Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Steck
Community Planning Consultant
P. O. Box 306, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
(973) 762-6568
Fax 762-5457
Steckplan@AOL.COM
November 9, 2009
PLANNING MEMORANDUM -2
To: Maplewood Planning Board
INTRODUCTION
This Planning Memorandum supplements an earlier memorandum to the
Maplewood Planning Board dated October 8, 2009. It contains additional research
intended to assist the Planning Board in conducting its consistency review of proposed
Ordinance No. 2604-09. The additional information offered to the Planning Board
include a confirmation that the property at 125 Dunnell Road is in the R-1-7 Residential
Zone rather than the NB Neighborhood Business Zone and a report on the results of a
visual study. The visual study depicts what would be permitted should the Township
Committee adopt the new zoning proposed in the draft Dunnell Road Police Building
Redevelopment Plan dated September of 2009.
This additional information continues to be offered on behalf of two households
on Maplewood Avenue. The individuals are Joe DePlasco & Nahela Hadi at 126
Maplewood Avenue and Diana Leo & Dr. Jane Aronson at 128 Maplewood Avenue.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Following the October 7, 2009 introduction of Ordinance No. 2604-09 by the
Township Committee, the Maplewood Planning Board held a public meeting on October
13, 2009. As authorized in the Municipal Land Use Law, the purpose of the referral to
the Planning Board is to determine: 1) whether the zoning advanced in the rehabilitation
plan is consistent with the Maplewood Master Plan, and 2) to offer advice to the
Township Committee regarding the contents of the rehabilitation plan.
The portion of the October 13, 2009 Planning Board meeting dealing with the
referral of Ordinance No. 2604-09 was consumed with planner Stuart Portney (the
author of the rehabilitation plan) describing what was in the plan with Planning Board
members and the general public asking questions of the planner. No time was left for
the public to make comments.
Responding to questions, planner Stuart Portney indicated the he felt that a five-
story building constructed at the front property line was consistent with the area and
could be looked at as a transitional use. He also said that he was unsure about the
location of the rear property line and did not know the consequences of the trunk
sanitary sewer line which crossed the front yard area. Moreover, he could not reference
any building in the surrounding area which was consistent with a building allowed on the
subject site under the proposed zoning.
-2-
PLATE II
RESULTS OF VISUAL STUDY
PLATE III
RESULTS OF VISUAL STUDY AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
PLANNING COMMENTARY
Based on the visual study results and past research, the following planning
comments are respectfully offered for consideration by the Planning Board.
2. Visual Impact
Aside from its impact on the rear yards of Maplewood Avenue homes (at least
the top two residential stories would be easily visible), a building conforming to
the Redevelopment Plan would be dramatically incongruous with other buildings
when viewed from alternate locations. From Valley Street, two stories would
loom over the Township’s recreation building. From either direction on Dunnell
Road or from Memorial Park, the building would be unique in its domination of
the landscape.
4. Fiscal Considerations
Given the current downturn in the real estate market, the question arises
regarding the timing of this offering to the development community. Developer
interest and offering prices are likely to be diminished at this time. An equally
important question relates to the presence of a regional sanitary sewer line in the
front portion of the property. This sewer line is protected by an easement, is not
owned by the Township, and cannot easily be relocated. It is further doubtful
that the easement holder, the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, would
permit the construction of a building over its sewer line. Because a one-lot
redevelopment plan can be site-specific, why imply with zoning controls that a
developer can build over the trunk sewer line?
Thus far the Township’s redevelopment process is fraught with flaws as noted
below:
o An appraisal of the property was completed using the wrong zone.
o Interest from developers was solicited using the wrong zone.
o The March 2009 study by planner Stuart Portney of The Metro Company
concluded that the site met the statutory criteria for designation as “in
need of rehabilitation” referring more to system-wide utility conditions
rather than on-site conditions.
-7-
8. Developer Interest
The Township Committee appears to take the position that it will simply adopt the
proposed redevelopment plan and thereby change the R-1-7 Zone to the new
designation allowing 50 foot tall buildings and thereby eliminate the past chain of
defects. The Committee should solicit an opinion from its attorney regarding
whether this “after the fact” change actually remedies this litany of defects.
Moreover, the Planning Board and Township Committee should ask itself what
kind of developer would want to invest the necessary time and money in a project
which springs from such a faulty foundation.
Attached:
October 8, 2009 Planning Memorandum to Maplewood Planning Board
October 6, 2009 Planning Memorandum to Township Committee
End file:
Peter G. Steck
Community Planning Consultant
P. O. Box 306, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
(973) 762-6568
Fax 762-5457
Steckplan@AOL.COM
October 8, 2009
PLANNING MEMORANDUM
To: Maplewood Planning Board
INTRODUCTION
Upon analysis, this Planning Memorandum concludes that Ordinance No. 2604-
09 is substantially inconsistent with Maplewood’s Master Plan. It also concludes that the
September 2009 Dunnell Road Police Building Redevelopment Plan is fatally flawed by
virtue of its reliance on the wrong zoning and offering the untenable observation that a
50 foot tall building at the front property line is somehow fits within the context of the
surrounding area.
After its own analysis, the Planning Board is urged to conclude that Ordinance
No. 2604 is substantially inconsistent with the Master Plan. The Planning Board is also
urged to recommend against adoption of Ordinance No. 2604 by the Township
Committee.
STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY
1) To read its March 9, 2004 Master Plan and opine whether the
proposed zoning which permits a five-story apartment building
consisting of 4 stories of residential use over a parking level with a
zero front yard setback is substantially consistent with the plan, and
The March 9, 2004 Master Plan specifically references the subject property but
makes no recommendation that would override or contradict its fundamental
recommendation of an R-1-7 Zone recommendation for the police building property.
With respect to the subject property, the Master Plan recommends the formation of an
ad hoc task force recognizing that the policy decision of the Township Committee to
vacate the police building “represents a rare opportunity to either enhance municipal
facilities or attract new development.” The 2004 Plan further states that “…the task
force should seriously consider the historic preservation aspects of the existing police
building and its site near Memorial Park. Amongst the options to be considered would
be possible preservation of the building and the feasibility of adaptive reuse. [Page 153]
PLATE I
PORTION OF 2004 MAPLEWOOD LAND USE PLAN
-3-
PLANNING CONCLUSIONS
Having relied upon the wrong existing zoning, the September 2009 Dunnell Road
Police Building Redevelopment Plan is fatally flawed. Aside from this flaw, it capriciously
concludes that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Master Plan. Further, as
noted in the attached Planning Memorandum, permitting a new five-story building with no
setback from the front property line is simply bad planning and does a disservice to this
treasured part of Maplewood.
Peter G. Steck
Community Planning Consultant
P. O. Box 306, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
(973) 762-6568
Fax 762-5457
Steckplan@AOL.COM
October 6, 2009
PLANNING MEMORANDUM
To: Maplewood Township Committee
INTRODUCTION
As part of its effort to redevelop the property at 125 Dunnell Road, the Township
of Maplewood has released a draft Dunnell Road Police Building Redevelopment Plan
dated September 2009. [Draft Plan] Moreover, an ordinance to adopt this Draft Plan is
expected to be introduced by the Township Committee on October 6, 2009, and it is
understood that comments from the general public will be received at that time.
This Planning Memorandum offers comments on the Draft Plan. The comments
are made on behalf of property owners who are on the opposite side of the railroad
tracks from the police building property. The owners of the two homes are Joe
DePlasco & Nahela Hadi at 126 Maplewood Avenue and Diana Leo & Dr. Jane Aronson
at 128 Maplewood Avenue. Upon review, this Planning Memorandum offers the
following observations and conclusions from a land use planning viewpoint:
1. The Draft Plan appears to assume mistakenly that the police building property has
the same NB Zone designation as Maplewood Village along Maplewood Avenue.
2. The land use character of Dunnell Road is substantially different from the
Maplewood Village area along Maplewood Avenue.
3. Redevelopment under the terms of the Draft Plan will allow buildings radically out of
character with the remainder of Dunnell Road and with the larger surrounding area.
5. Development under the Draft Plan will adversely affect the residential properties at
126 and 128 Maplewood Avenue.
7. A redevelopment plan can have site specific standards which can better protect the
neighboring properties and maintain the land use character of the area.
-2-
Selected key parts of the draft Dunnell Road Police Building Redevelopment
Plan dated September 2009 and prepared by The Metro Company, LLC [Draft Plan] can
be summarized as follows:
b) This March 2009 study determined that the statutory criteria for an “area in
need of redevelopment” designation were met “on the basis of the extreme
age and condition of the Study Area’s water, storm and sanitary sewer lines”
and that “a program of rehabilitation may be expected to prevent further
deterioration…..” [Page 4]
d) The current zoning for the police building property is Neighborhood Business
which allows building heights up to 50 feet. [Pages 12 & 14]
e) Part of the police building property is in a 100 year flood zone. [Page 16]
f) On June 24, 2009 letters of interest were solicited from potential redevelopers
which resulted in six responses. [Page 18]
h) The Draft Plan is intended to accommodate demolition of the building and the
construction of up to 4 levels of residential use over a parking level. [Page 22]
i) The Draft Plan is intended to supersede the current zoning standards. [Page
23]
j) Residential use is the only use permitted on the police building property.
[Page 28]
l) Up to 50 dwelling units would be permitted with each unit having only one or
two bedrooms. [Page 31]
-3-
n) The maximum building height is 50 feet with no more than four stories being
residential stories. [Page 33]
o) The building is allowed to cover up to 50% of the lot and the building and
paving areas together can cover up to 90% of the lot area. [Page 33]
p) Parking is required at a ratio of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. [Page 41]
q) Parking areas may be 5 feet from the rear property line. [Page 41]
s) The New Jersey Transit Railroad line is listed on the New Jersey National
Register of Historic Places. [Page 48]
t) The Maplewood Shade Trees Ordinance and the Steep Slope Ordinance
should be taken into consideration. [Page 48]
v) As to compatibility with the 2004 Maplewood Master Plan, the Draft Plan
concludes that “The Redevelopment Plan is clearly consistent with and
promotes the planning policies and recommendations of the Township Master
Plan, which seeks to promote the redevelopment of the site of the former
Police Building on Dunnell Road. [Page 50]
w) As to zoning compatibility, the Draft Plan states “The design standards and
regulations contained in the Plan will promote redevelopment that will provide
for residential development that will fit in with the character of the surrounding
building and neighborhood character.” [Page 51]
-4-
Based on a review of the Draft Plan, Maplewood’s current zoning and master
plan documents, and an inspection of the police building property and the surrounding
properties, following planning observations and conclusions are offered:
1. The Draft Plan appears to assume mistakenly that the police building property
has the same NB Zone designation as Maplewood Village along Maplewood
Avenue.
The Township of Maplewood’s website has a link to the Maplewood Code which
shows the police building property to be within the R-1-7 Residential One-Family
Zone. The Zoning & Development Regulations booklet available in the Maplewood
Township Clerk’s office dated January, 2009 and purchased October 5, 2009 also
shows the police station property to be in the R-1-7 as shown in Appendix A.
Moreover, the March 9, 2004 Master Plan recommends an R-1-7 designation for the
police building property. Hence, the police building property as well as the adjacent
properties along Dunnell Road would appear to be within the R-1-7 Zone.
The Draft Plan, however, shows the police building property and the adjacent
properties along Dunnell Road to be in the NB Neighborhood Business Zone which
is the same zone as the commercial properties along Maplewood Avenue. The NB
Zone allows for 50 foot tall buildings and 0 front yard setbacks for three-story
buildings. The R-1-7 Zone permits single-family detached homes on 70 foot wide
lots with a minimum front yard of 30 feet and a maximum building height of two
stories and 35 feet. Either the Draft Plan references the wrong zoning district or the
zoning for the police building property has somehow been changed in a way not
readily apparent to the general public.
2. The land use character of Dunnell Road is substantially different from the
Maplewood Village area along Maplewood Avenue.
The buildings in the Village along the Maplewood Avenue corridor are typically
positioned at the front property line and abut one another. They are all one, two and
three-story buildings on relatively small lots with commercial uses on the first floor
with residential uses above. There are no four-story buildings, and there are no five-
story buildings. With few exceptions, most buildings do not have any on-site parking
– a situation typical of an older neighborhood commercial area. None of the area is
in a flood hazard area.
The Dunnell Road corridor which includes the police building is different. The lots
along the west side are wider and contain one and two-story buildings
accommodating a variety of nonresidential uses. On-site parking is provided for the
uses. With the exception of a portion of “Nelsons Garage,” the buildings have
significant setbacks from the front property line. The Dunnell Road corridor is not a
shopping area like the Village and the uses are not dependent upon pedestrian
traffic. Portions of the properties are in a flood hazard area. Additionally, the rear
yards have steep slopes as the land climbs upward toward the railroad tracks and
the steep slopes are wooded. Along the east side of Dunnell is Memorial Park which
accommodates a stream, wooded area and play areas, and a handsome one-story
recreational building positioned on the far side of the stream.
-5-
3. Redevelopment under the terms of the Draft Plan will allow buildings
radically out of character with the remainder of Dunnell Road and with the
larger surrounding area.
The development allowed under the standards of the Draft Plan would include an
apartment building five stories high consisting of four stories of apartments over a
parking story. A developer would be allowed to cut into the wooded slopes along
the rear property line and construct a parking lot within five feet of the rear
property line. Instead of the statewide requirement of 2 parking spaces per
dwelling unit, a developer would need to provide only 1.2 spaces per unit.
Moreover, an apartment building 50 feet in height could be constructed at the
front property line with no setbacks whatsoever. Given these standards, a new
building conforming to the Draft Plan would be substantially out of character with
any of the nearby buildings or, for that matter, with any of the buildings in the
Maplewood Village area.
The civic area which consists of the Municipal Building and Memorial Park is a
prized land use vignette which has served the Township well. Its proximity to
the Maplewood Train Station exposes the scene to an even greater number of
people. When the train slows down to the Maplewood Station, and deposits
commuters, residents and guests, it emerges from a wooded corridor.
Passengers exit to the platform adjacent a handsome station building facing an
expanse of greenery to the east and a small park to the west. Whether
encountered by a train passenger, a shopper, a park jogger, a dog walker or a
home hunter, this scene is one of the best features of Maplewood. It deserves
protection from incongruous buildings.
5. Development under the proposed plan will adversely affect the residential
properties at 126 and 128 Maplewood Avenue.
The two homes at 126 and 128 Maplewood Avenue back up to the train tracks
and, although encountering train noise, have the compensating benefit of a short
walk to the train station and to the goods and services of the Village. The rear
yards of these homes slope downward to the tracks viewing only the roof of the
police building filtered by trees. [The parapet at the flat roof section of the police
building is approximately 28 feet above the ground level and is approximately at
the elevation of the train tracks.]
The development fostered by the Draft Plan will likely involve the disturbance of
steep slopes, the removal of trees on the steep slopes, and the construction of
two stories above the elevation of what is now the flat roof section of the police
building. The two upper stories of a new building would have a clear view of the
rear yards of the homes on Maplewood Avenue and will likely reflect the train
noises toward their rear yards. Considering that the current zoning available to
the public limits the building height to 35 feet and two stories, new development
under the Draft Plan standards would adversely affect these residential
properties.
-6-
The March 2009 Dunnell Road Police Building Rehabilitation Study by the Metro
Company, LLC alleges that “a program of rehabilitation may be expected to
prevent further deterioration and promote the overall development of the
community….” [Page 13] In light of the Draft Plan’s expectation that the police
building will be demolished, the question arises regarding what is left to be
rehabilitated. With nothing left to rehabilitate, it would appear that the “area in
need of rehabilitation” designation is defective. The tall building and high density
allowed by the Draft Plan fosters demolition rather than the rehabilitation of the
police building.
A redevelopment plan for one lot can include redevelopment standards particular
to that one lot. A redevelopment plan could state, for example, that no
disturbance of the rear wooded steep slopes is permitted, that the building height
is limited to 35 feet, and that a front yard setback which approximates the
existing setback is required. Additionally, it is noted that the front of the police
building property appears to be burdened by a “Supplementary Joint Trunk
Sewer Easement” [See Appendix B] which may prohibit a building positioned at
the front property line. In short, such standards would not only protect the
established character of the area but would place the building rehabilitation
alternative on more of an equal footing with the demolition alternative.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
End file: