| Author | Message | ||
     mjc Citizen Username: Mjc Post Number: 726 Registered: 10-2004 |
Daniel, thanks for your factual post. Couple of comments: A) Yes, you're right: we looked at this house some years ago, and it has significant (I think) issues about tilting and sagging floors, resulting in doors that don't fit, etc. Our floors sag too, but not as bad. Maybe something to do with the river and/or inadequate prep before the foundations were built; also these houses are not the fanciest construction. From that point of view it does make more sense for the owners to build new rather than try to do extensive work on the current house. B) "no houses on either side", true, but there's a house behind it, and I believe they're both already pretty close to the line. I'd hate to see a new house that completely overshadows the neighbor. C) Exactly, if the current setbacks (or regulation setbacks) are maintained, and the footprint is not that much bigger (such as extending the house over the current deck), I would have no problem with a new "upgraded" house there. But if it's going to come a lot closer to the street(s) and not look "neighborly" in relation to the houses nearby, that's another thing. The setback rules are there for a reason. Looking forward to attending the meeting. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2051 Registered: 4-2002 |
A couple of years ago the big concern was preventing subdivisions of lots where a propertyowner who had a large piece of property would divide it into two pieces. Then a builder could build on the piece without a house or tear down the existing home and build two new ones. This was the trend and we passed some ordinances to prevent homeowners from doing just that (despite MHD's comments above, what we did worked and was in response to concerned residents). We also asked the planning board to review the master plan and to look at a long term plan that deals with these issues. The planning board will hire a firm that deals in these areas and will come back with ordinances for the BOT to consider (ones that will tighten up the rules for subdivisions and Mcmansions). I think Tom R is correct in that we have to be careful not to legislate taste while preventing the town from becoming a bunch of cookie-cutter homes. I think we have to be careful not to cross the line where we prevent homeowners from making changes to their homes (adding decks or remodeling where one side of the home gets expanded) and at the same time preventing what happened in towns wher one existing all had to remain in place. We do have lot coverage rules and they vary depending on which zone you are in (R-60, R-75 or r-100). The larger lots have a 30% limit. This is not an easy issue. There are some smaller older homes that given the economics might make more sense to knock down and start over. Right now we do have size limits (lot coverage, height) so the question is how far should government go? Also, in some towns (Milburn) some of the homeowners sold their homes for what was a record breaking price and then saw it knocked down to see a McMansion go up. I am sure some people see their home as their retirement fund and this might be their best chance to cash out. Of course, the whole problem goes away if the housing price bubble bursts or if mortgage rates increase significantly. Dave: I assume the picture you show does not include the total size of the lot, and you showed that way to make a point. | ||
| sac Supporter Username: Sac Post Number: 2311 Registered: 5-2001 |
Re talk-it-up's question #12: I think that you need to have an option for variances, after all, there is always the "exception that proves (or supports) the rule". However, if we get to the point where everyone is filing for and receiving variances, then there is a problem. We set out to replace our garage a few years ago. The old one was in terrible shape and the most cost effective solution would have been to rebuild on the existing foundation. However, we could only have done that by getting a variance and we decided not to jump through those hoops. If I recall correctly, the problems with rebuilding in place were both setback related (those rules had changed over the years and the existing structure was nonconforming) and also the foundation, while much thicker than currently required (and in fine shape), did not have 30" deep footings. So ... in order to avoid the hassle of getting a variance, we had to shift the location slightly, tear out a perfectly good old foundation and replace it with something that I can tell you is not half as sturdy or high quality, although it does conform to the rules. Since we had to do that, we decided to enlarge it (providing room for two minivans plus storage, should we ever decide to have two large vehicles.) Therefore, the neighborhood ended up with a possibly slightly less desirable structure (not aligned with the garage next to it, which is still nonconforming) and larger than before. And, we ended up paying quite a bit more to get our garage, with a poorer quality foundation, although more space for our stuff. Now, I don't disagree with any of the setback rules or other restrictions and it was our choice not to pursue a variance. I outline this to illustrate that, had we gone for the variance, the result would likely have been considered "more tasteful" and more in keeping with what was there before. (Although I don't think there are any major objections with what we did.) So, IF the board that reviews variance requests is intelligent and thoughtful in its reviews, then the variance process will supplement an appropriately strict set of zoning rules and should result in protecting the aesthetics of our beautiful housing stock while still allowing owners to improve their homes. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6792 Registered: 4-1997  |
Mark, that is correct. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1016 Registered: 12-2003  |
Dave: What happens when folks drive down the beautiful streets of Montrose (my neighborhood), and happen upon the 1970s ranch, contemporary and split-level homes that dot the landscape? I don't think they turn around and speed to Short Hills. There are very few places to build new homes in Maplewood and South Orange, and I really don't think teardowns are that common. It just doesn't make economic sense. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6793 Registered: 4-1997 |
Those homes are still proportional to their lots and neighborhoods. To get a house like the one proposed, they're for sale now by Pulte a few blocks up the mountain. | ||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 736 Registered: 4-2004 |
An interesting point: the foundation of the existing home has shifted and caused the home to shift as well. This lot is located next to a culvert and may not be the most solid ground to build upon, as it too has shifted over time. If the existing home has been affected by the instability of this ground, wouldn't a larger structure be more at risk? Any engineers out there who could speak to this? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6795 Registered: 4-1997 |
Good point, Brett. Priority of my concerns: 1-Disproportionate use of lot 2-Encroachment on house directly behind it 3-Very public face it will put on the town due to its proximity to our largest parcel of open space | ||
| Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP Supporter Username: Conrail Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2004 |
I could be wrong, but I do not think the proposed house is any closer to the house behind it than the existing house. I think the reduction in the front yard setback is a more serious issue for the community at large . . . Also, if I remember the site plan correctly, there is no walkway from the sidewalk to the front of the house; the walkway leads from the driveway. The older homes in the neighborhood generally have a pedestrian-friendly design which would be different on this project (which faces the park). As already mentioned the loss of the older trees is an issue, though probably necessary to expand the house. Hopefully the homeowners will plant three or four replacement saplings. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1020 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dave: There are tons of homes in Maplewood and South Orange that I'd consider to be too big for their lots. (In fact, I'd say that, on average, most of our homes are too big for their lots.) Wyoming Ave. is not the norm. There are many houses that have little or no yard, beyond the $10,000 deck attached to the back. And there are blocks and blocks of neighborhoods where the houses are barely far enough apart for a driveway. Believe me, I feel the same way you do about the beautiful homes in our towns. I just get nervous when we start thinking about restrictions as the solution to our problems. Such things have a way of coming back to bite you in the butt sometime in the future, often in a way you hadn't expected. People aren't just moving here for our proximity to the train. They want our fantastic old homes. There are plenty of cheaper places to live that would be more conducive to teardowns and McMansions. No one is going to start bulldozing our homes just because they want 4 bathrooms. The economics don't make sense in a town like ours. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6796 Registered: 4-1997 |
Monty, Restrictions have been the only way to prevent McMansioning in many historic towns. Otherwise, it's developers (who lack our interest in historic homes) who buy up lots and do the knockdowns. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6797 Registered: 4-1997 |
Daniel, I heard from the neighbor that encroachment is an issue. I think my trace of the plans above includes steps or something in the current house footprint. The bigger issue to me is what precident this sets to developers & investors watching. What is the message we send to them in a low lending rate market? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1182 Registered: 5-2004  |
Dave, I don't mean this to be snippy. Does the neighbor think it's an encroachment issue from a survey perspective, or from an aesthetic perspective? In other words, do they THINK it will encroach based on the way things look, or do they know it will based on the plans? As far as the McMansion thing, I go back and forth. I do like the look of older homes. And the argument that new homes have fewer problems is not quite true. You just different problems. But we don't have (or don't enforce) rules that require certain levels of maintenance on those homes. What is worse, seeing a new home that doesn't match the rest of the neighborhood, or seeing one that does, but having it be decrepid? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6798 Registered: 4-1997 |
I can't answer for what someone thinks and I'm not epert enough to judge from the plans, but it looks like what used to be a patio area with steps is becoming part of the new house and moves within 8 feet of the neighboring house's property. But what is the big picture? Does diversity of housing have a place in towns that value diversity? My sense is we cannot stop it entirely, but we can make it such a pain-in-the-butt process that investors and investors look to other towns to do knockdowns. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1184 Registered: 5-2004 |
Thakns for the info. I don't live that close to the house (actually, not that far - but there's no direct way to get there from above Wyoming), but I'll see if I can walk by on my way home tonight. The pic you posted doesn't seem to show much of a change in the back line of the house other than that it's much, much longer. Diversity is a matter of perspective. There are whole blocks in South Orange and Maplewood where the houses all look the same. Drive down Maplwewood Ave near Parker. Not the most aesthetically pleasing. Many homes near the animal shelter look like they could have come from the same set of plans. And diversity doesn't have to mean old. I agree that it would be nice if builders built houses like they used to, but they're very expensive to build these days. Brick homes can cost 50% more to build than those with siding. And older homes typically don't have large rooms. They might have a large number of rooms, but they're typically smaller. (please don't start posting here with "well, my home is 500 years old and has a 400 square foot bathroom") That's not to say that things couldn't be done better. And I'm all for regulations preventing builders from doing things on the cheap. But I also agree with cmonty. Laws almost always have unintended consequences. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 1620 Registered: 1-2004  |
Dave- I live in the area so I know what you're talking about. For those who don't, is it possible for someone to take a picture of the house to give people a better idea, or would that open you up to another lawsuit? Or can you draw another graphic showing the size of the proposed house in relation to the size of the lot? Maybe include where the other house is, the brook, and the streets? Just a thought. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6800 Registered: 4-1997 |
To me it's less about a specific house than a trend that should be examined, so I don't want to post a photo. People should be able to do what the law allows them to do. The variance applied for is extending beyond what the law allows, which is why it should be examined more closely. That's the real unintended consequence here. Along with more people living in bigger houses = increased pressure on schools. McMansions do nothing for residents. It's all for developers and realtors. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1023 Registered: 12-2003 |
I guess we have to pin down what you mean by "McMansions." I take those to mean strings of identical houses, slapped up quickly. The top two pictures you posted don't strike me as that inappropriate for town. There are plenty of neighborhoods where they wouldn't look out of place. And I guess I don't follow the pressure-on-schools argument... We're not talking about one lot being divided to put two homes on. How would there be an additional strain on the town? Finally... Dave you seemed concerns about developers doing a knock-down, but do you know of a single case of that happening? This particular case is about homeowners knocking down their own house, right? | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1024 Registered: 12-2003 |
And also: Why would real estate agents be interested in knocking down anything but the crappiest houses, when our nice homes command such a premium? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1186 Registered: 5-2004 |
"McMansions do nothing for residents." I'll agree with this if you say "McMansions do nothing for residents that do not live in that house." I could say that about any house I find aesthetically displeasing, however. Also, I would guess that bigger houses do not mean more people living in them. More likely, it's a couple or family that wants more room to live or entertain, not more rooms to fill with kids. If the purpose is to keep the number of kids in the schools low, we should say houses can't have more than two bedrooms, and no more than 1500 sf. Then families with more kids will simply leave town, and we won't have to worry about overcrowding the schools. You make a better point when you talk about the aesthetics. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6802 Registered: 4-1997 |
Read the Newsweek article linked above. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6803 Registered: 4-1997 |
Here's the Short Hills response to the trend http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/essex/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1119505888267140.xml& coll=1
The particular variance request in question is to exceed 40 percent. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8942 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave have you actually seen a rendition of the proposed house? Are you sure it is as bad as it is being made out to be? Unfortunately some houses deteriorate to a point where repairing them isn't feasible. "Old time craftsmanship" was often only skin deep, so this happens. However, SO (according to Mark) appears to have set back and lot coverage ordinances similar to Maplewoods and the Board of Adjustment doesn't have to grant variances that would allow a McMansion. Lobby early and often with the Village officialdom, both elected and appointed. | ||
| Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP Supporter Username: Conrail Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2004 |
I live within 250 feet of the property requesting the variance and the owners came by to show me the plans and to seek my support for their application. So I suspect that the neighbor behind the house was also shown the plans and is objecting on that basis. Just a reminder that this is not a developer-based tear-down or subdivision. The current owner is seeking to replace an existing house that has a failing foundation with a much larger house. The current law requires them to seek a variance to build this larger house. Whether the variance should be granted is a quality of life issue, but should not be taken as a threat of developer-driven tear-downs, which are common in places like Astoria or Staten Island. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1188 Registered: 5-2004 |
I did read the article. I must have missed the part about the strain on the schools.  Other than that, it's all subjective and a matter of opinion. I do find many of these houses to be ugly cookie cutter cheap "plastic" knockoffs. But that doesn't mean they all are. And remember that if enough people decide that Tutor are ugly, we could have a rule that says no tutor homes. Or no splits (I'd be in favor of that), or no Jeffersonians. Improve the building codes, and scrutinize variances. I'm all for these kinds of actions. I'm just not ready to tell people what kinds of houses they can and can't build on their own property. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6804 Registered: 4-1997 |
Princeton is looking into restricting McMansions, too. http://www.towntopics.com/apr0605/other3.html | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6805 Registered: 4-1997 |
Fresh Meadows residents want to do something about McMansion spillover now that a nearby town enacted ordinances.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgI d=1593&topicId=21355&docId=l:287730668 Like Monty said, this isn't really upon us, but as it takes time to put regs in the books maybe it's time to start that process. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6806 Registered: 4-1997 |
The bright side: "Monster homes may not be all bad. Morris says property values can rise community-wide and on blocks where teardowns have been replaced by trophy homes." ("trophy" is not defined here, though) From http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/20/pf/saving/willis_tips/ | ||
| James Keagen Citizen Username: Villager05 Post Number: 1 Registered: 7-2005 |
I personally know the owner very well, I think if you knew the whole story, your opinions would actually be worth something. As Mr. Jacobs clearly wrote, the house has been settling or should I say, sinking, due to the foundation's submersion in water. The inadequate containment of the water led to the weakening of the houses' foundation, thus giving the house a "lopsided" visual appearance. In the house over the years, windows and walls have continually cracked and the basement has continually flooded due to a poor town installed sewage system. The owners have invested a tremendous amount of money into the renovation/maintenance of their home, and have found that they've done everything humanly possible as far as repairs go and I think that the demolishing and rebuilding of a home will be the fairy tale ending to a bad situation. Lastly, as far as zoning goes. The variance in which they are filing for is a valid one. Unbeknownst to many, the 1/2 of the brook is actually their land. It was taking from them when the brook was built, thus cutting into their lot size. Also, this new home is not a McMansion. It's not that big in size. It's slightly bigger than the original, if that. It's basically a more logical reorganization of space. It won't destroy the neighborhood's beauty. If anything it would add to it. Perhaps in regards to landscaping or structural design. The neighborhood could only gain. It won't be like Kenan's Quarry. It's simply as big as the surrounding homes. The house across from it is larger in size and doesn't fit the decorum of the neighborhood and there hasnt been any argument over its asaethics. Why should there be any debate over this one's? The right to own and land and to do as so wishes with it, is truly being inhibited by the opinions posted here. Our opinions are only valid so far. We should let go of our jealousy, spite, and insecurity, and celebrate such a wonderful idea! Signed, a concerned villager | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 1624 Registered: 1-2004 |
Oh PLUUUZE! Jealous neighbors? I don't think so. If the house is sinking now, wouldn't there be bigger problems with a bigger house? The brook has been here way more then 40 years, so how can the land have been taken from your friends? If anyone, it was 'taken' from previous owners. I just don't understand why they'd want to build a bigger house. I'm thinking if this one floods, the new one will. And they might even have a hard time getting insurance... | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6809 Registered: 4-1997 |
It is a McMansion. I have the plans in front of me. Faux brick, "dentil" stone veneer, aluminum topped bay windows, vinyl siding, cathedral ceiling entrance. Hey, I'm all for a new house there, but there needs to be some sense of proportion, if not aesthetics. Just because the lot borders on a river doesn't mean the setback to the neighbor's house should be given a variance. Most of the complaints will come up after it's built, but hey, I tried. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2594 Registered: 5-2001  |
Will the Planning Board Meeting be televised? This sounds like "Must See TV" | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 61 Registered: 6-2005 |
Is dental stone veneer the stuff that's on the pink house being built on South Orange Avenue right past the temple as you go towards Livingston? If so, its hideous, and out of character with anything in the village. I don't know what they're thinking? | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 157 Registered: 3-2004 |
I do not think my previous questions have been answered. What is at hand here are ordinances in place to protect the neighborhood that do not include aesthetic opinions. The ordinances at hand are to protect the value of the village and adjacent residential properties, they consider the size, scale, streetscape, proportions, proximity of adjacent properties, lot coverage, etc Also at hand are requirements for review by other governmental agencies because it is adjacent to the river, an Army Corp of Engineers project, and a county structure. Everyone is going on about not wanting to be told what to do, but the rules are there to protect. Do you want your single family home next to a 10 story apartment or a factory. And why not? Because it is not appropriate. This is not a case of the rights of the owner. It is a case of the reasons for the requested variance(s). There is no hardship that requires the house to be larger than allowed by codes which are in place to protect the neighborhood and the village. If a large dwelling is required than rebuild the existing, sell, and move into a larger home. People move here because it is (or so we thought) built out. We knew what to expect, or so we thought. People do not want increased density and if they do they should be looking at another town. __________________________________________ From my previous post: Someone please define the variances: 1) What is the height limitation per code? What is the proposed height? Are they requesting a variance? 2) What are the set back requirements? Two sides front a street. Are they asking for set back variances? 3) What is the distance from the river? Is the foundation being undermined by water/erosion/underground activity? What is the cause of the foundation disturbance? Was the original construction poor? 4) It appears they are going to demolish the existing structure and rebuild. What authorities are required to review from the state or federal level? Is there a stream encroachment issue if they are now going to construct a structure within a certain distance of the stream bank? That distance may NOT be the same as the property line. Even though their lot line may be in the river bed that does not mean they can build where every they may want on or adjacent to the river. There are restrictions in place. DEP also may require review and the county. Also if it is near the flood control structures built by the Army Core of Engineers, they may also require review. 5) What is the lot (build able) size and what is the zoning requirement for lot coverage? Are they requesting a variance for lot coverage? (It appears lot coverage should only calculate exposed land otherwise the river up to the bank should be included as lot that is covered.) 6) Where is the garage???? Is there a new curb cut being requested? Is that approved by the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Board? 7) Is there a basement proposed? Is there an existing basement? If soil disturbance is required that may be a Planning Board issue. Soil distrubance permit may be required. Does the Planning Board have any jurisdiction because of proximity to river and possible drainage issues? 8) Have the owners investigated the increase in taxes that they will incur? Taxes on NEW construction vs. existing structure are MUCH higher. That may be an expense that was not considered. 9) Have the owners considered resale value. The proposed structure does not appear to compliment the existing streetscape and character of the neighborhood. 10) Will the Board of Adjustment consider the impact this will have on the streetscape fronting the village park? Will the Board of Adjustment consider the impact this will have on the resale of neighboring properties? If a prospective owner is to spend x number of dollars on a house $1,000,000 lets say, will they buy the proposed structure with high taxes in a neighborhood that does not suit it scale or character with limited yard or will they prefer an older home in the same price range that has lower taxes in comparison and is a better quality construction with a yard suited to the house size that has a streetscape that compliments it? 11) Are the existing owner's planning to sell once constructed? Financially if I had a home with foundation issues, would that be covered by insurance, would I have the money to repair or would I build something I could flip and walk away with money in my pocket to buy a home and then some? 12) Could something tasteful be built within the confines of the ordinances? WHY should variances be given?????? Ordinances have a purpose, why allow anything to be built with a variance?? | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 151 Registered: 2-2005 |
Doesn't a property owner have any rights anymore? I think the the goal on restricitions should be to keep the house proportional to the lot size in some respect. | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 158 Registered: 3-2004 |
But those are exactly the Variances they are requesting. How many people on this thread show up for meetings? Will you all be there Thursday? and does anyone know the answers to my questions? The meeting is with the Board of Adjustment. If the rules are in place, then why consider any exceptions? | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1032 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dave: All those features you listed are on many, many homes in Maplewood and South Orange. You can't legislate good taste. Again: Our housing stock is in no way threatened. This house is literally falling down; the owners (not a developer or real estate agent) have decided to rebuild. Dave, you're a level-headed guy who tends to rail against the sky-is-falling crowd. In this case, you keep implying that people are buying up beautiful old homes in town to knock them down and build suburban monstrosities. That's just not happening, nor do we need any special laws (or anti-exceptions) to make sure it doesn't happen. No one is going to buy a $600K house in South Orange just to tear it down and build a $900K house. I can't say it will never, ever happen, but in this real estate market, we aren't remotely close to a scenario where that makes any sense whatsoever. Many (if not most) homes in Maplewood/South Orange take up 40% or more of their lots. Drive around. Ours is a town of big houses on relatively small lots, and there are tons of neighborhoods full of beautiful old homes squished together. There are exceptions, of course, but many of our neighborhoods are tightly packed. I'd be surprised if this home being built is really going to be as much of an abnormality in town as you are implying. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6811 Registered: 4-1997 |
" No one is going to buy a $600K house in South Orange just to tear it down and build a $900K house." Yet this is exactly what's happening in many towns. It's time to have our zoning codes looked at more closely, not to enforce aesthetics, but to see if they align with other towns that have had this problem. I think Dallas may have the best solution called the M Streets Conservation District. "The Dallas regulations are intended to protect the existing architectural and cultural attributes of the neighborhood and to ensure that new construction and remodeling is compatible with the neighborhood's original architectural styles." # | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1198 Registered: 5-2004 |
TIU, if there is no room for exceptions, you run the risk of being strangled by laws. Read above about unintended consequences. There are many laws and regulations that require room for interpretation or exceptions. To say that there should never be exceptions is being ridiculously rigid. Read The Death of Common Sense, by Philip K Howard (though a bit hyperbolic) for a better understanding of what happens when we don't leave room for exceptions. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8948 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, what do you suggest would be a good solution? I am trying to remember this houses as I used to spend a lot of time at Flood Hill. However, I am coming up blank. However, I seem to remember that there is atleast one 1950s split level on that block. |
