New multi-purpose building on Baker Street

As you drive into town from the train station end, the first thing you see right now is the gray 

exterior of the new building on Baker Street.  The top extends two stories over most buildings in the 

surrounding area. Just wondering why there wasn't as much of an uproar as the other multi-use building 

on Maplewood Avenue (across from Kings). Townsfolk made the Maplewood Avenue building take off a 

story of the proposed building height. Just wondering.


Stags1978 said:

As you drive into town from the train station end, the first thing you see right now is the gray exterior of the new building on Baker Street.  The top extends two stories over most buildings in the surrounding area. Just wondering why there wasn't as much of an uproar as the other multi-use building on Maplewood Avenue (across from Kings). Townsfolk made the Maplewood Avenue building take off a story of the proposed building height. Just wondering.

 There was some discussion about it.  But nothing compared to the PO building.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/toomey-site-plans-meeting-may-28th-at-7-30pm


Stags1978 said:

As you drive into town from the train station end, the first thing you see right now is the gray 

exterior of the new building on Baker Street.  The top extends two stories over most buildings in the 

surrounding area. Just wondering why there wasn't as much of an uproar as the other multi-use building 

on Maplewood Avenue (across from Kings). Townsfolk made the Maplewood Avenue building take off a 

story of the proposed building height. Just wondering.

 According to the renderings in the thread Jamie posted, the building has one "service" floor with two residential floors above that on Baker Street.  The building on the old post office site, as finally approved and constructed, is one "service" floor with two residential floors above that on Maplewood Avenue. That might be part of the explanation.


Stags1978 said:

As you drive into town from the train station end, the first thing you see right now is the gray 

exterior of the new building on Baker Street.  The top extends two stories over most buildings in the 

surrounding area. Just wondering why there wasn't as much of an uproar as the other multi-use building 

on Maplewood Avenue (across from Kings). Townsfolk made the Maplewood Avenue building take off a 

story of the proposed building height. Just wondering.

There was some controversy/dissent but Jamie is correct, it did not come close to the P.O. building.
I think we have all learned that the Township cares more about developers than residents and will do almost anything developers ask.  It's a losing battle.


Unless a building plan breaks existing legal ordinances, there is little that the Township Committee, the planning board or the zoning board can do about legal development between private parties (capitalism).

The Post Office situation was different in no small part because the town owned the land (not the building), the land was leased to the post office and the lease was up so the town had some measure of leverage in determining what was going to be developed there. Also a fair number of people wanted to "save" the old post office while there was little such sentiment for Joe's old gas station building.

In other words, the public governance of a town is not the same as a private HOA and risks being taken to court in a losing battle if largely aesthetic objections fall beyond existing ordinances.

All that said, I agree that the new building is a bit of an imposing fortress.


many aspects of the post office development have already been subject to some forgetting or perhaps revisionist history.  Initially, when the township started doing discussion groups to talk about plans for the property, there was generally strong sentiment in favor of the idea of replacing the post office with a mixed use building.  Those who care can try to search for the MOL thread on the first proposal for the site.  Notably the first rendering was for a building much larger than the one that came to be built.  Take note of the ratio of positive to negative comments.  Given the later hue and cry against the development, it's pretty surprising how few objections there were.

Only later in the process did a small group of people emerge to claim that the post office building was a historic site.  And make other claims about the building proposed for the site.  But it really wasn't until a few of the township's movers and shakers decided there was an opportunity to harness this relatively small but very enthusiastic group's energy to make political hay.  And indeed, objection to the post office development became an factor in the ouster of one of the members of the Township Committee.

This time around with the Baker St. development, a few of the usual suspects from the post office controversy tried to use their old Facebook group to drum up opposition to the new development.  But for whatever reason it didn't really take this time.  Maybe because the Clarus didn't turn out to "destroy" the village.  Maybe because the new site is not in the middle of the business district.  Or maybe most people, absent an organized campaign against the development either didn't know or didn't care about it.

My guess is that most people really don't care that much one way or the other about a building that's replacing an abandoned service station that was mostly an eyesore for the past who knows how many years.  And I'm willing to wait until the building is completed before I make any comments on the aesthetic (as if anyone cares about my opinion one way or the other).


The new Baker Street building is as ugly as the Clarius which means it works. 


Stags1978 said:

As you drive into town from the train station end, the first thing you see right now is the gray 

exterior of the new building on Baker Street.  The top extends two stories over most buildings in the 

surrounding area. Just wondering why there wasn't as much of an uproar as the other multi-use building 

on Maplewood Avenue (across from Kings). Townsfolk made the Maplewood Avenue building take off a 

story of the proposed building height. Just wondering.

 Well, our dear member Author is not around anymore. And the rest of us are getting too old to bicker over silly things. Toomeys served many of us for years, and he also is tired. 
the post office was still very active and people really didn’t want to see it demolished. On the other hand.... toomeys shop was not so much important as he had retired. 


Jaytee said:

 Well, our dear member Author is not around anymore. And the rest of us are getting too old to bicker over silly things. 

 Really?


STANV said:

 Really?

 Haha... I should speak for myself. grin


The Township amended its own Redevelopment Plan to allow for the proposed design of the building at the Toomey site on Baker Street.

This is straight from the plan presented to the Township from the developers:

"This Redevelopment Plan shall supersede all provisions of the Zoning and Development Regulations
of the Township of Maplewood regulating development in the rehabilitation area. Where there is a
conflict between the requirements of this Redevelopment Plan and the Zoning and Development
Regulations, this Redevelopment Plan shall prevail. In all situations where zoning issues are not specifically addressed herein, the Maplewood Zoning and Development Regulations shall, however, remain in effect. Final adoption of this Plan by the Township Committee shall be considered an
amendment of the Township of Maplewood Zoning Map."


yahooyahoo, I have a lot of respect for you.  I think your opinions are usually well thought out, and you often articulate ideas that resonate with my own. You're very rational and add some humor to this forum.  So it really pains me to have to take a difficult stand which might look like I'm disrespecting you, but please understand I thought long and hard about replying in this fashion.

So here goes.

"it's" is a contraction. The possessive is "its".


I don't understand why there are almost always objections to any new construction. What did people want on that site? For the dormant building to remain? For the site to be turned into a parking lot?

Or if they do want to see the site developed are they objecting to a 3rd story on the building? Or is it because the design doesn't fit their personal taste?

My POV is whether I think the building is attractive or not isn't relevant. I'd rather see a prime piece of downtown real estate used instead of being left to decay. If there were no other 3 story buildings in the village maybe I'd find myself objecting to the height. But there are others.  Plenty of them. 


The personal taste thing.


ml1 said:

I don't understand why there are almost always objections to any new construction. What did people want on that site? For the dormant building to remain? For the site to be turned into a parking lot?

Or if they do want to see the site developed are they objecting to a 3rd story on the building? Or is it because the design doesn't fit their personal taste?

My POV is whether I think the building is attractive or not isn't relevant. I'd rather see a prime piece of downtown real estate used instead of being left to decay. If there were no other 3 story buildings in the village maybe I'd find myself objecting to the height. But there are others.  Plenty of them. 

 It's a pretty widespread dynamic. Here in WO we see the same thing. The other day I walked past a house that just sold recently, and the new owners already had a lawn sign protesting a proposed apartment building. Which I guess makes sense -- someone happy to overpay for that house at the height of the market here wouldn't really have much interest in actually adding housing inventory to alleviate skyrocketing prices.


PVW said:

 ... The other day I walked past a house that just sold recently, and the new owners already had a lawn sign protesting a proposed apartment building. ...

That is just so suburbic. 


mrincredible said:

yahooyahoo, I have a lot of respect for you.  I think your opinions are usually well thought out, and you often articulate ideas that resonate with my own. You're very rational and add some humor to this forum.  So it really pains me to have to take a difficult stand which might look like I'm disrespecting you, but please understand I thought long and hard about replying in this fashion.

So here goes.

"it's" is a contraction. The possessive is "its".

Duly noted and corrected.


mrincredible said:

So it really pains me to have to take a difficult stand which might look like I'm disrespecting you, but please understand I thought long and hard about replying in this fashion.

It pains me not at all to admire your daring in starting a restrictive clause with “which.” Or is it a nonrestrictive clause that’s missing it’s (psych!) comma? No matter — also daring.

The possessive is "its".

Ah, the ol’ period outside the quotation mark. (Though perhaps you know the dot as a full stop, since the order of your punctuation is more a British practice.) Not my cup of tea, as they say, but just — to get back on topic — a personal taste thing.


ml1 said:

I don't understand why there are almost always objections to any new construction. What did people want on that site? For the dormant building to remain? For the site to be turned into a parking lot?

Or if they do want to see the site developed are they objecting to a 3rd story on the building? Or is it because the design doesn't fit their personal taste?

My POV is whether I think the building is attractive or not isn't relevant. I'd rather see a prime piece of downtown real estate used instead of being left to decay. If there were no other 3 story buildings in the village maybe I'd find myself objecting to the height. But there are others.  Plenty of them. 

I object to tax abatements being given to wealthy developers that don't need them. Tax abatements were meant to be a tool for municipalities to attract development to distressed or blighted areas. I would not call downtown Maplewood distressed or blighted.  Developers have come to expect a PILOT regardless of the economics of their project or the desirability of the location.

JMF is a huge development company with very deep pockets.  They did not need a PILOT to make the Clarus Building happen.


ml1 said:

I don't understand why there are almost always objections to any new construction. What did people want on that site? For the dormant building to remain? For the site to be turned into a parking lot?

Or if they do want to see the site developed are they objecting to a 3rd story on the building? Or is it because the design doesn't fit their personal taste?

My POV is whether I think the building is attractive or not isn't relevant. I'd rather see a prime piece of downtown real estate used instead of being left to decay. If there were no other 3 story buildings in the village maybe I'd find myself objecting to the height. But there are others.  Plenty of them. 

 One problem is that infrastructure and municipal services are not keeping up with new construction.  Adding on new businesses and residences eventually will require additional public support systems and we have reached that point now. Sewer capacity issues were identified after the new developments on Boyden Avenue and Maplewood Avenue were completed. The impact on park usage was identified after our demographics shifted and more residents occupied apartments with little or no green space incorporated for tenants/owners. These were not problems prior to the expansion because our infrastructure could handle the the structures we had.  Now, not so much.  Add on the all time favorites of traffic, parking, and insufficient public transportation and you being to understand why some of us are concerned about further expansion without an accompanying plan to continue to meet the needs of the neighborhoods in which the new developments are being built..


joan_crystal said:

 One problem is that infrastructure and municipal services are not keeping up with new construction.  Adding on new businesses and residences eventually will require additional public support systems and we have reached that point now. Sewer capacity issues were identified after the new developments on Boyden Avenue and Maplewood Avenue were completed. The impact on park usage was identified after our demographics shifted and more residents occupied apartments with little or no green space incorporated for tenants/owners. These were not problems prior to the expansion because our infrastructure could handle the the structures we had.  Now, not so much.  Add on the all time favorites of traffic, parking, and insufficient public transportation and you being to understand why some of us are concerned about further expansion without an accompanying plan to continue to meet the needs of the neighborhoods in which the new developments are being built..

 there are differences between development that puts hundreds of units on a site and buildings that bring 10 units to a site. It's worth having all those discussions over projects that bring that kind of population increase to the township. 

But rejecting even small-scale projects on dormant plots of land in the middle of the business district seems kind of rigidly anti-development IMHO. 


yahooyahoo said:

I object to tax abatements being given to wealthy developers that don't need them. Tax abatements were meant to be a tool for municipalities to attract development to distressed or blighted areas. I would not call downtown Maplewood distressed or blighted.  Developers have come to expect a PILOT regardless of the economics of their project or the desirability of the location.

JMF is a huge development company with very deep pockets.  They did not need a PILOT to make the Clarus Building happen.

 that's a reasonable point. isn't the tax abatement on that site almost phased out at this point? I didn't find it unreasonable for the full property taxes to phase in at 20% a year. But certainly reasonable people can disagree on this point. 

Is the developmer of the Baker St site also a huge corporation? I had been under the impression they are smaller and local.


Right, that's standard language, but what is unclear is how the building varies from what the zoning would allow (i.e., height, setback, bulk, coverage, etc.) before that plan was put into effect. 

yahooyahoo said:

The Township amended its own Redevelopment Plan to allow for the proposed design of the building at the Toomey site on Baker Street.

This is straight from the plan presented to the Township from the developers:

"This Redevelopment Plan shall supersede all provisions of the Zoning and Development Regulations
of the Township of Maplewood regulating development in the rehabilitation area. Where there is a
conflict between the requirements of this Redevelopment Plan and the Zoning and Development
Regulations, this Redevelopment Plan shall prevail. In all situations where zoning issues are not specifically addressed herein, the Maplewood Zoning and Development Regulations shall, however, remain in effect. Final adoption of this Plan by the Township Committee shall be considered an
amendment of the Township of Maplewood Zoning Map."

 


Questions around infrastructure, etc are totally valid, but I wish these were framed as "given that we want to go forward with development, let's make sure we address X, Y, and Z" rather than "there should be no development until we address X, Y, and Z -- and if we do address those what about Q, R, and S?"

"Yes, and" rather than "no, because"


DaveSchmidt said:

Ah, the ol’ period outside the quotation mark. (Though perhaps you know the dot as a full stop, since the order of your punctuation is more a British practice.) Not my cup of tea, as they say, but just — to get back on topic — a personal taste thing.

 I never did get the reasoning behind this one. Why place punctuation inside a quotation that did not have punctuation in it before? Adding a period inside the quotation marks is a deliberate misrepresentation of the quote. If I'm quoting your "personal taste", am I quoting your "personal taste," or your "personal taste?" What if I don't agree with the questionability of your "personal taste"? Shouldn't your words be left alone and not further contextualized by the grammar of my sentences?

Sorry, just my "personal taste."


ridski said:

I never did get the reasoning behind this one. Why place punctuation inside a quotation that did not have punctuation in it before? Adding a period inside the quotation marks is a deliberate misrepresentation of the quote.

Unless we’re supposed to be rigidly accurate and, therefore, accommodate both punctuations —

Ridski “never did get the reasoning behind this one.” He considers it a “deliberate misrepresentation”.

— it strikes me as a judgment call either way, for consistency’s sake. (The interior or exterior question mark being a separate matter, because that placement depends on and affects meaning.)

An MOLer (I can’t remember who, exactly, or find the comment) once expressed comfort in the idea that the American quotation mark is embracing the period. Don’t look at me to tear them apart.


ml1 said:

 there are differences between development that puts hundreds of units on a site and buildings that bring 10 units to a site. It's worth having all those discussions over projects that bring that kind of population increase to the township. 

But rejecting even small-scale projects on dormant plots of land in the middle of the business district seems kind of rigidly anti-development IMHO. 

 My position is closer to what PVW posted.  I am not opposed to development as long as the current infrastructure can handle it or the development plan includes changes to the infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the new structure.  As to the size of the development, the Claris did not involve the addition  of hundreds of units but did result in (or identify, not sure which) the need to make substantial improvements to the sewer system serving the Village to accommodate demands resulting from the additional structure.

ETA:  Maplewood Crossing did not add hundreds of units either but it did put additional demands on DeHart Park which are complicating the pressure to turf over a significant portion of the park.


joan_crystal said:

 My position is closer to what PVW posted.  I am not opposed to development as long as the current infrastructure can handle it or the development plan includes changes to the infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the new structure.  As to the size of the development, the Claris did not involve the addition  of hundreds of units but did result in (or identify, not sure which) the need to make substantial improvements to the sewer system serving the Village to accommodate demands resulting from the additional structure.

ETA:  Maplewood Crossing did not add hundreds of units either but it did put additional demands on DeHart Park which are complicating the pressure to turf over a significant portion of the park.

 fwiw the sewer issues in the village predated the Clarus construction. It was cited as one of the reasons the post office site was identified as in need of rehabilitation. Anyone who went downstairs in the restaurant that is now Luna Stella could have attested to that. The sewage smell there was often overpowering. It was also an occasional issue for Kings. I recall stopping in one night and they were about to close do to a sewage backup. If anything the redevelopment that resulted in the construction of Clarus hastened the solution of that problem. 


In that case sewer improvements were coordinated with the new construction after it became obvious that the existing sewer system had reached its breaking point.  There were two issues unique to the Claris development that need to be considered.  

Mail delivery:   Originally, the township committee assured us that another suitable location would be found for the post office.  However, It quickly became obvious that the post office did not want to replace their current location with a full service post office. To make matters worse, the town had not identified a  suitable location in the village for even a front end operation. The location finally selected was less than satisfactory given logistical issues.   More of an issue was the severe decline in mail delivery quality and customer service when our mail delivery was no longer being handled in Maplewood.  

Accessible Train Station:  Early plans for the Claris site included a ground level access to the west-bound track which would have enabled mobility challenged commuters to access that platform. It did not happen. Since the town owned the property, this would have been an opportunity to make our town more inclusive, while bringing more foot traffic to the village.  


joan_crystal said:

In that case sewer improvements were coordinated with the new construction after it became obvious that the existing sewer system had reached its breaking point.  There were two issues unique to the Claris development that need to be considered.  

Mail delivery:   Originally, the township committee assured us that another suitable location would be found for the post office.  However, It quickly became obvious that the post office did not want to replace their current location with a full service post office. To make matters worse, the town had not identified a  suitable location in the village for even a front end operation. The location finally selected was less than satisfactory given logistical issues.   More of an issue was the severe decline in mail delivery quality and customer service when our mail delivery was no longer being handled in Maplewood.  

Accessible Train Station:  Early plans for the Claris site included a ground level access to the west-bound track which would have enabled mobility challenged commuters to access that platform. It did not happen. Since the town owned the property, this would have been an opportunity to make our town more inclusive, while bringing more foot traffic to the village.  

 I don't recall that USPS had any intention to renew the lease on the site indefinitely and continue all operations there. 

And isn't it NJT's responsibility to address access issues at the station?

I honestly don't see either of those issues as reasons to have opposed the development, and certainly not in retrospect. And they don't seem at all relevant to the Baker St project. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.