Don't Super Size Me

A good idea.

Has anybody bought a Crisco yet?

I was just reading about some of these issues in The American Enterprise Magazine.

(I'd also like to congratulate Cary, Lasermike and Pat for making the cover!)

Having now read the article linked by the Barista, my opinion is that it looks like a sensible part of the package for preserving Montclair's charm. It would prevent me from doing some of the things I have daydreamed about doing to my house, but if it means I don't have to worry about a cruise-ship sized beast going up next door, it's a worthy trade-off.

Has anyone thought of the ramifications this new proposed ordinance will have if it is passed. Think about this. A great number of R1 lots in Montclair measure 50ft wide by 120ft deep (6000 sf). The new proposal is for 25% lot coverage which equates to 1500sf. Imagine you have a modest two story house (3000sf) and your housing needs change and you want to add a family room extension to your house. Guess what! you're going to need a variance. Then it's off to the Board of Adjustment which will take 6 months to be heard. Add the expense of Attorney and Professional Planner to represent you at the hearing. Remember to obtain a variance you need to show undue hardship. There is no guarantee of obtaining approval especially if it is a new ordinance the township council recently introduced.
Home owners who need to expand will be curtailed.
The proposal of a blanket 25% lot coverage for the whole of the R1 zone is too simple, and a 'one pill solves all' is not the solution. The Planning Department need to carry out further analysis to come up with a more workable solution.

(Heretic! Burn him at the stake!)

ROC,

I'm a brunette and that looks nothing like Cary.

I don't know what Laser looks like but it probably bears no resemblance to him either.

Are you being funny or insulting? It would be nice to know what your motive is.

Developer, you forget the ability to go with a "half story" upward. It's much better that it be a bit tight so that people may individually need to seek variances than for it to be as loose as it is now.

3,000 square feet is more than merely "modest." I agree that it's not big by today's Crisco standards, but that's the point: Montclair residents clearly aren't liking the results when developers build to the exact maximum currently permitted.

An individual seeking a family room addition will probably find a way to do it, but the developer who wants to do a tear down will now be more likely to put up something that won't be as much of a shock to the whole neighborhood.

If it means that builders who can't envision selling something smaller than 6,000 square feet end up building elsewhere, that's a result the voters here are probably happy to see. (if not, they'll vote in a more developer-friendly crowd, eh?)

"That would be replaced with wording setting the maximum permitted width of a principal structure at 65 percent of a lot's frontage"

Many many houses in Montclair do not meet this standard. So much for the added office on the side of your house!

p.s.

And how many "monstrosities" have their been in Montclair? 15 - 20? Out of a total of what? 15,000?

This is an overreaction.

That's right -- the office will need to be added to the back, top or bottom, or you'll need a variance. I think my house must be at or over the 65% width limit.

If we want to prevent superginormosity (sorry to use a technical term), this is how to do it best -- a zoning rule that exists for all, instead of periodic outrage at individual excesses.

ROC, you're framing it as a percentage of existing houses. What do you think the "monstrosity" percentage is of all new construction? Worse yet, of teardown/rebuild construction?

Answer: a much higher ratio than your 15-20 out of 15,000 and a growing trend as the predecessor projects point to a proven, particularly profitable path for profligate planners.

As long as we know what we are giving up here.

I'll pay a lot more to add an office to the top of my house than on the side. Building an office within 10 feet of the property line is reasonable, since, well all the rest of my neighbors on the street do already!

So *my* additional cost is a result of appletony's (et al) anger at a housing development I have nothing to do with!

Actually since we probably cannot afford the extra cost of building up, we'll probably have to scratch the ideal all together.

Thanks, neighbor!

Appletony, what is the percentage. Feel free to estimate and to make a list!

You're welcome! There are plenty of developer-friendly communities around for those who wish to have more room to flex.

Anyway, you are now the one making assumptions without a tested basis: building up is often cheaper than building out due to not needing additional foundation work.

Assumption? Would you care to see the initial letter of "ballpark" suggestions from our architect?

Building up was our initial idea thinking an office now would be a bedroom later. In our case a structure on the side is less expensive.

Assumptions...

"There are plenty of developer-friendly communities around for those who wish to have more room to flex."

A predictable response from you I am sad to say...

Good for you. Build it quick, before the new law takes effect -- problem solved!

I'm building up due to the opposite reason (far cheaper to do the attic than pour an adjunct to the foundation). Is your attic filled with trusses, or are the floors too weak (curious)?

ROC, you are hardly the one to kvetch about "predictable" responses! Holy crap, do you have any shred of self-awareness, or are you just an argubot?

Any ideas when this would become effective? If we get the plans approved before the change and get the permit are we "locked in"?

"predictability" was not the issue. The "my way or the highway" aspect was the issue.

I don't know, but I can't imagine how they would invalidate or retract granted permits. Any NJ lawyers or builders know the definitive answer?

I read the story in the Star-Ledger this morning, and after reading the posts, ROC and Appletony are not far apart. ROC is right; we are talking about a small percentage of the new development. I would think we have more to fear from condo and townhome development squeezed into small spaces than McMansions.

Making the zoning laws prohibitive with the final arbiter being the Board is the easy way out, but it's better than letting developers do what they want. At least there is a process. I also understand the cultural aspects we aren't talking about here, and they are not unimportant. Am I missing anything?

In response to Appletony's comments "Developer, you forget the ability to go with a "half story" upward."

Yeh that works well Appletony. I'll just stick a family room in the half story roof space. Access to garden would sure be nice. Shall I'll just build an exterior stair to the garden?

In response to Appletony's comments : " Montclair residents clearly aren't liking the results when developers build to the exact maximum currently permitted."

Not true Appletony. I recently built a house in Town (on a 46ft x 120ft lot) to the maximum of the currently permitted. All the neighbors on my street love the exterior look of the house. They think it's a great addition to the street and that it fits in. Appletony it's not size that matters, it's design and how the house fits into it's context.

Just because a few hundred poeple scream over development, doesn't mean that the other 37,800 residents of Montclair think it's over development.

Appletony, I do agree with you on one thing, that CRISCO development is a shocker!

This may prevent some plans I had for expansion. But I don't really care. This seems to be exactly what Montclair needed.

Developer, I am glad you develop nice houses. Election time is the appropriate time for the question of whether it's a few hundred (your opinion) or a majority (my opinion).

You know as well as I do that restrictions on the design or look of construction are nearly impossible to craft, and much more tedious/involved/expensive to oversee than a simple size restriction. A size restriction accomplishes a lot by removing one of the main complaints about new construction in this town: too massive for the lot size.

ROC, it's not "my way or the highway" -- it's a valid point. This is akin to federalism, but on a smaller scale. Live in South Dakota and want abortion-on-demand? Move to New Jersey! Live in Montclair and want to build much bigger dwellings on smaller lots? Move to a less-restrictive town!

It's all a series of trade-offs that are within our collective control as a polity and if one area grows too restrictive in matters that concern us the most personally, our individual control by choosing in which community to live. You are simply not going to achieve New Hampshire or Montana levels of property rights in suburban New Jersey.

Appletony, Restrictions on the design or look of construction are not impossible to craft. Our neighbor, Glenridge Township have these restrictions in place for design and they seem to be working well on curbing the development of McMansions.

A size restriction may not be a bad idea, it just needs to be appropriate for the lot size. A blanket restriction of 25% lot coverage for all R1 lots is not a sensible approach. An example of a thoughtful approach is Westfield Township. They have many different (8) lot coverage percentages determined by the various existing lot sizes. In this way over development can be curtailed without dictating "a one size fits all" solution.

You make reasonable points. Will you go to the June hearing to offer them up?

I'd still be inclined to go with a one-size-fits-all for now, with refinements to come later (for example, allowing automatic adjustments closer to the average percentage coverage of the existing nearby houses). After all, the existing formula is a one-size-fits-all in which the one size is simply considered too big.

How can 65% frontage be too big when, (from my cursory look when I drove around today) a significant number, maybe even a majority, wouldn't meet that criteria!

65% Think about it. A little over half. Drive around Montclair.

Appletony,
You're the right the existing formula needs to change. You're example of allowing for lot coverage adjustments based on the existing houses on either side of your property is an interesting idea. This would allow for the development or extension of existing house based on its geographic and physical context. In this way the proposed development would be more in keeping with the existing street.

I think I'll give the hearing a miss. I have enough troubles with the Town without aggrevating them further.

Semi off topic...sorry

Does anyone happen to know the "zoning" code for setback/placement of a Central AC unit. I believe it's 347-58D but can't seem to find the rule without talking to the "man" and I don't want to get permits.

Thanks in advance

65% is two-thirds, not "a little more than half." So a 60 foot property would go from a 10 foot setback on one side and 6 foot on the other, to 10' and 11' -- like the article says, a difference of 5 feet.

I do agree that it's a tight restriction. I haven't measured, but I'm sure my house gobbles up all that's currently allowed for side clearance (built circa 1922 with a very narrow driveway on one side and about 8' of side lot on the other).

What about keeping the current side setbacks, but reducing the 49% footprint to something meaningfully smaller (e.g., if 25% is unrealistic, why not 30%)?

Mandates,

Why would we help you cheat us out of tax money? Your not seeking a permit means the rest of us have to pay part of your share of property tax.

Your taking money out of my pocket and you want my help?

ROC,

I figured you'd be the one with the comment and you didn't dissapoint :) I'd happily get permits as soon as i can determine what the rule is. I am replacing a VERY old unit that doesn't work and I believe may be in an "illegal" spot. I don't want to be forced to remove it or move it for that matter.

Sorry for hijacking the thread

Mandates Cost Money,

A/C units can not be placed any closer than 6ft to the side and rear yard property line.
Also they are not allowed within 6ft of the principal structure. Also they are not allowed in the front yard. You have to screen them off with soft landscaping.

I'm having trouble finding the exact code reference in the Ordinance. Unfortunately you may have to talk to the 'man'.

Appletony,

You're starting to make sense. Keep the side yards as you suggest and 30-35% lot coverage would be a good starting point that would be more palatable for the average home owner, yet restrict those greedy developers from building big box McMansions.

I don't think it's not be within six feet. It is already in the front... currently block from view by landscaping. I'm hoping I don't have to move it, more $...

Developer, greed is good. But you have to expect it -- if 49% coverage is allowed and Montclair is more desireable than ever, people shouldn't be shocked that big boxes get built. That's why I favor putting tighter restrictions in to start with.

I generally don't have a problem with well-done McMansions, either, if the mass fits the site and neighborhood. If any one of the Crisco houses were situated in a normal way on a normal lot, I wouldn't "tsk" as I drove by. The fact that they're crammed together with their butt ends fronting Watchung is the pity of it all.

Crisco isn't a pity it's a travesty of Montclair housing!

As to the ones whose backs face Grove St.

I assume that the new owners will be responsible for shoveling both their front walks on Christopher court and the "back walks" on Grove St.

appleton,

the mcmansions on lorraine between grove and park are acceptable and are the same size as crisco... just not on
a crammed lot as you said

then they are not true McMansions.