Demolishing Homes In Maplewood
Jaytee said:
yes, I agree with that.
You know what will probably happen is this house might very well decrease the value of the houses close by.
I’m happy the back is lower
From Dean Dafis in another forum:
"Ok, so here’s the latest: the third floor is not in compliance with overall habitability & attic percentage space to the rest of the house. We checked with the state to confirm our findings, communicated accordingly to the owner, and so the contractor has begun diminishing the third floor, as you may have noticed. The architect has been directed to submit updated plans in this regard. As it relates to the overall height of the building, we have requested a vertical survey to ensure compliance - no higher than 35 ft. This survey is to be completed by Tuesday. The vertical survey measures the height of the building every ten feet all around the building (meaning at multiple grade levels). An average is calculated. If not compliant, the contractor will be required to reduce the building to make it compliant. This has happened before all over town. You may wonder, what the heck, why not require detailed site plans at the very beginning beyond a mere zoning permit so that we don’t let things like this happen only to go back and correct them. Well, as per state law, one and two family single home constructions are exempt from such and therefore we’re pre-emoted at the local level from requiring it. Bottom line: the Township is deeply engaged in this and monitoring the construction closely. Will report back again with the results of the vertical survey. Good weekend all. Your advocacy is greatly appreciated. Thank you!"
max_weisenfeld said:
From Dean Dafis in another forum:
"Ok, so here’s the latest: the third floor is not in compliance with overall habitability & attic percentage space to the rest of the house. We checked with the state to confirm our findings, communicated accordingly to the owner, and so the contractor has begun diminishing the third floor, as you may have noticed. The architect has been directed to submit updated plans in this regard. As it relates to the overall height of the building, we have requested a vertical survey to ensure compliance - no higher than 35 ft. This survey is to be completed by Tuesday. The vertical survey measures the height of the building every ten feet all around the building (meaning at multiple grade levels). An average is calculated. If not compliant, the contractor will be required to reduce the building to make it compliant. This has happened before all over town. You may wonder, what the heck, why not require detailed site plans at the very beginning beyond a mere zoning permit so that we don’t let things like this happen only to go back and correct them. Well, as per state law, one and two family single home constructions are exempt from such and therefore we’re pre-emoted at the local level from requiring it. Bottom line: the Township is deeply engaged in this and monitoring the construction closely. Will report back again with the results of the vertical survey. Good weekend all. Your advocacy is greatly appreciated. Thank you!"
Great response! WOFABM
sac said:
OK, I'll bite. What does WOFABM mean? (Google failed me on this one.)
how about West Orange for a better Maplewood?
Interesting. So if the average height above grade of the structure is 35 feet or less, the construction is in compliance?
That might explain why the back of the house is shorter than the front. Plus the grade seems to be higher back there. It might have been designed that way so the average height works out to 34’ 11 7/8” even when you factor in the much higher front facade. It sounds like a loophole to me, one which could be closed up.
mrincredible said:
Interesting. So if the average height above grade of the structure is 35 feet or less, the construction is in compliance?
That might explain why the back of the house is shorter than the front. Plus the grade seems to be higher back there. It might have been designed that way so the average height works out to 34’ 11 7/8” even when you factor in the much higher front facade. It sounds like a loophole to me, one which could be closed up.
I think the roof on the left side is too high, even though the slope is higher on the left as st Lawrence goes downhill to the right.
From what the mayor said, that left side roof will be reduced to be in compliance with the 35 feet, so it might end up looking like the roof on the right side, which is lower. The attic will just be for storage.
The people involved in this project were pushing the envelope and they were probably thinking it would go unnoticed?
so if the average height is in compliance- the third floor stays as is- they just cannot make it living space?
happy the town is on it.
oots said:
so if the average height is in compliance- the third floor stays as is- they just cannot make it living space?
happy the town is on it.
Looks like the right side (your view would be the left side) roofline is compliant. The higher one will have to be lowered. Keep an eye out this week, they might remove the trusses that are too high (left side if you’re in front of the house on st Lawrence) those are definitely over 35 feet high. The carpenters are definitely not happy redoing the roof framing now.
DanDietrich said:
sac said:
OK, I'll bite. What does WOFABM mean? (Google failed me on this one.)
how about West Orange for a better Maplewood?
That's it!
galileo said:
??? Results of vertical survey?
Did this inquiry start with you? Bravo, if so. I'm not understanding why if the questions were raised here initially, they weren't answered by our elected officials here as well. I assume the platform the Mayor chose to issue his statement is SOMA Lounge.
Elle_Cee said:
Did this inquiry start with you? Bravo, if so. I'm not understanding why if the questions weren't raised here initially, they weren't answered by our elected officials here as well. I assume the platform the Mayor chose to issue his statement is SOMA Lounge.
it’s times like this I miss Vic. Why this aversion to posting on MOL? Anyone googling maplewood would see MOL listed. I don’t get it.
Jaytee said:
it’s times like this I miss Vic. Why this aversion to posting on MOL? Anyone googling maplewood would see MOL listed. I don’t get it.
Not to drag this thread off topic, but a lot of people who move her probably don’t go to Google as their first choice for information about the town. They’re most likely looking at Facebook, finding SOMA Lounge and stopping there.
I think MOL has become a niche for longer-term residents.
Corrected my comment above to what it should have been: "why if the questions were raised here initially, they weren't answered by our elected officials here as well."
I hate complaining yet again about why governmental communications are being carried out on a website that forces people to give up their personal information -- a website that people have legitimate concerns about the way it has interfered with both national and international politics. One should not have to sign up for Facebook in order to find out about the positions our town government takes on various topics of vital interest to residents.
As a longstanding supporter of historic preservation, I applaud the efforts of the people on MOL to ensure that at the very least this replacement of a historic house adheres to current construction restrictions. The pace of demolition of the historic architecture here has been picking up. Without public activism, it will accelerate further. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."
First, I think the issue first came up on Facebook, not here. Second, a stop work order has been issued.
DanDietrich said:
First, I think the issue first came up on Facebook, not here. Second, a stop work order has been issued.
Good to know. I'm still concerned about Facebook being the sole vehicle of more in depth government communications outside of what is posted on the town website and the threat to SOMA's historic architecture.
i look out my window every day and stare at this monstrosity. It would be nice if someone on the Township Committee would inform me and my neighbors of what is happening. It just seems like the right thing to do.. Maplewood is a good town.. I've lived here all my life and have had few complaints but this bothers me. . Just tell us what's happening..
Elle_Cee said:
DanDietrich said:
First, I think the issue first came up on Facebook, not here. Second, a stop work order has been issued.
Good to know. I'm still concerned about Facebook being the sole vehicle of more in depth government communications outside of what is posted on the town website and the threat to SOMA's historic architecture.
Same reason that most of my weather posts are there: that is where the vast majority of the people are.
I realize that a majority of SOMA residents, apparently around 17,000 people, post on Facebook, but this should not be the sole vehicle of the type of governmental communication that is quoted elsewhere on this thread. I believe it is a violation of open government principles to force people to sign up for a service they do not want in order to understand their town government's actions and policies. Statements from our town government belong in places where they can be freely accessed.
galileo said:
i look out my window every day and stare at this monstrosity. It would be nice if someone on the Township Committee would inform me and my neighbors of what is happening. It just seems like the right thing to do.. Maplewood is a good town.. I've lived here all my life and have had few complaints but this bothers me. . Just tell us what's happening..
I drove by today and I didn’t see anyone working. It is a monstrosity. It’s weird that someone overlooked the details of the plans and signed off on them.
max_weisenfeld said:
Elle_Cee said:
Good to know. I'm still concerned about Facebook being the sole vehicle of more in depth government communications outside of what is posted on the town website and the threat to SOMA's historic architecture.
Same reason that most of my weather posts are there: that is where the vast majority of the people are.
You’re not a public official relying on a private group on a private platform to inform the public.
Elle_Cee said:
Good to know. I'm still concerned about Facebook being the sole vehicle of more in depth government communications outside of what is posted on the town website and the threat to SOMA's historic architecture.
This is an issue to raise with the folks preparing the revised .Master Plan. There is still time to provide your input.
DaveSchmidt said:
You’re not a public official relying on a private group on a private platform to inform the public.
Town communication with the public needs to be improved. There is too much reliance overall on using the Internet as the sole means of communication. For those who do use the Internet, it would be helpful if public meetings could be viewed remotely so more of us could get first hand information on emerging issues and decisions before they are enacted. For those using the Internet it would be helpful for the town website to have current information posted and for it to have a robust contact us section where residents who use the Internet to be able to reach out directly. The most serious problem is with those who do not use the Internet at all. They can still pick up a phone or appear in person at town hall or major functions. Unfortunately, like the simple son, they know not what to ask, or even where to go. A Communications Director was supposed to solve all of this but that position was stricken from the budget in an attempt to reduce this year’s tax increase.
To get back on topic, I just read on Village Green that a stop work order has been issued for the subject property. Mayor Dafis is cited as the source. Reason given in the article is that the requested vertical survey and updated third floor plans were not received by the due date set by the town. Source for that statement is given as the Director of Community Development.
Thank you, Joan. I participated in the initial online Maplewood Master Plan Workshop, but lost track of subsequent developments. On your advice, I went to the Master Plan info on the Township website and saw that there's an in-person session on 4/15. I will try to make it.
It's unfortunate that the Township Committee decided against hiring a communications director. From the loss of years of minutes on the Township website and sporadic uploading of current minutes to the communiques confined to the private Facebook page to the technical malfunctions while filming the Township Committee meetings, the Township is in dire need of a communications director who can fix these issues. However, without residents demanding improved communications, nothing will happen, and as you say, there are many residents who have no idea what they're missing.
As for the monster house construction, it reminds me of the failed campaign to prevent a mcMansion being built on Broadview. The campaigners cited the 2004 Master Plan, which recommended: "creative use of zoning tools to protect the built character of Maplewood’s neighborhoods, particularly for areas and structures that do not qualify for “historic” designation, as there are many areas in Maplewood that exhibit unified scale and/or character. These objective
and general recommendations remain valid in this reexamination, along
with the promotion of appropriate design of homes and neighborhoods.”
(Master Plan Reexamination Report at p. 41)
https://savebroadview.org/maplewoods-master-plan/
I hope that similar language will be included in the new Master Plan, but more than that, I hope that the Township Committee can and will pass an ordinance that will somehow protect what is described above as "the built character of Maplewood's neighborhoods."
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
That could help with the assessment for taxes in the short-term, but be disadvantageous when selling in the long-term.