Demolishing Homes In Maplewood
jamie said:
wow - will it be a flat roof?
it might very well end up being a flat roof.
oots said:
Nope- not flat
They must have gotten approvals they wanted
they had to lower the pitch of the roof. It’s probably topping out at 35 feet now.
I think they maybe lost a foot in height - but I think it overall bigger.
And of course there’s always one car parked on the wrong side.
Dean Dafis posted a long explanation on Facebook about this. My interpretation was that the issue has been resolved. They had to lower the height slightly and there was a bunch of stuff about the ratio of livable floor space on the third floor. I didn't really understand that part.
yahooyahoo said:
Dean Dafis posted a long explanation on Facebook about this. My interpretation was that the issue has been resolved. They had to lower the height slightly and there was a bunch of stuff about the ratio of livable floor space on the third floor. I didn't really understand that part.
that’s because they had to lower the roof, the town gave them more livable space on the third floor instead of a walk in attic. So basically the attic now is just for mechanical stuff.
But it just goes to show how these developers push the envelope. I’m sure mittermeier would not have let them off so easily. He was tough, but things were done right.
As I read it and posted to FB, this house is still non-compliant.
There was a laser-focus in the architectural review on ensuring that the building doesn’t exceed 35’ in height, yet complete ignorance of the 24’ eave-height limitation in the zoning requirements.
As a result, the building is massive and boxy and looms over its neighbors.
This should not be allowed as a precedent.
jimmurphy said:
As I read it and posted to FB, this house is still non-compliant.
There was a laser-focus in the architectural review on ensuring that the building doesn’t exceed 35’ in height, yet complete ignorance of the 24’ eave-height limitation in the zoning requirements.
As a result, the building is massive and boxy and looms over its neighbors.
This should not be allowed as a precedent.
if that’s true, and I have no reason to believe it’s not, then, the only recourse at this point would be to engage a lawyer to file for an injunction. Then be prepared to go all the way to court to compel compliance with the code and remediation. Unless there is a way to go to the county or the state.
mrincredible said:
if that’s true, and I have no reason to believe it’s not, then, the only recourse at this point would be to engage a lawyer to file for an injunction. Then be prepared to go all the way to court to compel compliance with the code and remediation. Unless there is a way to go to the county or the state.
Town should be doing this. Not. private citizens. Town can begin by issuing another "stop work" order.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Town should be doing this. Not. private citizens. Town can begin by issuing another "stop work" order.
Yea, but it sounds like the town hasn’t enforced the zoning. My point is if the town won’t enforce the code, the only next remedy is litigation.
mrincredible said:
Yea, but it sounds like the town hasn’t enforced the zoning. My point is if the town won’t enforce the code, the only next remedy is litigation.
First step is to inform code enforcement of your suspicion. They know the codes and have the ability and authority to determine if there is a violation. If that does not work, litigation could be the next option.
Moving along as well as three cars parked on the wrong side of the street.
jamie said:
Moving along as well as three cars parked on the wrong side of the street.
A house in our neighborhood was rebuilt. A local contractor parked a small dump truck IN the front yard for weeks at a time without moving it. A complaint was made to the Township and the complainant was told that parking the vehicle in the front yard was allowed.
My point is you probably won't get much help from the Township regarding the parking.
Parking on the wrong side of the road is illegal. They have to drive on the wrong side to park. Police used to ticket or give a warning. I don't think some people know the laws.
yahooyahoo said:
A house in our neighborhood was rebuilt. A local contractor parked a small dump truck IN the front yard for weeks at a time without moving it. A complaint was made to the Township and the complainant was told that parking the vehicle in the front yard was allowed.
My point is you probably won't get much help from the Township regarding the parking.
Two very different things. Parking facing traffic is a parking violation because it can endanger pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles. Parking off the road in the situation you describe is not because it only threatens the surface on which the vehicle is parked and is doing so with the property owners permission.
joan_crystal said:
yahooyahoo said:
A house in our neighborhood was rebuilt. A local contractor parked a small dump truck IN the front yard for weeks at a time without moving it. A complaint was made to the Township and the complainant was told that parking the vehicle in the front yard was allowed.
My point is you probably won't get much help from the Township regarding the parking.
Two very different things. Parking facing traffic is a parking violation because it can endanger pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles. Parking off the road in the situation you describe is not because it only threatens the surface on which the vehicle is parked and is doing so with the property owners permission.
So you're cool with people in Maplewood parking in their front yards (on the grass)?
Maplewood’s zoning code prohibits parking in the front yard directly in front of the house. Parking is permitted off to the side of the front yard, e.g., in a driveway. It is easy to spot exceptions to this rule around town. Any such occurrences could have obtained a variance, could be grandfathered, or could be illegal. I have no notion how rigorously this rule is/was enforced.
It was a dump truck parked in the front yard during construction of the house. That is equivalent to a dumpster, because they were probably throwing debris in it until it was full then take it away.
This is why the town allowed it, not the same as parking your car on the front lawn.
Jaytee said:
It was a dump truck parked in the front yard during construction of the house. That is equivalent to a dumpster, because they were probably throwing debris in it until it was full then take it away.
This is why the town allowed it, not the same as parking your car on the front lawn.
That's what the Township said. However, the truck was parked for weeks at a time without being emptied. Definitely not adhering to the spirit of the exception.
They have made 27 St Lawrence look even larger by adding more front windows on the third floor. How could this happen in Maplewood? When are we going to strengthen our laws as other towns have done? Contractors are coming here because Maplewood is easy.
It's a monstrosity and changing the roof to conform made it look worse.
I’m sure I’m not hitting a broad enough audience with this. But here goes.
Some family is going to buy that home and move into it. They’ll be very excited and happy to join the community. I hope, really hope, that their new neighbors can avoid spoiling that for them by telling them what a monstrosity they’ve moved into. Whoever buys that house, it’s not their fault.
jamie said:
Heading up st Lawrence
One possible strategy to get the attention of the local authorities is to say that construction vehicles are parking in a manner that will obstruct emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance, etc).
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
and the last one I posted on 3/31/23
So they re-framed the third floor where the lower roof was
WTF!