There are two responsible parties in this. The property owner and the builder. Will the contractor be subject to close observation when performing future work in Mpl?
There are two responsible parties in this. The property owner and the builder. Will the contractor be subject to close observation when performing future work in Mpl?
Isn't there also an architect? While I would expect a builder to be aware of building codes, if there is an architect involved, that is who I would hold most responsible.
Part of the problem seems to be that our codes are not restrictive enough to prevent things like this from happening. The town took notice when the master plan presentation at the Planning Board turned into a discussion of the need for changes in ordinances and zoning, with a strong emphasis on historic preservation. If readers/posters on this thread feel that is not sufficient to send a message to the town, there are township committee meetings and email addresses where further feedback can be presented to our elected legislators.
Joan, in this case the codes were in place, but were violated both by roof height and the eaves issue. Oversight and enforcement need to be looked at as well.
For St. Lawrence, yes. For 103 Parker, not so much. Agree about the need for better code enforcement. Conversation in Maplewood has moved on to preventing tear downs.
Dan-At the last planning board meeting(seen here on MOL),Maplewood resident and architect Tom Conway commented on the situation.He was involved in Summit’s planning for years.Summit and many surrounding towns have formulated new strict laws due to tear downs. Consequently,developers are coming toMaplewood. We have to get busy and develop those strict laws now.
I am interested to know what laws people are looking to enact.
Should all old houses (how old?) be prohibited from demolition?
Do neighbors have a right to know if a house is going to be demolished? Or if an empty lot is sold to be developed? Do they have a right to object or impede that kind of development?
Supposedly the house on St Lawrence violates current zoning regulations. What would further regulations accomplish?
Tom Conway has provided invaluable insight into what is going on. A team of architects, planning board members, interested residents and members of the Historic Preservation Commission (some of whom are architects) should be convened to study ordinances regulating building passed by other communities. They could choose among the most useful and successful regulations, rework them for Maplewood, and present them to the Township Committee. In the meantime, there should be at the very least a moratorium passed on single family home demolition.
Tom Conway has provided invaluable insight into what is going on. A team of architects, planning board members, interested residents and members of the Historic Preservation Commission (some of whom are architects) should be convened to study ordinances regulating building passed by other communities. They could choose among the most useful and successful regulations, rework them for Maplewood, and present them to the Township Committee. In the meantime, there should be at the very least a moratorium passed on single family home demolition.
I am fine with finding better guidelines, but unless you are buying my house from me I reject the idea of a moratorium on what I can legally do with my property while it is figured out.
Can you quantify what constitutes an emergency situation? I know of one fully demolished house and one that was about 75% demolished.
I personally don't think this is an "emergency" situation. Sorry for the long post to follow.
But this does call for high level discussions about how we want the future of Maplewood's neighborhoods, housing and building stock to evolve. With this year's Township Masterplan in review, coupled with the development pressure happening with increased property values, these two projects (Parker and St. Lawrence) "slipped through the cracks" of our current Zoning Ordinance, and its enforcement. Galileo and myself have especially heightened interest because we live next to, or across from the 27 St. Lawrence project... which is just plain ugly, out of scale, and a miserable manifestation of lack of rigor and oversight from our Township on our existing zoning ordinance which: does currently require the total height of 24' above grade for eaves; and is mandated to follow the Federal IRC requirements which are ratified by NJ for a habitable attic calculation - to be just 1/3 the habitable size of the second floor (this is defined as anything on the attic level above 7'0"). This didn't happen on this St. Lawrence project - if you look at the building currently, the eave is not resting on the second floor like it is supposed to do, but is instead ABOVE this "attic" (or what we are all looking at a true third floor) -resultantly that pushes this third level's height/mass/ volume to the outer edge of the second floor to appear as a three story block - this is the reason this looks like a Monopoly hotel piece, and completely foreign to the neighborhood. What makes this even worse, is that it's unfortunately located on a hill, so the downhill neighbor has a 4 story, unarticulated wall looming over it from above. Remember this is in a Maplewood TWO STORY zone. Our current zoning ordinance infers the requirements, BUT is not clear enough to deter the developers, or mandate them to properly provide calculations & diagrams to prove that their projects are in compliance. So they flounder along and maybe slow construction for a review or stop work order, but then our town in this instance just focused on HEIGHT, not MASSING. In the past, Bob M., who understood the spirit of our ordinance, would have sent this developer packing... but Bob retired.
By comparison, other municipalities now in NJ who have been fighting these development pressures for decades, and resultantly HAVE VERY CLEAR requirements & definitions... and if they aren't met: the application get's sent for review for a hearing in front of their Zoning Board of Adjustment, or the Planning Board, or Historic Preservation Commission, or all three. Your are darn right that this process costs developers big bucks in hiring a proper Architect, a Site Engineer, and possibly a Lawyer to testify and plead their case at these hearings. It may not completely stop the process - but it sure slows it down and will make developers run to other communities that are less stringent. Maplewood is now a target - we need to stop being open to the bottom feeders of shoddy and untrained developers and their crap architects. The 27 St. Lawrence's architect is literally called "Great Plans LLC", with no website, and no response if you call or email them... this is not the type of business consultant our builders should be going to for design and construction guidance. The result... walk by and see the results - yuck... then turn and look across Ridgewood to Washington Park, or across the street on St. Lawrence, or down the street, or on Kendal, or along Ridgewood where the owners all hired competent teams to renovate and expand their houses. The REST of the neighborhood has improved and sensitively evolved over the past 25 years that we've lived in this location. So what can be done? 1. Update our zoning regulations with a few lines of dialog to describe and define the eave, and the attic and guide development massing to reflect the scale and character of our neighborhoods. 2. Mandate building applications to produce information that is pertinent to the adjacent houses (like an average height of other houses on the street etc.), or introducing FAR regulations (Floor to Area Requirements). 3. Evaluate our goals as a community on what and where things should be changed, or not. 5. Educate and train our Township employees and volunteers. 4. Require any application that doesn't meet these new zoning, or preservation guidelines to be sent to the review of our Zoning and/or Planning Boards.
FYI, applications that are wrong in Millburn Short Hills receive a "Letter of Denial", whereas in Summit, Chatham, Montclair you get a printed letter of all of the missing information, overages, and directions to apply for a Variance or Approval for permits. In Madison any house older that a set age in town MUST go in front of the Historic Preservation Commission - there's a hearing, and then the HPC sends it back to Zoning, or on to Planning Board. Know that this specific house project on St. Lawrence's addition could have instead provided the same living space by adding onto the back of the house and including a natural attic level under the roof framing, eaves and dormers - like every other house in the neighborhood that has an attic. Instead they just pealed off the second floor and built up like a Lego set.
Regarding demolition in our town? It is almost impossible to completely stop tear downs, but municipalities can easily mandate zoning board or planning board review of all development that seeks to dramatically remove or expand a home or property. Remember with Zoning, Planning Board meetings the neighbors all get NOTIFIED of the application and the hearing - you better believe those neighbors will all be at that hearing. This process slows developer's projects, costs them money (as described above), pushes them into scrutiny, and can humiliate or end their reputation in town. That makes them either get their sh*t together, or move onto another town and market. Or we can do none of this - and hope for the best. I'm trying to hound the town to get a meeting with the Mayor, set goals and push for accountability and change... I suggest everyone that has a design, zoning, architectural, or preservation background - and concerned neighbors who give a darn - to do the same.
In the past, Bob M., who understood the spirit of our ordinance, would have sent this developer packing... but Bob retired.
To simplify then, it sounds like the spirit of the ordnance needs to be converted to the letter of the law and it sounds like other towns have done that successfully.
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.
The Township’s position on 24’ eave-height limitation mentioned by jimmurphy?
The roof height looks like 35’, which is how they managed to pull off this stunt. How can this be prevented going forward? Ugly monstrosity.
How do you codify attractive?
You might be able to get closer to "attractive," by including words like "harmonious," "consistent with," "blending with," etc. in ordinance language. Here's how Jersey City did it for one of its areas. From JC's construction code:
C. Building design objectives for new construction.
1. All structures within the project area shall be situated with proper consideration of their relationship to other buildings, both existing and proposed, in terms of light, air and usable open space, and access to public rights-of-ways and off street parking, height and bulk.
2. Groups of related buildings shall be designed to present a harmonious appearance in terms of architectural style and exterior materials.
3. Buildings should be designed so as to be attractive from all vantage points.
4. Building setbacks should be varied to the extent practical in order to provide an interesting interplay of buildings and open spaces.
There's that word "attractive." I'm surprised it's there, as it's a highly subjective word, but I guess it's been working for JC, more or less.
That is seriously ugly. It's like the builder was thinking, if I put a nose on the front of the house, it will be so beautiful. An architect would probably rather gouge their eyes out then build something like that.
How in heaven’s name would you codify “attractive”? That’s too subjective and I don’t think it would survive a challenge in court.
I can understand specific size requirements written into zoning regulations. Maximum percentage of the lot, habitable space on a third floor, maximum height of the structure and eaves. That’s all objective. But within those boundaries, what can you enforce? “Don’t build ugly houses” is not a basis for a municipal code.
There’s a limit to what can be imposed on a home owner or builder in terms of esthetics, unless you want to do something like designate an historic area. What if someone wanted to paint their house a color that a neighbor finds unattractive? Would the neighbor be able to block that activity by going to the town?
There are two responsible parties in this. The property owner and the builder. Will the contractor be subject to close observation when performing future work in Mpl?