrong for Maplewood. I find this disturbing, as the committee acknowledges receiving numerous detailed and comprehensive information. Following their report, in the somewhat argumentative and defensive discussion period with the rest of the full Planning Board, one subcommittee member stated he could ask anyone in town if they would want a B&B as a neighbor and the answer would be no, but he totally ignored the obvious other question of whether anyone liked the idea of having B&B’s in our community. The answer to that question would have most likely been yes. The same scenario holds true for most changes in the status quo. People want their cake and eat it too. With over 8,000 homes in town, any concerns of a great influx of B&Bs would be irresponsible. The reality according to Professor Richard Wisch, Dean of the International School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at Fairleigh Dickenson University, estimates that Maplewood wouldn’t be able to support more than two or three bed and breakfasts. Although I believe the number to be closer to four to six, the impact in any residential areas of our community would be absolutely negligible. Wisch also added that Maplewood is not a tourist center, and guest stays would be primarily limited to any local needs of residents for accommodations for visiting family and friends. “Unless Maplewood develops a Niagara Falls in the middle of town, or a miracle occurs that has people flocking from around the world, people are not going to gravitate to it.” With my many years of personal experience I fully agree. Personally, I would be elated if this ordinance was capable of generating one or two new B&Bs a year. During the discussion period, members of the subcommittee raised some additional questions. Q. Where would you put it? A. Nearly all B&Bs are traditionally located in one family homes in one family zones. Q. What are the days and hours of operation? A. People come and go as they need to. No restrictions can ever be applied to guests that say they have to pack their bags and leave before 5PM. Q. How long can a guest stay at a bed and breakfast? A. The State of New Jersey limits the stay to not more than 30 days. The majority of all stays are only one or two days, and longer periods depend on the guest’s needs. However, because of the obvious high daily rates, extended guest stays are rare. Q. What is in it for the town? A. Besides a 3% occupancy tax on all guest stays, the town also would charge an annual license fee. To the best of my knowledge, no other businesses in town are obligated to collect tax income for the town. As for additional benefits to the town, they go far beyond any tax or license fee income. As few as two or three bed and breakfasts can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in new business to the business community, increases in property tax, and a visual pick-me-up to any neighborhood. There are several other areas of the report that I feel require some further clarification. SUMMARY- In this section, the recommendation for two ordinances is in my opinion unnecessary. The B&B ordinance can cover all these provisions and any necessary modifications to permit a bed and breakfast as a conditional use in any of our residential zones. And as noted, adding any conditional use provisions to the existing zoning ordinances, could be finalized quickly. B&Bs- POLICY CONSIDERATIONS- First, I’m sure that weak economic justification are not normally an important consideration for passing any ordinance. The EDC was not charged with the responsibility of drafting an ordinance. I spoke with the Chair, Steve Gussen, who said he was not required to write a report, but felt there was no obvious negative impact to town services. IMO, the overall economic benefit to the community is apparent and there should be no reason to justify it, and it would also be improper to do so without first justifying an economic benefit from every other business in town as well. The concern for destination logic, or the number of rooms also has no relevance. The market itself will determine any of these conditions. And, the benefits to permit bed and breakfast for the convenience of local residents far outweighs any so called weak monetary explanation, or destination logic. Not to be insulting, but the recommendation for a hotel for Maplewood is ridiculous. And, I don't recall a new hotel on Sprinfield Avenue really being a recommendation of the Master Plan? First and foremost, bed and breakfast guests are a select few, and prefer the warm friendly hospitality of staying at someone’s home, not a cold austere hotel. As for finding an investor to build a “small” hotel anywhere in Maplewood would be near impossible, especially on the Avenue. There are other issues like the size, what is a small hotel, 10, 20, 50 rooms? What about finding a property large enough, and then there’s the problem of parking. And the most important reason of all… it’s feasibly impossible to cost justify building a hotel that can not justify at least a 120 rooms. Can anyone in their right mind really see a 120-room hotel on Springfield Avenue between Irvington and Vauxhall? The NIMBY factor of reduced public safety is false. Industry surveys actually show the opposite is true. This subject doesn’t even warrant more comment. Everyone knows all about the “Not In My Back Yard” mentality. What more can anyone say about it other than if this was the basis for residential or economic development, we would all still be living in caves. Regulation and protection concerns against abuse are totally unfounded. Give us a break! There is no evidence anywhere to substantiate these outrages and overstated accusations. Trying to distinguish activities that violate B&B regulations should be no more difficult than enforcing regulations for any other type of business. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that innkeepers are no better than common criminals. Furthermore, mixed-use businesses in residential and business neighborhoods are becoming more and more commonplace. Bed and breakfast operations wouldn’t be any more of a burden on police than other home based businesses like those of a doctor, dentist, lawyer, psychologist, massage therapist, and an untold number of other types of businesses, including day care for children, the elderly, and/or pet sitting and overnight boarding of up to 18 dogs allowed by certain outspoken neighbors of mine!!! Would you really like to get into a hypocrisy discussion with me Softparade? Concerns for neighborhood safety around B&Bs are unfounded. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Neighborhoods are safer when more people stay at home. In today’s home-based work force, diversity is the norm rather than the exception. Companies all across the country are encouraging more of their workers to work out of their homes. All of these home-based businesses must enjoy all the rights and privileges of every other homeowner. Was anyone really thinking when they said homeowners should be taxed more because they’re working out of their homes? In one way or another, with the all the increased property taxes we're forced to pay, increasing numbers of families are tired of spending a lifetime working for their homes, and are looking for better ways to have their homes working for them. This was also true when the State of New Jersey passed legislation requiring local municipalities to permit and encourage more home based businesses in their communities. Times are changing, and so must we. Why should regulations for a B&B be that much different than any other home based business? FWIW, there are even members on the Planning Board who also work out of their homes. Any restrictions need to be fair and balanced. There are plenty of ordinances on the books already to protect neighbors from one and other, not to mention the two-way street when it comes to all the "Quality of Life" issues. Furthermore, unlike other home based businesses, B&Bs will have a license to pull if they become a real problem in any part of town. When writing this B&B ordinance, it's recommended by experts in the field to KISS, so lets get on with it already .... Trust me, if all I had to do was sit in some committee and figure out negative reasons for not allowing "any" businesses to operate, I could write a book. That, BTW, was NOT the subcommittee’s responsibility! Speaking of writing books, I believe this is enough on the subject for now. I’ll look forward to receiving any comments and suggestions on the township committee’s attempt to bring sensible lodging solutions to our community. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 860 Registered: 2-2002 |
I'm curious to see what the protections look like in the draft ordinance beyond the initial rejecting recommendation. Only from there will potential neighbors of such establishments have a true starting point of further discussion, because only then will anyone see if they are such a potential neighbor and what their rights may or may not be under the future proposed law. I would further consider it the duty of the TC to make sure that all such potential neighbors are made well aware of the possible enactment of the ordinance well before it would be enacted so that such homeowners may have fair and ample opportunity to consider their situation and voice their concerns of threat or welcome benefit as a matter of record. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4411 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I would further consider it the duty of the TC to make sure that all such potential neighbors are made well aware of the possible enactment of the ordinance..." Bla, Bla, Bla, give it up Steel. Between, the News Record this week and MOL, and the Star Ledger last week, I highly doubt there are many residents in town who are unaware of this pending ordinance. The truth is, this ordinance should not receive any different treatment than any of the others written every month. I'm sure you will recall the Elmwood Avenue No Parking Ordinance pushed through, 1, 2, 3... I went away on vacation for two weeks, came back and it was law. The TC told me that it was posted at Town Hall, it was published in the News Record, it was shown on Channel 35, and shame on me for not paying attention... What would you expect the town to do, send certified letters? How about going door to door? Your so called curiosity to see what the protections look like in the draft ordinance beyond the initial rejecting recommendation is laughable. Spell it out man, what more protection are you looking for? With everything written regarding the subcommittee report, is this best you can do? After reading your last post, I think you should spend more time healing old family wounds, than being some kind of B&B consumer protection advocate for the town... |
