Development Deterrent?

Well, I guess better late than never re: wake up alarm. Personally, I think the alarm clock has been set on snooze for a very long time, as it pertains to developers.

Montclair has to ask itself, "Do we want to be a city or and town?" Bloomfield is asking themselves that question. I want a town. I think Montclair is very nice the way it is. I would hate to see Montclair get trashed. Think of how messed up Christopher Court is.

The next election can't come soon enough!When is the madness gonna stop? Who are these people buying million dollar condos?

The common denominator in all the re-development I've seen, whether it's in Montclair, Brielle, Cape May or Hunterdon County is the size of the untis being built. I am talking specifically about cases where existing structures are demolished to make way for modern ones. They are BIG monstrosities, throwing off the scale of the whole property, the whole neighborhood. It's not pleasing to the eye at all.

I suppose you can get away with this in a county like Hunterdon which has more acreage per dwelling but even so, you have these BIG MONSTER homes (think Monster Trucks) with little or no landscaping surrounding them. Fugly ugly! Kinda reminds me government-issue housing.

Planners should assume that builders will build exactly up to the limits that zoning allows (of course, they'll then ask for variances, but that's a different story). If "there was a general feeling he was trying to put too much in that space," the fault lies with the zoning, not the developer.

The town council needs to imagine a Montclair where EVERY single lot in an R3 or R2 zone is filled to its respective maximum -- it's not smart to assume anything else. Once a block has a some garden apartments, it becomes much more likely that the whole block will head in that direction.

Montclair faces the choice that lasermike points out: "city" or "town"?

This is happening because the market is demanding that it happen.

Welcome to the realities of a real estate bubble.

To developers, it's all about the quick buck. Tear down, build, sell to fools, and run to the bank (laughing all the way, ha ha ha).

As long as there are people willing (begging even) to pay incredible prices for the privilege of living in "luxury" condos or townhouses, this behavior will not stop.

Montclair is the same place today as it was 5 years ago. What changed? Why didn't we see this behavior before?

It's simple, in the late 90's nobody was moving to Montclair or the rest of Jersey 'burbs to live in a condo. Nobody wanted them, nobody cared. We'll return to that soon enough.

At this point there is no need to change the zoning laws. The market is collapsing on itself. In a year or two this will all be history. There will be no more profit in these types of teardowns.

The developers that are not taking huge losses on condos will be converting them to rentals. The condo and townhouse mania will be forgotten and all will be right again.

James

Uh, how does reducing the number of new units per lot from eight to "only" two stop teardowns of historic single family homes? Even those developers who follow the letter of the law build to maximize profit, with no consideration towards historic value or neighborhood quality.

Look, there are plenty of homes in Montclair with little or no historic meaning and charm, I'd even put the Marlboro Inn in that category, but this multi-million dollar crap that is being put up in place of beautiful old homes is going to eventually turn Montclair into another suburban Jersey wasteland.

Why does Montclair have to decide whether it wants to be a city or a town? Why can't it be both? It seems to me that the allure of Montclair has always been that it's a bit of both, with Bloomfield Avenue being very urban and upper montclair being happily refered to as a village. City doesn't = trashed.

I like to see large scale development occur in the downtown area. I love to see the streets bustling late at night and the shops staying open til 10 or 11. I wish there were more liquor licenses clustered in certain areas so that the businesses could be open later as well. It makes me feel safe to walk around Bloomfield Ave now that there's a lot more pedestrian traffic. Years ago when Montclair was much more of a "town" the downtown was eerily quiet after 9 or 10 at night and I was much less comfortable walking around by myself.

As for the more suburban sections of Montclair, there was a news report on what's happening in Chevy Chase Maryland where they actually did pass a moratorium on tear downs. Montclair is in very good shape considering the recent housing boom. Yeah we lost a few houses, it's going to happen now and again. Yeah some lots were subdivided, it's happened in the past (about any contemporary you've seen in town is the result of a subdivided lot or a tear down). At the most we saw, 10-20 houses total get knocked down and rebuilt during a time when interest rates are this low and housing prices are through the roof. That isn't too bad folks. Can't we stop arguing about everything and understand that along with great development (Hahnes is finally being built, eyesores along bloomfield ave rennovated into income producing properties) there are going to be some less desirable properties built as well, but we really made out okay.

The cycle repeats. Seems that everyone always forgets the last go-around.

Doesn't anyone remember when developers wanted to turn Craftsman Farms into a development?

From the NY Times:
http://tinyurl.com/pyl3b

--------------------
IN their quest to preserve the remnants of Gustav Stickley's utopian community, the out-of-state developer and the home-grown preservationist are of a mind. They differ only in how to reach their goal, but that is a big difference.

The developer, a red-haired firebrand named Jack C. Heller who travels in a limousine and breaks $100 bills in fast-food restaurants, intends to save the log house that served as home and refuge for Stickley, the designer and architect who is sometimes credited with founding the arts and crafts movement in America.

He wants to make the 6,000-square-foot residence in Parsippany-Troy Hills, N.J., a clubhouse for 52 luxury town houses he plans to build on the adjoining 26 acres of gardens and woodland. He has retained the architect Robert A.M. Stern to replicate the shingle and stone style of Stickley's house in the new residences, which will cost about $400,000.
--------------------

New Urbanist: you are right that the downtown area can absorb more development. Hopefully it will be done with care -- I think the new parking deck is a smash hit (applespouse and I had to park on the very top level on Saturday night, which can only be good for all Church St. and surrounding businesses). I think the city/town distinction is really a measure of residential density, not business district density.

Gee, I visited Craftsman Farms just a few years ago. It's an awfully wooded site. My impression, however, was that it was owned by Morris County. Is that wrong? And while Stickley's old house may indeed be 6000 sq. ft., it is a very dark and cramped-seeming home even without furniture. There's certainly nothing quite like it in Baristaville.

Montclair, in my agreement with appletony and (the heavens are trembling on this one) lasermikey, should remain a "town." (And not the "peoples' republic" some posters often seem to see it as.) But then you have to decide what kind of town. There's enough here to keep this site humming for several more years.

"The next election can't come soon enough!"

Don't worry, you'll probably be asleep by the time it arrives.

"When is the madness gonna stop?"

It won't.

"Who are these people buying million dollar condos?"

Millionaires. Billionaires. Trillionaires. Gadzooolililionaire.

This next move by the town council, if voted through, will result in the following:

1. Lost chance for affordable homes. The 200 lots under consideration will lose the potential for creating 150 low income units. If those lots were developed, they might create 1,000 units (5x200). Town laws require 1/7th of all new units to be affordable. Maybe this will be a good result for some people who are anti affordable housing.

2. The tear downs will continue but instead of five modest units with an affordable component, the developers will build two mega luxury units. Maybe $1.5 million each. Crisco all over again. Maybe this is what those in the luxury developing market really want?

3. Lost chance for small housing communities that are our only chance for sustainable living and energy independence.

The end game is less affordable housing for Montclair's not so fortunate. No chance for environmentally-minded housing. And more ultra-luxury housing.

I wish there were more creative minds working on this problem.

Cathar, the town has the power and right to manage development. Development needs to be guided and managed. The will of people should be rightly enforced and development tempered.

OX, your post shows the "creativity" that the majority of Montclair residents want stopped -- thousands of new "units".

People who see only "units" and square feet when looking at a property like the Duryea road house are part of the problem that constraining R3 zoning will address.

Your affordable housing argument is a only part of the story -- a few units of affordable housing forcibly included in developments only raises the costs for everyone else in town. But you are correct in that preventing higher density will limit "affordability." If Montclair allows more of the barracks known as garden apartments to be built, it will necessarily result in more cheap housing.

OX, you make some really good points. i cannot even believe the rezoning is being considering given how much the median home price has gone up since 2002 (around $400,000, which is beyond exhorbitant even when considering the hot real estate market during that period). i agree that the character and history of montclair need to be preserved, but the town council really needs to consider the impact such policy will have on other supposedly important issues in the town. besides, in my opinion, the socioeconomic diversity of the town is just as important to its history as older buildings.

"the town has the power and right to manage development. Development needs to be guided and managed. The will of people should be rightly enforced and development tempered."

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I'm struck at how much it reads like a parody of Ann Rand parodying liberal democrats. It might have come from the lips of Ellsworth Toohey.

The imminent collapse of the condo market (which we saw happen in the 80's after the stock market crashed in '87) does not bode well for the downtown redevelopment in Bloomfield, which included, I believe, 700 condos. In view of the other developments that have already been approved or are pending, on Locust St. and elsewhere, the downtown redevelopment is going to come on board too late for the pro-condo trend. I think the whole thing needs to be reconsidered in view of the new market realities. I realize this story was more about Montclair but it's an issue across Baristaville.

mikey, I'd never dispute that a town, city, burg, township or borough has the right to regulate development. But truly determining the "will of the people" from the comments of the termagant screech owls who post here, as on the Nicolo's thread (and don't get me started on those arrogant marsupials!), is quite another matter.

I also hope and pray that the likes of thee, mikey, also don't constitute the "will" of the people, however much I concur that development has to be carefully managed.

Seems like the town planner should have a master plan for guidance (not to be confused with existing laws, but a "big picture" overview that defines the town's development goals and philosophy), and not reviewing applications on individual merit and one-on-one relationships.

Lets just say I fit in better in Montclair than you do.

According to the Star Ledger, the developer is seeking seven variances—including ones for height, setback and lot coverage.

In other words, he wants to build more houses than allowed under zoning law, bigger houses than allowed, and houses closer to the street.

Why bother having any zoning laws at all if we're willing to give variances like this?

I certainly hope our council people will step up to the plate this time and put a stop to this mockery of our zoning laws.

And please, cut that new urbanism crap. That's a greedy developers marketing term to try to sell overcrowded houses. If people want urbanism, they'll go to an urban center to find it.

Developers! You try scrubbing them out, you try soaking them out...! Finally, you have to erect an invisible fence (like the kind they use for dogs) around the town. If that doesn't work, there's always barbed wire.

Jon got it right. the problem isn't that multiple units are being built where older, historic homes were its the fact that these homes are being torn down in the first place. Down-zoning won't fix that. If Montclair truly wants to preserve its residential character it would be better served by scrapping the outdated method of zoning in favor of design standards.

As far as all these variances, its a struggle between the matsre plan (I'm assuming Montclair has one) and the zoning board of appeals. Variances should be an arduous process and should be very difficult to have granted unless absolutely necessary.

a moment of silence please for a true funnyman - red buttons

in montclair, the zoning board hands out variances like lollypops.

Maybe call me insensitive, but I really don't get the pro-condo development approach to creating "affordable housing" that OX mentions. There are garden apartments all over town and several modestly priced neighborhoods as well. Montclair is without a doubt, very diverse, as is.

Ruining the historic character of the Town, overcrowding the schools and driving up the taxes so that one out of every seven new condo units built is "affordable" is an awful trade-off.

what's happening at 24 north mountain? i used to live in that house.

mikey, mikey, mikey, let's just instead "say" that you go better with loonies, wherever they may be found. Are you opining, from the damp, mushroom-filled depths of your data center, that Montclair is like that, stuffed full of Unix louts? No, my good laserfellow, thou remainest one of a very rare, thin-brained and appallingly nutso kind.

"There are garden apartments all over town and several modestly priced neighborhoods as well. Montclair is without a doubt, very diverse, as is."

you're kidding, right? it certainly WAS, but that isn't the case anymore. just look at the declining rates of participation in the schools' free and reduced lunch program. a lot of people can't afford to live in montclair anymore. i don't know your definition of modest home prices, but if we're talking units affordable to the non-upper-middle class or very well-off, those exist in extremely limited quantities in montclair. check out the MLS listings for units affordable to people earning a certain % of the area median income.

"Variances should be an arduous process and should be very difficult to have granted unless absolutely necessary."

The sentiments mentioned above about variances coincide with the purpose and intent of the Municipal Land Use Law, particularly when it is in reference to use variances. The Zoning Boards are NEVER obliged to grant a use variance and if the ZB has been doing so indescriminately it's because of other factors; the MLUL gives them some major excuses to refuse use variances. If they're not using them it's because of political pressure or misconceptions about what is good for the town.

>>>The MLUL gives them some major excuses to refuse use variances. If they're not using them it's because of political pressure or misconceptions about what is good for the town.

If that's the case, it makes you wonder why our town is so quick to hand out variances. Any guesses?

Thank you Walla!!My mind is at ease!

our brains are gardens of love juice. wherever you live is everywhere and nowhere at the same trime

The last time I checked there was no crime in holding down more than two jobs in this country. Migrant workers hold down three and often more. I know some NYC firemen who have "side jobs" as electricians, deck builders, handymen, and whatever else they can do to add to their incomes. Do any Montclair firefighters have side jobs? I don't know. Would it impact their regular duties? Don't think so. If they used their cell phones at the station house to line up their part times jobs, is that a crime? If I work a full time 40 hour a week job at an office during the week, and decide to take a benefit paying job on the weekends, who is to stop me?. This is a free country isn't it?.

Archaeological Significance and Historic Value
Alterations to 24 Upper Mountain Avenue (the vintage interiors have been meticulously restored and the exterior only needs paint and some porch work) would be detrimental to two of Montclair’s most historic features and part of it’s original site, The Howe House at 369 Claremont Avenue (Freed Slave House) and the 1872 train tunnel. In 2004, we began a research project to establish Montclair as a Freedom Station with the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. This house sits upon the portal to a 1,200 tunnel test bore that runs under the mountain pass then monitored by a tollhouse. Was it used as a safe passage during abolition and later when gangs tried to prevent African Americans to work freely in agriculture and industry?
We only know - “the Howe House or the Washington Wayside House -- was built in 1781. In 1831, Nathaniel Crane gave this house and six acres of property to James Howe; his former slave…Slavery was legal in Montclair at the time of the Revolution. Slavery wasn't outlawed until 1846 and NJ was the last of the original 13 colonies to abolish slavery. Abolition was gradual, and if Crane tried to sell slaves down South where he could get much more money, he would be put in jail for 2 years at hard labor” Philip Doremus in “The Reminiscences of Montclair” notes that in 1830 Nathanial Crane provided James Howe, bequeathing him a house and property. Alloway & Arny 1964 – “most houses of the pre-Revolutionary period were 25 x 25 feet with a sleeping loft that was reached by a ladder. As to attitudes towards persons other than Anglo-Saxons, it is to the credit to our area that the church attended by the Dutch settlers, influenced perhaps by the Congregational doctrine of “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” took a stand that slaves had souls, and baptized them when this position caused schism and great bitterness. Montclair was early in supporting integration in churches. Nearby there was a Sunday school where the daughter of the pastor taught slaves and their children, unheard of in many places.” Elisabeth and Royal Shepard - “The James Howe House… is probably the first house owned by an African American in Montclair.”
“The Tunnel was started in 1872 by the Caldwell Railroad, a subsidiary of the Montclair Railroad, which was building to Greenwood Lake (the Boonton Line was officially part of the Underground Railroad)…. Roughly 1,200 feet of the projected 4,500-foot bore was said to have been built.” This tunnel’s present condition is unknown. The portal, adjacent to the Howe House is closed with a manhole and the other end is at the Annin Flag Factory in Verona. Could there have been a pre existing tunnel in this location? Was this all part of a freedom “business?” We have a long research road ahead but this could someday be an important national historic site. – Frank Gerard Godlewski

paety poker

party ppker