Are folks trying to distance themselves from the Marlboro Inn’s unpopular 10 new mega homes? Sure seems that way. We’ve received tips that now after all the variance issues have been resolved, Plofker is no longer involved in the development. The Star Ledger article seems to suggest it, when it says…
“Before turning things over to American Properties, Steven Plofker, the Montclair developer who demolished the Marlboro Inn, advanced the streetscape as an example of “new urbanism” preferable to a more traditional development of 12 homes requiring no variances.
Meanwhile, if you missed it in the comments, Mayor Ed Remsen is going on record with his disdain for the structures…
Fort the record, I HATE the McMansions being built on the old Marlboro Inn site; I tried to convince Plofker to build something more in the footprint of the Inn, somthing that at least mimicked the Inn and created smaller units; he opted not to; as unahppy as we may all be with his decision, he built what the laws allowed and what the PLANNING BOARD, not the Council approved. Frankly a lot of people would like to have seen the Inn preserved but NO ONE came forward with a proposal that made sense; the closest idea was from someone who wanted to triple the scale of the business with a seven-day a week restaurant/catering business and room for 100+ cars. Even if the Inn was desgnated a local landmarked, Plofker or anyone else who owned it could and likely would have petitioned (succesfully) to demolish it.
“Malboro”
Was this typo intentional? If not, it should be!
ha! or how about ‘maulboro’
I have a rare Montclair real estate story.
I had neighbors in the Upper Montclair neighborshood where I grew up, who had to relocate (I think due to the husbands job.)
They put their house up for sale – and for sale it stayed. Months turned into years – no offers, no interest and the husband dealing with a hellish commute.
I don’t know what happened with the husbands job, but the family has had renovation done, and still lives there in the house that wouldn’t sell.
Yes, mal, like malodorous
Must have been something wrong with the house,upon inspection, hrhppg.
Or else it was overpriced and they wouldn’t budge.
There was a woman on my block years ago whose house was on the market for years– went thru various realtors, tried to sell it herself– nada.
Bottom line was she was ambivalent about selling. When she finally lowered the price to market value, it sold.
I’d love to hear from local realtors…is what we’re hearing true? has the market gone a bit soft? Has the wave crested? Is it gradually becoming a buyers’ market vs. a sellers’ market? (Sure hope so!)
It is a nice house, inside and out, I just think it wasn’t as big, or have as much yard as other homes on the block – it makes me wonder about developers attitude about selling these houses fast.
Montclair, the bastion of one town mayors, will run Remsen out of town on a rail. And the Marlboro Inn debacle will be his legacy. And he knows it.
Someone has to stop this “fill every available lot with an oversized house (or townhouse)” mentality. And it has gotten much much worse on Remsen’s watch. Everywhere you look. Even if it isn’t technically his fault (and I expect he will post telling us as much), the situation continues to deteriorate.
More and more condos, houses, and townhouses. Is anyone concerned that we have 26 kids in every kindergarden class?
All the town government apparently give any worry about is increasing the tax rolls.
It’s not just Baristaville, MIC, it’s practically everywhere in northern and central NJ.
Ugly cookie-cutter developments with mammoth *Disney Outlandish* houses with no foliage, no land being set aside for parks, nature preserves or just plain forests.
The strangest thing of all is that you almost NEVER see people, little kids, anyone, outside! They’re like ghost towns, void of any signs that humans even live there.
Hmm…maybe it IS an conspiracy of sorts.
Who would want to pay over a million dollars to live in a McMansion so close to the next house you had *better* like your neighbors!
All this and no backyard, too…
All the houses in the Marlboro Inn neighborhood are HUGE HUGE houses themselves. And, pretty close together too.
I don’t think it’s the size of the new houses, but rather the quantity of them. If there were just 5 of them, it woudlnt be so bad. But, there are 10 all squished together.
i’m not a parent and i’m certainly not indicting any parents here in the community….I too I agree with Miss M, I hardly see kids outside playing anymore. Is it the fear of kidnapping…the fear of getting an infection…the fear of kids getting hurt…or do the kids prefer to be inside? Just seems that in the early 60s I’d rather be outside playing and riding my bike than being inside…maybe if i had a myspace.com site I would have felt differently…hmmm
what i’ve always expected. that when ribbon-cutting day arrives for the marlboro monstrosities, town council members, like remsen, who held plofker’s hand and made sure the project got a green light will mysteriously be unable to attend the festivities.
Everyone curious about who would spend $1.7 mm on a house with nearly no yard at all and terribly close to the neighbors: you are forgetting that young Wall St. bankers are looking at $4.5 mm townhouses in Brooklyn or $2 mm apartments in Manhattan, each touching the neighbors’ dwellings and having no good public schools, no (or nearly no) yards and no parking.
“I hardly see kids outside playing anymore. Is it the fear of kidnapping…the fear of getting an infection…the fear of kids getting hurt…or do the kids prefer to be inside?”
I think it’s a little bit of all of the above, Ice. Combination of fear, the lure of the Internet, computer games, TV…a darn shame.
I was like you as a kid. The only time I stayed in the house was when it was raining or when I was sick.
nah. They are all at daycare because everyone is working.
“Montclair… will run Remsen out of town on a rail…Even if it isn’t technically his fault …”
A quite clear statement of our current all-conspiracy-all-the-time-if-someone-desen’t-see-it-my-way-then-they’re-evil political climate if I ever saw it.
ROC, who paid you to say that?!!?
Nice hyperbole (per usual) ROC.
Let me let you in on a truism throughout recorded history. The guy in office frequently gets thrown out when people are not happy about the state of their empire/country/state/city/town/ neightbood association/club. It has not to do with evil and has nothing to do with conspiracy. It’s called being pisst off and blaming the guy at the top.
And I hardly thing Remsen is blameless in the state of Montclair these days.
“Someone has to stop this “fill every available lot with an oversized house (or townhouse)” mentality. And it has gotten much much worse on Remsen’s watch. Everywhere you look. Even if it isn’t technically his fault (and I expect he will post telling us as much), the situation continues to deteriorate.”
“Nice hyperbole (per usual) ROC.”
I took a look at the artist rendering of the houses – it’s interesting to see that each house has quite alot of yard space around it – then you look at the pictures in the Ledger, and see that the houses are so close together. Talk about artistic license…
roc, you’re right about the kids in daycare. Today is gorgeous outside. However, very few kids out with actual parents. Nannies. Everywhere.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” 🙂
Some of us have to have 2 incomes to be able to afford to live here, even in more modest homes that cost no where near $1.7 million. Nannies and day care are just part of life. Don’t you think we’d LIKE to stay home and raise our children? Playing in the park with my child sounds much better than spending 8-10 hours a day working, plus 2 hours commuting. We didn’t all get here 20 years ago when it was actually affordable or with Mommy and Daddy’s money paying the way.
Newhere, I’m behind you! We bought 16 years ago, in a very modest neighborhood… with 2 of us working, both then and now.
Let’s not forget that these $1.7MM suckers are going to come with real estate taxes, according to a realtor friend of mine, of about $40K to $50K.
“Let’s not forget that these $1.7MM suckers are going to come with real estate taxes, according to a realtor friend of mine, of about $40K to $50K.”
Should make Kevin Happy.
But let’s remember that part of why they will choose Montclair is because of the cheerful, non-elitist, non-judgemental, tolerant and warm-hearted residents to which we owe a measure of our fame.
unlike most towns in NJ, wherein the Board of Adjustment handles both planning and zoning/variance issues, here in montclair, we provide the resources for two separate groups to do these tasks. I believe both Board’s (Planning & Zoning)had a hand in approving the Char-boro Inn debacle. ALL members of both Boards are appointed by the Township Council. But the Board members should provide some answers as to how and why these large homes were allowed to be built so close to one another. For that is the most glaring error and the poorest decision by the Board(s) in my opinion.
the zoning board is: betty holloway(alt), john whipple(alt), holly english, larry flood, harvey susswein, sharon cochery, jon mellon (sect), mike sullivan (attny), tom wilkinson (engineer), rich charreun (asst sec), joe fleischer (vice chair), gerard haizel and bill harrison (chairman).
In fairness to the above, some of them only came to the Brd in 2005 (those mentioned towards the end) so they may not have had a hand (or vote) in deciding on the final plans.
The Board of Planning: larry kurzweil(alt), ted mattox, brendan gill, sally ross, frank haimbach(alt), rita nadler, john wynn (chrmn), jamie tally (vice chmn), dan nachman, ira karasick, tom wilkinson (engner), karen kadus (sec), jon mellon (asst sec), joyce michaelson and kevin allen, also should help the public understand how these flawed decisions were allowed to proceed. answers would go a long way towards ending the fingerpointing and general misunderstandment by the public on the whole process.
aside from shutting down grove street completely for a few day and partially for months inconveniencing thousands of people daily, the public deserves to know how someone, who lives in montclair and serves the people supposedly, could have looked at these proposed plans and said “OK, this looks fine, build ’em”.
please, Brd members, the public wants to know.
I am the eggman.
I’ll take a wild guess googoo. Because there was no legal basis to block the aforementioned plans. When you block construction plans capriciously you invite lawsuits against the township.
I think you are referring to local property taxes, Cary – though I’m sure that some of those “suckers” probably do (or will) have estate tax issues as well.
My God , the front doors of those properties are literally right smack up against the street curb – no meaningful front yard and horribly out of sync with the surrounding neighborhood.
Wonder how Pfolker would react if someone tried to plop down “new urbanism” in his own backyard ? – the man has no shame.
For the record, the Kevin Allen on the Planning Board is Chief Kevin Allen of the MFD, not me.
His mother has asked that I try to be nicer as he is often blamed for my comments. Chief Allen is, in my experience, much more soft spoken than I.
RoC,
Here’s the thing with the taxes. If it costs $16K/year for an education and school taxes are 65% of the property tax bill, $40K pays $26K to the school system, $50K pays $32.5K to the schools.
So if these 6 bedroom houses each bring one child into the school system, there is a net gain. If the taxes are the higher number and they each bring 2 children into the system, there is some profit, but if one house has 3 children, there is a net loss in tax dollars to the township as a whole.
The Marlboro Inn paid appreciably less in taxes, but used considerably less in terms of municipal resources. It contributed to, but did not use the school system. As a business it had private trash collection. The new road will need to be plowed and maintained.
As you have pointed out elsewhere, some of these children MAY go to private school, that will ease some of the burden. However, we might agree on school vouchers (I am in favor) which would be detrimental to Montclair in this example.
My guess is that this development will be a net loss in terms of tax revenue collected and dollars that will need to be spent. This is why I encourage commercial development and not removing any tax paying entity from the tax rolls.
There was an interesting article in the Sunday New York Times Real Estate Section about the increasing number of children in condo developments and the stress added to the school system.
The “new urbanism” is an ecologically friendly way to live where homes, schools, shops, parks and businesses are all located within the same walkable area, greatly reducing the need for cars and promoting a sense of community. It mixes different ages and economic groups and has many benefits in terms of economy, environment and community.
Mr. Plofker appropriated this term for his project, which bears no resemblance to the “new urbanism” other than the fact that the houses are squeezed in together and that it is close to the train station. He disingenuously promoted it by saying that the squeezed-in houses would promote a sense of community so the neighbors could get to know one another. Of course, this was merely a way to put a pretty face on the greed that led him to squeeze twice the number of aesthetically permittable houses onto the lot.
And, as someone on the WC reminded us, he also assured us that he expected that people with children would not be buying these behemoths. Five bedrooms, $1.7 mill each, no kids? We shall see.
Kevin,
I understand your point. My problem with that thinking is philosophical not monetary. I don’t think the planning or zoning or tax code should be used as a tool for social control. I simply don’t think we have the right to decide who may live here as matter of policy.
The fact that we’d (in effect) be saying to those who are coming, “you’d contribute as much as we do and we can’t abide that.” is problematic for me.
In my mind it smacks a little of what could be called “social-eugenics”.
It also makes every single one of us hypocrites. Every single home we live in had a similar effect on the town’s tax structure, why are we allowed to shut the gate now?
“…aesthetically permittable”
I love phrases like that, soooo…totalitarian.
(“permittable” ?)
I just want to comment about ROC’s continued snide asides about “everyone in daycare,” working moms, etc.
Do you have a clue, ROC? I mean, I just spent my whole morning visiting kindergartens, and I was blown away by the dedication of the WOMEN (and they were all women) of the PTA’s in each school who work so hard to get things done…These are stay-at-home moms, for the most part, I believe. AND I am a stay-at-home mom. And it is hard, but I do it because–drum roll please–it IS the morally correct thing to do, IF you can do it, psychologically and/or financially. ANNNNNNNND–bigger drumroll please–I AM A LIBERAL. Yes, that’s right, Right: left of center.
Thing is, I KNOW why women work, and while I cringe when I see the legions of expressionless, zombied nannies wheeling around their sad-looking charges (apologies to the many lovely, wonderful nannies I also see!), you DO NOT KNOW about stay-at-home parenting until you do it.
So, ROC, you done it???? Or were you one of those guys (and I picture you being an old fart, somehow; forgive me if I err, it’s just the attitude…) who went to work, came home, opened the paper, and barely glanced at his kids???
Anyway, my kids are outside all the time (five hours straight today). But will they ride their bikes around town when they get bigger? Probably not. You see, there are too many angry folks on the road who drive like maniacs, and in my unscientific surveys of the worst drivers, most of them seem to have those “Support Our Troops” magnetic ribbons on their bumpers, and/or flags draped around their antennas–other Rights-of-Center, I’m afraid. You guys clean up your acts, and drive happily, and my kids will ride their bikes.
Wow,
Alice, settle down. Really.
“I just want to comment about ROC’s continued snide asides about “everyone in daycare,” working moms, etc.”
What in God’s name are you talking about? Continued snide asides? I made one (count ’em) one. A factual one, absent commentary whatsoever. I made a comment about the streets being empty because kids are in daycare more “these days” because (often) both parents need to work. ’tis a fact!
I have 2 children who (at the time) attended full time daycare since they were six months old because we cannot pay our bills without two incomes. And the one who stayed home with them the longest (because Mrs. ROC has the “big” career) was your’s truly. I also do most of the cooking.
So settle down, squeegee off your computer screen, wipe your face, count to ten, contemplate your string of sweeping generalizations spat from your prejudiced mind and say you’re sorry.
so at 16k(not just for montclair schl dist.) a kid per year…the average class would have $416,000 per class per year. Giving a generous $116,000 per year as salary/benefits, that leaves them $300,000 as schooling overhead. Does this seem like alot to anyone else?
The accusation that “most” of those angry drivers observed by Alice all sport “Support Our Troops” magnets and flags on their antennas is simply baseless, hysterical rant.
Alice, you will assuredly regret this one in the morning.
No, she won’t.
What’s going on in Baristatoon? All this ranting & raving, flag waving, street mugging, garbage cans gone wild, flogging the plofker! Just another day on the cupojoemugnet. Venus de Milo must be in retrograde or way toooo much sunspot activity in the cancer zone.
Roc, you stated ” Because there was no legal basis to block the aforementioned plans. When you block construction plans capriciously you invite lawsuits against the township”
The planning board approval allowed the following 6 variances and exceptions to the building requirements –
1. A variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) to allow front yard setbacks of 6 feet on Lots 43.01 through 43.10 where a minimum of 25 feet is required pursuant to Montclair Code Section 347-45B(1).
2. A variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) to allow front yard setbacks of 38.28 feet and 42.01 feet on corner Lots 43.01 and 43.06 where a minimum of 51.2 feet and 45.9 feet respectively are required pursuant to Montclair Code Section 347-45B(2).
3. A variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) to allow a rear yard setback of 12.37 feet on Lot 43.10 where a minimum of 25 feet is required pursuant to Montclair Code Section 347-45D.
4. A variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) to allow 2.88 feet and 3 feet setbacks for the accessory garages on Lots 43.07 and 43.08 where a minimum of 6 feet is required pursuant to Montclair Code Section 347-46A.
5. An exception to allow a lot depth of 93.35 feet on Lot 43.09 where a minimum of 110 feet is required pursuant to Montclair Code Section 301-27B.
6. An exception to allow Lots 43.02, 43.03 and 43.04 to have frontage on both the new street and on Watchung Avenue, contrary to Montclair Code Section 301-25A.
Individually, other than variance # 1 and #3, the variances don’t sound that dramatic, but combined, they paint an ugly picture as many of us now can see.
I don’t think the rejection of these variances would have been considered capricious.
Then you should regret it for her, appletony (and pray for her troubled soul, too). Unless you too believe her nonsensical “observation.”
RoC,
“I understand your point. My problem with that thinking is philosophical not monetary. I don’t think the planning or zoning or tax code should be used as a tool for social control. I simply don’t think we have the right to decide who may live here as matter of policy.”
A few points.
1. I don’t think we are deciding WHO may live here (although $1.7M homes has an impact on that), but we ought to be able to impact how many.
2. While we generally agree about ownership and land use, I don’t see that as a black and white issue. For me, there is an issue when what you want to do on your property impacts my property. In a dense community, we are all neighbors.
3. We also agree that this should be an area of minimal government intrusion. That is how our system is supposed to work, The Planing Board and the Zoning Board are community volunteer, supported by professional staff.
4. The economic viability of a community is based on a balance between taxpayers who use the systems and taxpayers who support the systems. In montclair, long know for high taxes, that is increasingly out of whack. Montclair needs commercial assets to support the system, Montclair needs to be affordable to empty nesters and youth, Montclair needs to invite the childfree, these groups provide the economic foundation of the property tax system.
As indicated above, the developer bought the property gambling that he would be able to build the buildings he has built. He gambled that the Zoning Board would grant the variances and he gambled correctly.
Without the variances, the property may have remained a commercial entity.
Within reason and within the law, I think it is a community’s responsibility to control their own growth. Like you or I might eat a balanced diet.
I am pro-develpment, I don’t want the community to stop evolving. I just think that the growth has to be planned by the community.
Without a balance of revenue payers, Montclair could very well implode under the weight of the property tax burden. While property taxes need to be reformed on the State and federal levels (repealing unfunded mandates), reform must start on the local level.
Thanks Beancounter for the info on the variances. Numbers 1 and 3 are so significant that those alone should have raised some red flags. What was the planning board thinking — or not thinking????
Another issue I’m wondering about: The developer said that if he didn’t get these variances, he would build to code and would have been allowed to put 12 houses on the property? Is there any truth to that at all? I can’t imagine how that could be the case. Someone — The Montclair Times? Baristanet’s crack I-team? √¢‚Ǩ‚Äùshould be investigating this.
Also worth looking into: Did the property change hands from Plofker to some new company, and if so, what’s that all about and at what point in the process did this occur???
Kevin,
I understand your argument and agree with some of it. We should work to balance our commercial development with the residential development. But to say some or another group or demographic should be “encouraged” is to say others are thereby “discouraged”.
Things like zoning, variances, the master plan are tools, in my opinion, whereby the town can plan for the *physical* development and appearance of the town. (Because as you rightly imply, building a garage next to you neighbor’s bedroom window is unfair). But to use these tools to plan the social makeup and demographics of the town for a desired tax base effect is, in my opinion, wrong.
RoC,
I don’t think we’re that far apart here. Encouragement comes in many ways.
I did not intend to imply that we needed specific senior housing, for example. And I certainly did not intend to imply that we might create a special zoning area for anything of the sort.
I did mean to imply, as I often do, that we cannot continue to allow commercial properties, especially zoned as such (Marlboro was not zoned commercial) to come off of the tax rolls. In other words, projects like the residential development planned for the Ford Dealership site should not be granted the variances. That would encourage commercial development, helping to ease the tax burden on individuals and empty nesters. Possibly keeping the latter in their homes.
The problem I fear is that the tax base is becoming increasingly out of balance.
I would go so far as to say, I think we should move some property into commercial zoning, I agree with set backs and building size ratios. I think zoning is a valid tool to see that neighborhoods have some consistency and blend nicely from one into another.