The Upside of Down-Zoning

JM is full of s&*^.

OK ... let's see the applications! Be specific. What are the addresses?

Too bad JM did not vote to protect the R2 zone on Forest Street. She allowed the adjacent business zone to expand into an R2 residential neighborhood that consists mostly of two family homes. I guess it all depends on who the neighbors are....

Because in that case it benefited her former campaign manager, the husband of the owner of the Montclair Breast Center. And she should have recused herself from that vote, but did not.

I think Joyce may be talking about the property at 21 North Mountain.

I met the owner the other day and it was confirmed to me that they are proposing to build a single structure with 6 units.

Joyce stated the following: "They are destroying relatively affordable housing (maybe older, maybe affordable because of their two family use to both owner and renter) and replacing it with ultra-luxurious units."

The owner confirmed that the existing single family house that was demolished was bought for circa $900k. They also confirmed that the new units would sell in the mid $600's and be contained on a 1/2 acre of property, with footprint only covering something like 20% of the land.(no variances needed according to them)

In this instance it is clear that Joyce's opinion is incorrect. As far as I see it, if this property is developed it will create more housing at a lower cost than the original house. Am i right?

What I don't understand is why is Ms Michaelson banging on about the downzoning and demolition of properties when at the same time she voted for the project at 24 Upper Mountain at last week's planning board meeting?

Ears,

If that is true then JM should be careful because rezoning that affects only one property, say 21 North Mountain, is spot zoning.

In affect, Michaelson's vote for the 5 unit town house proposal at Upper Mountain would have ment that the beautiful old house would have to be demolished.

Can anybody explain why she would do this?

I thought she wanted to stop house razing and the building of condos!

I think I am starting to agree with Hidings assessment that she is full of crap.

Dear Its Called Spot Zoning,

I don't know too much about zoning regulations, but I am sure the owners of that property have attorneys' that are aware of the law.

Ms. Michaelson just doesn't get it.

An R-3 zone is worth more than a R-2 zone because it is more attractive to developers. It has more building options. I would guess that someone having their R-3 changed to R-2 would lose atleast $200,000 on paper. It's that simple.

But, if you have a very nice single-family home near an R-3, you probably gain property value on paper if her measure passes.

She also states an R2 zone preserves affordable housing. More crazy talk. Developers will also knock down a two family to build one or two ultra luxury homes. They are already doing it.

She is probably screwing the 198 property owners to stop the North Mountain guy (Desmond Neill). He must of said something to her.

She always seems to have a hard time putting herself in someone elses shoes, and she never, to my knowledge, has ever changed her mind. She often comes to council votes with a prepared statement. Then she listens to the public input on the issue. Makes her vote. Then reads her prepared statement.

I'm sure she thinks she knows best about everything.

I know a few of the neighbors around that property on North Mountain. It seems that the next door neighbor had a falling out with the developer. The neighbor took his problem to Michaelson (I think he also wrote to her requesting a down zone to R2). Anyway it looks like she has went to bat for the neighbor and has tried to change the zone to stop him.

I wonder will there be some contributions come her way to help her fight the next general election?

Therefore to help the minority of one, she decided to screw the majority of 200. Go figure!

Where the hell is the Montclair Times on this story?

If the above comments on the threads above are true, there seems to an interesting story to be told.

All along, much of the discussion here has focused on R-3 owners maximizing their own profit. But each time one of these single structures is demolished, and multiple buildings clog up a once balanced lot, it badly damages the property values of the neighbors, and the neighborhood. Even Desmond Neill's own architect, when testifying under oath before the planning board, admitted he would not want to live next door to the project he was proposing. The town may have handled this issue in a less than perfect way, but I believe the intentions here are good and would benefit the thousands of homeowners whose property values are at dire risk as a result of vampire developers. Those of you who are vehemently against the downzoning: please show us some hard evidence that having a Christopher Court appear next door actually increases our property values. Or does your argument contain an element of, "Who cares about my neighbors?"

As for 21 and 25 N. Mountain--the reason they are so on the mind of some on the council is that they are next properties, given the planning board meeting schedule, at dire risk. And the fact is that it is not just one neighbor of 21 who is against this: it is an entire neighborhood, as well as numerous folks from all over town.

Finally, to the poster above who said he/she spoke with Desmond about his plans. Unfortunately, you simply cannot trust Mr. Neill. For instance, he "confirmed to me that they are proposing to build a single structure with 6 units." True enough. But what he didn't say--and a look at the plans he just submitted to the planning board would tell you this in a flash--is he's also planning on building another structure behind that one. Seriously, check the plans and see how much he "confirmed to you"--about units, structures, coverage, etc.--is true.

To the above poster,

I have no reason to distrust them.

Also I don't have time to run to the Township to check plans.

If their application is variance free and adheres to the ordinance, then I say let them have it.

They definitely stated to me that it was in one single structure.

Have you actually reviewed the Plans (submitted to the Planning Board) at the township? I'd be interested to know what you saw.

They did mention orginally they had an application at the Zoning board that kept the existing house and had two buildings behind it. May be you are mistaken.

they screwed up by passing the chrisco project, none of this would be an issue if that never happened.

Ears, you should distrust him. He has repeatedly said things that are not true. He demolished a structure after saying he had no plans to do so. He also (with his wife) sent out letters under a her maiden name in order to sway public opinion.

Ears:

I have seen the plans. He is proposing a front structure that contains four units; a single unit building behind that; and a third building behind that one. The rest of the lot is taken up by a parking lot with 15 spaces. The devloper is attempting to claim these three structures are a "single" structure by attaching them. So between the front four-unit building and the second building is a small, functionally useless rectangular linkage that connects the two buildings. This is analogous to, say, someone in a car tieing a piece of rope to the car behind them and claiming that the two linked cars were in fact a single automobile.

Desmond has, in the past, submitted plans that more overtly included multiple, separate buildings. He withdrew those plans before the board ever had a chance to rule on them. What it appears he is trying to do now is build something akin to a NYC apartment building on a block of single structure homes. As for his claims regarding coverage, again, a glance at the plans makes it clear that almost the entire lot is taken up with either buildings, driveway, or the parking lot.