Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Eliminate Garage Requirement

The Maplewood Township committee is discussing at this Wednesday's meeting the following: an ordinance that "will eliminate the requirement that a garage be built on all residential use properties."  As I've been told, this is being proposed as a response to residents whose garages are in disrepair and must be demolished but do not have the financial means to build a new one.  I sympathize, but I'm concerned about the impacts that this will have.  For instance, as I understand it, the floor of the garage does not need to be removed.  If the garage is in bad shape, the floor probably is also and now it will be uncovered.  

Also, there will probably be an negative impact on property values for those dwellings that do not have a garage resulting in a reduced overall tax base and higher taxes for other properties - probably a small impact, but still an impact.  One reason I like Maplewood are the "quality of life" ordinances we have - e.g. fence heights and placements, above ground pool restrictions, etc. etc.  To me, the requirement to have a garage falls into that category.  Any thoughts?

To address the tax base argument, would a house with no garage really be worth less than a house with a crumbling and dilapidated garage?  I'm not sure.

my aunt has a house without a garage...never harmed the property in any way.  they did eventually put up a large shed.  I would think the 'floor' of a garage could be used as patio area.  besides.  I would think just removing a bad garage is better than having it sitting there half falling down for property values.  many people don't use a garage for the car anyway.  its for bikes, grills, lawn mowers, etc.

Agreed with above. Would rather a small, sound shed than a crumbling garage. Most of my neighbor's and myself use the garage as a shed anyway...

Thanks for all the comments - you certainly make some good points.

I find this interesting because in Maplewood there are houses without garages.   I wonder how that happened with that ordinance in place.

It is likely that those properties were grandfathered in when the ordinance was passed.

@dwells123, you seem to be advocating keeping the cost of home ownership high, whether the cost improves life or not.

Respectfully, I disagree. Residents are not required to have fences or above ground pools. Placing limits on the size, design and placement of a garage would fall into that category. Requiring that a garage exists seems like over-reach.

I suppose the intent is harmless if it has an aesthetic purpose - to have cars, lawn mowers, wheelbarrows and things stored away out of sight. But as stated, we're not required to store our cars and other things in the garage, and it's legal to have the garage empty. So if the law doesn't follow the intent, what is its purpose?

dwells123 said:

... One reason I like Maplewood are the "quality of life" ordinances we have - e.g. fence heights and placements, above ground pool restrictions, etc. etc.  To me, the requirement to have a garage falls into that category.  Any thoughts?

One question is what will people do with those bikes, grills, lawnmowers, wood piles, tools, etc.

I'd rather look at a bad garage then a pile of stuff under a tarp.

jmitw said:

my aunt has a house without a garage...never harmed the property in any way.  they did eventually put up a large shed.  I would think the 'floor' of a garage could be used as patio area.  besides.  I would think just removing a bad garage is better than having it sitting there half falling down for property values.  many people don't use a garage for the car anyway.  its for bikes, grills, lawn mowers, etc.

joan_crystal said:

It is likely that those properties were grandfathered in when the ordinance was passed.

This.

The ordinance dictates that homeowners can't tear down existing garages without replacing them.  I don't think it requires a garage to exist for every home. (Edited to add:  New homes probably require a garage, but old homes that never had a garage are exempt)

apple44 said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Residents are not required to have fences or above ground pools. Placing limits on the size, design and placement of a garage would fall into that category. Requiring that a garage exists seems like over-reach.

I suppose the intent is harmless if it has an aesthetic purpose - to have cars, wheelbarrows and things stored away out of sight. But as stated, we're not required to store our cars and other things in the garage, it's legal to have the garage empty. So if the law doesn't follow the intent, what is its purpose?

dwells123 said:

... One reason I like Maplewood are the "quality of life" ordinances we have - e.g. fence heights and placements, above ground pool restrictions, etc. etc.  To me, the requirement to have a garage falls into that category.  Any thoughts?

Thanks. That is different from the wording which the OP used. Seems to be a similar issue. If someone no longer wants a garage on their property - or more likely, they can't afford to rebuild one - why should they be required to have one?

You can say aesthetics, but it's legal to have a garage and still have all of your "stuff" fully visible out in the yard. So what's the point?

yahooyahoo said:

The ordinance dictates that homeowners can't tear down existing garages without replacing them.  I don't think it requires a garage to exist for every home. (Edited to add:  New homes probably require a garage, but old homes that never had a garage are exempt)

apple44 said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Residents are not required to have fences or above ground pools. Placing limits on the size, design and placement of a garage would fall into that category. Requiring that a garage exists seems like over-reach.

I suppose the intent is harmless if it has an aesthetic purpose - to have cars, wheelbarrows and things stored away out of sight. But as stated, we're not required to store our cars and other things in the garage, it's legal to have the garage empty. So if the law doesn't follow the intent, what is its purpose?

dwells123 said:

... One reason I like Maplewood are the "quality of life" ordinances we have - e.g. fence heights and placements, above ground pool restrictions, etc. etc.  To me, the requirement to have a garage falls into that category.  Any thoughts?

apple44 said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Residents are not required to have fences or above ground pools. Placing limits on the size, design and placement of a garage would fall into that category. Requiring that a garage exists seems like over-reach.

I suppose the intent is harmless if it has an aesthetic purpose - to have cars, lawn mowers, wheelbarrows and things stored away out of sight. But as stated, we're not required to store our cars and other things in the garage, and it's legal to have the garage empty. So if the law doesn't follow the intent, what is its purpose?

dwells123 said:

... One reason I like Maplewood are the "quality of life" ordinances we have - e.g. fence heights and placements, above ground pool restrictions, etc. etc.  To me, the requirement to have a garage falls into that category.  Any thoughts?

Tom_Reingold said:

@dwells123, you seem to be advocating keeping the cost of home ownership high, whether the cost improves life or not.

overnight parking ban may be the next rule to be questioned

Doubtful.  Proposed change to the ordinance would still mandate that each house have an off-street parking space.  On street overnight parking permits are still available for those whose property lacks such a space due to grandfathering.

@dwells123, did you have something to add? I don't see anything in your recent post.

yahooyahoo said:

One question is what will people do with those bikes, grills, lawnmowers, wood piles, tools, etc.

I'd rather look at a bad garage then a pile of stuff under a tarp.

jmitw said:

my aunt has a house without a garage...never harmed the property in any way.  they did eventually put up a large shed.  I would think the 'floor' of a garage could be used as patio area.  besides.  I would think just removing a bad garage is better than having it sitting there half falling down for property values.  many people don't use a garage for the car anyway.  its for bikes, grills, lawn mowers, etc.

Yup. 

as i said, they put up a large shed....I don't remember before that..but they didn't have kids initially and didnt have a bunch of stuff

yahooyahoo said:

One question is what will people do with those bikes, grills, lawnmowers, wood piles, tools, etc.

I'd rather look at a bad garage then a pile of stuff under a tarp.

jmitw said:

my aunt has a house without a garage...never harmed the property in any way.  they did eventually put up a large shed.  I would think the 'floor' of a garage could be used as patio area.  besides.  I would think just removing a bad garage is better than having it sitting there half falling down for property values.  many people don't use a garage for the car anyway.  its for bikes, grills, lawn mowers, etc.

FYI - as stated in the agenda notes from the June 7th Township Committee Meeting:

"Ordinance fails on introduction".