| Author |
Message |
    
AGD4
Citizen
Username: Agd4
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 8:11 am: | 
|
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS THREATEN SOUTH ORANGE!
It has come to the attention of the Montrose Park Historic District Association (MPHDA) that a property owner at the North end of Vose Avenue has recently submitted documentation requesting to subdivide the lot and build a residential structure abutting the NJ Transit train tracks. In addition, a home that was recently listed for sale on Scotland Road has been advertised as “subdividable”. As well, another homeowner has proposed to subdivide 3 contiguous lots, demolish two existing residential structures on the lots and build 6 new homes.
THESE PROPOSALS ARE ALARMING! THEY THREATEN THE INTEGRITY OF MONTROSE PARK AS AN EXISTING HISTORIC DISTRICT ON BOTH THE STATE & NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTERS. THEY SET POOR PRECEDENT FOR THE VILLAGE AS WHOLE.
SPEAK OUT! Attend the May 27, 2003, 7:30pm Planning & Zoning Meeting at Village Hall -- Preserve the streetscapes & character of our neighborhoods!
Please share this vital message with as many South Orange Residents as you can. A petition is circulating which requests that the Village review the current zoning ordinance with the prevention of subdivisions in mind. Please contact the MPHDA via phone or email to arrange to sign the petition. Likewise, you can mail a letter of support to the MPHDA, P.O. Box 953, South Orange.
Gather as much support as you can! Please attend the 5/27 Planning Board meeting, 7:30pm Village Hall.
Questions, email info@MontroseParkSONJ.org,
or call the MPHDA at 973-763-1880
Sincerely,
Amy Dahn
MPHDA President |
jrf
Citizen
Username: Jrf
Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Where was the MPHDA when we were fighting the quarry? |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Now, now, jrf, you know that every group in town has its own issues to address. I am sure that when we were fighting the quarry, MPHDA had its own problems. It was not easy for them to have an entire district of a town listed in the National and State Historic Registers through only the persistent efforts of its residents. What is amazing to me is that it is more difficult to have our own municipal government recognize Montrose district’s historic and architectural value to our town!
I don’t think we should always denigrate the work of “nimby’s” (not-in-my-backyard); sometimes they raise the flag on issues that eventually affect their neighbors, and their efforts benefit the entire community. The work of the Coalition to Preserve South Orange started by a bunch of “nimby’s”; their concerns were gradually shared by a larger constituency, and soon the entire community was alert on the lack of open space and of urban sprawl, the residents voted to tax themselves for open space preservation, the government installed an Open Space Commission, overdevelopment was reduced, and now we have an Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.
The issue that is now raised by the Montrose Park Historic District Association may be raised by a group of “nimby’s”, but it flags a Village-wide problem, i.e. the possibility of indiscriminate subdivision in our town, which is the result of poor zoning ordinances. Unless we all get an interest in this threat to our Village, we will witness the rapid deterioration of our architectural and historic heritage, the same heritage that attracted us here in the first place, the same heritage that makes our Village special, and maintains the high value of our properties. The protests of the MPHDA “nimby’s”, may result in a review of the current zoning ordinances which will make them more friendly to the character and context of South Orange. It may also prevent a subdivision in a sensitive area of our town which would create an unforgivable precedent. Let’s join them, let’s make South Orange our own backyard, let’s all be “nimby’s” and shout “not in my backyard”.
See you on the 27th, at the Planning Board meeting.
Eric
|
AGD4
Citizen
Username: Agd4
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:22 am: |
|
Thanks for your comments Eric.
I know that a large contingent of Montrose Residents, if not the majority, supported the Quarry issue.
I do not wish to divert this thread, however. The issue at hand relates to proposed Subdivisions in Montrose Park as well as a current application to subdivide within Montrose. These issues have brought to light loopholes in the current zoning, which have an impact not just on Montrose, but community-wide.
If I understand correctly, the CPSO now has a mission that is community-wide to preserve South Orange's open space. If so, preventing subdivisions and subsequent "squeezing in" of more housing in ALREADY dense areas should fit this mission as well. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 281
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Amy,
Just curious. What is YOUR opinion regarding the quarry? 4 years ago you were quite vocal in expressing your opposition to what CPSO was trying to do because you felt it was more important to have a tax ratable on the quarry property.
For the record, CPSO always had a community-wide mission to preserve open space, although certainly the Quarry was the primary focus because of the imminent threat that it faced as a result of the shortsightedness of some elected officials.
I think it's great that you are now reaching out to the entire community for your support. I support your attempts to stop the threat faced by your neighborhood and do realize the larger implication for the Village as a whole as Eric alluded to. We all need to keep in mind what a small town we live in and how threats in one neighborhood affect all of us. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Mayhew - Irrelevant post. This is not about Amy or the Quarry. It is strange that in such a small town you have divided things into neighborhood, village, etc. Where I come from, South Orange would have been one neighborhood... That's said - this is our neighborhood and we are all responsible for what happens here. That means you need to work with your neighbors and the system in a productive way. Too bad about the quarry - but there was probably a time when development could have been stopped. Perhaps you were arguing amoungst yourselves as you are now. Did you learn anything? |
johnh
Citizen
Username: Johnh
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Amy,
You've got my support. Could you tell us more specifically where these lots are - I'd be interested to see them for myself. Thanks |
jrf
Citizen
Username: Jrf
Post Number: 324
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 7:31 am: |
|
I'll vote as the records show the Montrose area voted in supporting the incumbants when we were trying to save the Quarry. What goes around, come around.
At least I am being honest. |
AGD4
Citizen
Username: Agd4
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 11:21 am: |
|
407 Vose Avenue is a flag-shaped lot which also fronts on Stewart Place. The owners propose to subdivide the section of their yard facing Stewart & shoe-horn in another house.
150 Scotland Road is a 2 1/2 story, brick, Neoclassical, residential building. It has a slate-clad roof and a semi-circular, full height, Composite order-supported, entrance portico with parapet. It is well known historically as the Stieffel house and is an early example of steel construction in a residential structure. The owner has listed it for sale as subdividable.
I do not have the addresses at the moment for the other 3 properties, but they are easily identifiable as two homes on Scotland Road between Irving & Turrell. The one house is Orange and is in such disrepair that it was not mortgageable at Sheriff's sale. The house next to it is a brick colonial at the corner of Irving and behind it, what looks like a back yard is an open lot. Owner proposes to tear down the 2 Scotland Road houses, reconfigure the 3 lots and build 6 new houses.
I'm all for honesty. I speak here as President of the Montrose Park Historic District Association whose mission is to promote, preserve, and beautify the Montrose Park Historic District, maintain its integrity and enhance the quality of life for its residents. We promote public awareness and sensitivity to the history and architectureal significance of the historic district.
My personal opinion on the Quarry has no relevance to this thread, nor to the mission of the MPHDA. I would be happy to speak with any of you in regard to the former via email. You might be surprised to hear that my view is much closer to your own than you ever thought. And, to lay it to rest now, one quote 4 years ago does not constitute "quite vocal". The CPSO has done a GREAT job working toward its mission.
Enough said; this thread's focus is Subdivisions. |
jrf
Citizen
Username: Jrf
Post Number: 325
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 12:50 pm: |
|
It seems to me the new subdivisions will clean up an area in disrepair. I am all for the new development. What you call a "subdivision", I call beautification. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 7:26 am: |
|
I'm concerned that any new construction will consist of two- or three-family condos. We moved here from Cliffside Park about a year ago. We considered purchasing a home there, but the proliferation of condos is destroying the humble charm of that community. In fairness, maybe the proposals here in SO aren't as drastic, but these things often happen via a series of "baby steps." |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 283
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 9:16 am: |
|
So what happened last night?
I watched it on TV for a few minutes & couldn't bear to watch Leisure Suit Bianchi scowl at any more people that I had to turn it off. |
kevin
Citizen
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:51 am: |
|
I thought that this news blurb was pretty comical and relevant:
Town seeks ban on political smirks
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Posted: 8:59 PM EDT (0059 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A raised eyebrow, loud guffaw, smirk or other facial expressions could all be banned in future political debate under new rules proposed for the city council in Palo Alto, California.
In a bid to improve civility in the town's public discourse, a committee on the city council has spent hours debating guidelines for its own behavior.
"Do not use body language or other nonverbal methods of expression, disagreement or disgust," a new list of proposed conduct rules reads.
Another rule calls for council members to address each other with titles followed by last names, a formality not always practiced in laid-back California.
"I don't want to muzzle my colleagues," councilwoman Judy Kleinberg, who headed the committee that drafted the rules, told the San Jose Mercury News. But, she added: "I don't think the people sitting around the cabinet with the president roll their eyes."
|
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 7:43 am: |
|
I caught the last few minutes of the Planning Board meeting last night and it seems that the request to subdivide was not approved. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 427
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 9:35 am: |
|
The request was not approved. The applicant might file an appeal so there are still some concerns.
The village has already passed one ordinance and we are working on others that will help to preserve the character of the residential areas in the village.
Some parts of the process will take several months but we need to make sure we consider everything and to make sure the ordinances will withstand any legal challenges.
We are working with the village planner, the planning board and have received some input from several residents as well as the Montrose Park Historic District Association.
|
AGD4
Citizen
Username: Agd4
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Thanks to neighborhood and community support, as well as strong testimony, we were able to point out many inconsistencies and errors in the application for subdivision. We also provided a copy of the original deed to the property which, indeed, indicated covenants and restrictions. In addition, we provided expert testimony from historic preservation consultant, Ulana Zakalak.
As Mark said, the battle isn't necessarily over. The applicant now has time to appeal.
In the meanwhile, the MPHDA encourages the community to support the trustees in their endeavours to appropriately ammend the current frontage requirements in each residential zone so that larger properties will no longer be vulnerable to developers.
-Amy Dahn |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page