Due to death and illness my neighbor’s home was sold in December.After the sale the home was vacant until about a week ago. As of today the second and third floors are gone,don’t know about the first floor yet. Should the town have notified us about this? Seems like neighbors should know what is happening. This is a residential neighborhood.
I'm pretty sure the neighbors only need to be notified if the new owner is requesting variances to the current zoning/building code (for example, reduced setbacks or increased height). Then you would be notified of hearings and would have a chance to object.
If what they're building is by right (not requiring variances), notification is not required and you have no grounds to object.
Thanks,kthnry. I think you are right. I was a real estate broker in Maplewood for 31 years and found that rules and regulations sometimes get twisted. I think the previous owners would be so saddened by this. I will certainly miss looking at this house and the beautiful family who had lived there.
Maybe you didn't need to be notified legally, but I think it would be neighborly and thoughtful to let you know what is going on since all the noise and activity will have an impact on your life.
A home I know of in another town was demolished, and they also dug up and replaced a large unground pool. Months and months of noise and mess for the neighbors. The new homeowners, who were local, ordered a bottle of wine to be delivered to neighboring homes - didn’t even drop it off themselves. Not a great way to get to know your new neighbors!
We have friends in Livingston. After every house in their neighborhood sells, 9x out of ten they get raised and a large cookie cutter monstrosity gets erected in its place.
A home I know of in another town was demolished, and they also dug up and replaced a large unground pool. Months and months of noise and mess for the neighbors. The new homeowners, who were local, ordered a bottle of wine to be delivered to neighboring homes - didn’t even drop it off themselves. Not a great way to get to know your new neighbors!
I live in Maplewood near a home that has been under construction since before the pandemic shut us down and locked us in our homes. Construction on that house did not stop during the pandemic. It was daily, and loud. I would be thrilled if those neighbors sent a bottle of wine with a note acknowledging the disruption and anxiety caused by their renovation at a challenging time in all our lives. But alas, nothing.
Due to death and illness my neighbor’s home was sold in December.After the sale the home was vacant until about a week ago. As of today the second and third floors are gone,don’t know about the first floor yet. Should the town have notified us about this? Seems like neighbors should know what is happening. This is a residential neighborhood.
I know the house you are talking of. I wonder what they intend to do there...
Remember that house that was demolished on valley, right across from memorial park? There was so much uproar about it at the time, but now you drive by there and it’s hard to figure out which property it is. They built it back looking like it was always been there. People today would rather tear down and rebuild instead of gut and renovate. It’s actually quicker and cheaper, and the buyers today don’t want to be fixing anything. A whole new generation of home buyers today.
They built an apartment building behind me. My lot is less than 1' offset from the corner point, so I'm not technically adjacent. They sent all of the adjacent properties flowers, but not me, and the florist left two sets with me to deliver for them.
Remember that house that was demolished on valley, right across from memorial park? There was so much uproar about it at the time, but now you drive by there and it’s hard to figure out which property it is. They built it back looking like it was always been there. People today would rather tear down and rebuild instead of gut and renovate. It’s actually quicker and cheaper, and the buyers today don’t want to be fixing anything. A whole new generation of home buyers today.
While I believe the new build was done fairly cheaply, I remember reading at the time that it was an old Victorian home and was in really bad shape and there wasn't much to save of it. And yes, I can't tell which one it was either.
Remember that house that was demolished on valley, right across from memorial park? There was so much uproar about it at the time, but now you drive by there and it’s hard to figure out which property it is. They built it back looking like it was always been there. People today would rather tear down and rebuild instead of gut and renovate. It’s actually quicker and cheaper, and the buyers today don’t want to be fixing anything. A whole new generation of home buyers today.
While I believe the new build was done fairly cheaply, I remember reading at the time that it was an old Victorian home and was in really bad shape and there wasn't much to save of it. And yes, I can't tell which one it was either.
It's easy to tell which house it is. It is typical generic new construction.
But Ridski is correct. The home that was torn down was very old and not salvageable.
The house was historic, basement was mud floor, 5 feet high. Ceilings were 7 feet upstairs. Some people felt the woman/owner got taken advantage of by the realtor and the builder… our local property brothers…
I think they did a pretty good job of making it blend right in with the neighborhood. Some houses are just really in need of repairs and renovations that it’s easier to knock it down and build from scratch. It’s quicker also, look at the complaints about the house that’s been under renovations since before Covid. Could have built a new house years ago.
Many of you have heard me say this before .... I grew up in a charming town in Connecticut -- an hour commute to NYC. There were lots of Civil War-era farmhouses, some Revolutionary War "salt boxes", some converted barns, mostly on 1- to 2-acre lots... Our house was a cozy, 3 BR ranch on three-quarters of an acre. And there were LOTS, and lots of trees everywhere. (My ex-husband -- much more "outdoorsy" than me-- said on his first visit, "No wonder you never want to go to on hikes in the woods ... You GREW UP in the woods!)
Then, much like we're seeing in our towns now, the young, and monied (back then it was Wall St folk) descended upon us, right around the time I left for college in the mid-'70's, For many years, they have actually published the "Tear-Down-of-the-Day" (or week, ifconstruction was slow --in the local newspaper (Would we ever let ourselves get to that point?) The houses my friends had grown up in were very quickly bulldozed and replaced with McMansion Monstrosities, obviously built to be bigger than the house next door. If our kids want to live out their lives in a home like -- or THE home --they grew up in -- shouldn't we try to protect and provide that for them? So far, our Victorians still reflect the gracious homes of families with 4-6 kids or more that can still be found and are lovingly cared for -- shouldn't we protect them as that -- for the sake of the history we still enjoy and want to leave for the next generation? in these towns that have provided this lifestyle for us? The homes that will replace them are not the ones we have enjoyed or the towns that are our home. Without care, we could end up with homes that look a lot like the ones pictured below. They are garish displays of ostentatious wealth and luxury that I hope to never see displayed here. When people ask me where I'm from, I immediately must emphasize that I grew up in THE OLD Westport, and not allow them to wrongly associate me with the flamboyant display of wealth and social status that exists there TODAY. Would any of us want people to think that our communities stand for -- or strive to be -- like that? Or leave our children defending what WAS the true representation of who we were?
No, you can't really dictate what your neighbor can or can't build on the lot nextstore or stop them from generating the noise and mess that goes with teardowns and new builds there. UNLESS there are laws and conditions built into the code, or the town agrees to write a law that sets down what we want to do or need to do to preserve the timeless beauty of our towns. We're teetering at the edge now.
Money can very, very quickly change the entire "personality" or "nature" of a town. "We need to protect the way we want our towns to look -- now and in the future.
Don't take my word for it. Google: mcmansions, 06880
Two types of changes are a threat to suburban towns: McMansions and apartment/condo townhouses. Can zoning laws by changed to protect against either? Both?
Two types of changes are a threat to suburban towns: McMansions and apartment/condo townhouses. Can zoning laws by changed to protect against either? Both?
Sure they can be changed. But they shouldn't.
The population is growing, people need to live somewhere, and if we zone out multi-family, all we get is sprawl and even more traffic.
The population is growing, people need to live somewhere, and if we zone out multi-family, all we get is sprawl and even more traffic.
Multifamily buildings bring more density and more traffic. If you want to reduce traffic increase walkability, public transportation, and bike lanes. Building more multifamily housing without adjusting infrastructure to accommodate it will lead to a whole additional set of issues.
Large apartment buildings downtown near restaurants and trains provide housing and restaurant customers without adding much traffic. Those are good things. Large single family homes using lots of gas and oil for heat for one or two people who drive everywhere are not that good.
Multifamily buildings bring more density and more traffic. If you want to reduce traffic increase walkability, public transportation, and bike lanes. Building more multifamily housing without adjusting infrastructure to accommodate it will lead to a whole additional set of issues.
Yes, they bring more density, by definition.
As to traffic, it depends. As Dan mentions, if you site the multi-family near transit there is much less traffic impact. This is the approach that South Orange has taken, frankly because there are more appropriate lots for redevelopment near the station. Maplewood has chosen to site most of its new multi-family near Springfield Avenue, likely due to less homeowner resistance. While there are bus routes on Springfield, the reality that those apartments on Springfield likely induce more traffic than the ones in South Orange.
Our issues with traffic have more to do with ever-increasing drivers from other towns passing through on Valley, South Orange Avenue and Springfield, not from the multi-family development in our two towns. Not much to be done about that.
Maplewood's latest proposed multifamily housing is by the intersection of Valley and Parker, not especially close to any mass transit and at an intersection that is already one of the most heavily traversed by vehicles. There is no question that this development will add to the existing congestion there.
South Orange Avenue and surrounding blocks had the advantages of large blocks of property in need of development and access to both the 31 bus and the accessible South Orange train station supporting the argument that the availability of public transportation helps to reduce the impact of additional vehicles in the area. Maplewood has a train station in the major downtown area but that train station is not accessible for many residents and it has been over 30 years since the 32 bus stopped in the Village. Thus, residents living in the Village area do need a car to get around. Unlike the situation in SO, the Maplewood train station is in a predominately residential areas bordered on one side by a large park and on the other by stores in small lots. Springfield Avenue has the dual advantage of accessible transportation and larger lots in need of development. That is likely why most of the new development is located there.
What’s the proposal for Valley and Parker? I must confess my ignorance. Is it the old Gleason’s Cleaners building? Or is there something new closer to Valley?
That intersection is especially problematic due to the lack of space for turning lanes and the proximity of the high school. Trying to turn left on Valley from Parker in either direction is challenging (nigh impossible) and holds up the entire line of cars behind.
As for the house in the original post, I’m interested to see what happens (if it’s the one I’m thinking of). It looks like they took pains to preserve the framing of the first floor. Maybe the upstairs had significant structural damage from water or insects. Maybe the ceilings were really low. It doesn’t look like they intend to rebuild it as a McMansion or multi family building so no fears there.
What’s the proposal for Valley and Parker? I must confess my ignorance. Is it the old Gleason’s Cleaners building? Or is there something new closer to Valley?
That intersection is especially problematic due to the lack of space for turning lanes and the proximity of the high school. Trying to turn left on Valley from Parker in either direction is challenging (nigh impossible) and holds up the entire line of cars behind.
As for the house in the original post, I’m interested to see what happens (if it’s the one I’m thinking of). It looks like they took pains to preserve the framing of the first floor. Maybe the upstairs had significant structural damage from water or insects. Maybe the ceilings were really low. It doesn’t look like they intend to rebuild it as a McMansion or multi family building so no fears there.
Maybe the town should just put in a viaduct that takes West Parker from just past the railroad tracks, goes up and over Valley and rejoins the ground at the flashing light just uphill from the high school. If you’re staying on Parker you take the viaduct. If you want to turn on Valley you go beneath. Our own mini Pulaski Skyway.
Yes I’m joking. But I can’t think of how else to fix the Valley/Parker intersection short of demolishing existing buildings to build turning lanes.
Maybe the town should just put in a viaduct that takes West Parker from just past the railroad tracks, goes up and over Valley and rejoins the ground at the flashing light just uphill from the high school. If you’re staying on Parker you take the viaduct. If you want to turn on Valley you go beneath. Our own mini Pulaski Skyway.
Yes I’m joking. But I can’t think of how else to fix the Valley/Parker intersection short of demolishing existing buildings to build turning lanes.
Yeah, precious little space to improve the road situation anywhere in our towns.
galileo