Nutley Community Preservation Pa

Enclosure/Passaic Avenue

An open letter from the residents of Enclosure regarding a proposed development on Passaic Avenue, around the corner from their street. Enclosure has been designated a Historic District.

Why We Are Not In Favor of This Project

1: Size: Proposed building would be overwhelming for the area. It will be too large for such a small piece of land. Outdated zoning requirements never envisioned such an enormous project.

2: Traffic: A traffic problem already exists. The proposed building would create an additional traffic burden, especially with the two newly opened restaurants across the street. Dangerous traffic situations will ensue.

3: Flooding: There is a high risk for drainage problems regarding adjacent properties as well as the entire area.

4: Fire Safety: This project does not allow for a fire truck to turn around safely once it enters this small space of apartments. Surrounding homes would be at risk for potential fire hazards.

5: Parking: A parking shortage already exists for the small businesses in the area. This will worsen the congestion on Passaic Avenue. Restaurant patrons will begin using the surrounding streets for parking (indeed, this already is happening).

6: Tax Burden: This project will benefit the builder--not the taxpayer. The cost of overdevelopment is far-reaching. More services will be needed, including schools, police, fire, sewer services, trash removal, and police and fire protection. Any tax revenue received from the development will not be nearly enough to cover these needs.

7: Quality-of-Life Issues: This suburban residential area will need to deal with Dumpsters, noise, lights, congestion, snow-removal issues, flooding issues, fire-safety concerns, privacy issues, and so on.

8: Precedent: A similar project was rejected by the Nutley Zoning Board in 1986 for many of the reasons stated above. This project is much larger than that proposed then. Why now, in 2007, is this even being considered? Traffic is much more intense and flooding has become a much more serious issue here. It is still too small a space for a fire truck to enter and quickly get a potential fire under control. This places the surrounding homes and businesses at risk.

9: Environmental Issues: Perhaps an environmental planner should be on the Planning Board to address environmental issues. Other townships have this input.

10: Last but Not Least: Preserve Our Historic District!

Clover Street

An appeal for financial help from residents of the Clover Street area of Nutley in their drive to limit development on a vacant parcel in their neighborhood:

In November 2007 the Nutley Planning Board re-voted on and passed the Clover Street project, a major sub-division of property at the end of Clover Street. The property is bordered by yards of houses on Clover, Church, and Prospect Streets. In August 2007 the Board did not approve the project, but did so with the re-vote in November 2007 granting five variances. Some of the neighbors have retained an attorney and filed an appeal in Superior Court. They maintain that their re-vote was improper, and that the Board should not have granted five variances. This approval allows for the construction of six houses on the property, and the entire property is just over an acre in size .The neighbors only want the existing zoning laws enforced; which will allow for fewer houses to be built.

As attorneys and legal actions cost a great deal of money, and the first court date was Friday 5/16/08, the neighbors are asking for assistance. Any contribution would be greatly appreciated, even if just $10 or $20. It all adds up, and will be a great help and much appreciated. Checks can be made payable to Greg Mascera, Esq., and forwarded to Greg Palma at 119 Church Street. Thank you.

An open letter (sent to the Nutley Sun in mid-December) from a resident of the area of Clover and Prospect streets regarding a recently approved subdivision in his neighborhood.

It seems that the age of computers and emails has caught up with us. On 12/2/07 I emailed a letter to the editor concerning the Clover Street sub-division development and instead of it being printed, a letter I submitted in March 2007 was reprinted. Though it was interesting reading the letter again and seeing how much has changed since.

The beautiful trees I wrote of are gone. The developer panicked when he heard of the pending tree preservation ordinance and got permission from the seller to cut done the tress before it was enacted. Dozens and dozens of trees were removed; some around 200 years old. I personally left messages for both the developer and his attorney pleading with them to at least save some of the large Oaks, but they didn’t care. What really is sad is that if they had taken the time to read the ordinance they would have seen that any tree in the footprint of an approved structure can be removed, therefore they needlessly clear-cut the property, changing are neighborhood forever. But more was to come.

The developer wants to extend Clover Street with a cul-de-sac, and he initially wanted to build six houses on it, requiring many variances. He also wants to replace the old house on Prospect Street that goes with the property. When that presentation took place at a Planning Board meeting a Board member asked if removing one house would eliminate the variances. The developer’s engineer said no. I asked if removing two or three would, and he said “probably.” The questions continued and finally the developer’s attorney asked for an adjournment. They came back months later with plans for five houses on the cul-de-sac; still seeking to replace the one on Prospect. The Board had many questions regarding the height of the roofs, the square footage of the houses, and the style of the roofs; but didn’t seem too concerned about the number of houses or variances. In fact, when one member asked if removing a particular house from the cul-de-sac would help, the developer’s engineer said no, prompting the Board member to say “so then you can’t build on it without variances.” We in the audience wondered what that was all about because it is obvious that by eliminating two houses variances would be eliminated; the developer’s own engineer said so at a previous meeting.

There were additional hearings and finally in August 2007 the Board voted. The project did not pass. We the neighbors were shocked, but elated. However our elation did not last for long. The developer’s attorney decided to review the tapes from the previous meetings and said he found that one tape was missing. If a Planning Board member is going to vote on a project when testimony was given at more than one meeting and the member missed a meeting, then the member is required to listen to the tapes from that meeting before voting. Because of the missing tape, the developer’s attorney claimed it wasn’t a fair vote. The Board agreed and allowed another vote on November 28, 2007 and guess what happened? That’s right; they approved the project. They said that because the developer hired a new architect who lowered the roof heights by three feet, which was required by code anyway, reduced the square footage of the houses by an average of six percent, and changed the facades, the project was now acceptable. Only one member said he still wished they had eliminated the long rectangle shaped house in the rear, but voted for it anyway. By the way, the tape miraculously reappeared.

We the neighbors have some questions. If the tape was missing when the attorney went to review it, was it determined whether the tape was missing on the date the Board member reviewed the tapes, or was it just convenient to presume so? We also would like to know on what date the tape reappeared, and whether anyone knows where it was. Could it have been on vacation? We further want to know why the Board ignored the variances required, calling them minor. We already have minimal required set backs, especially compared to towns similar to ours, so these “minor variances” totaled up are really major ones. For two of the houses variances were granted for lot depths that are over five feet short, even though the attorney said less than two at the meeting; the plans show over five. For two others, variances were granted for lot depths short by seven and almost eight feet. And finally a variance for a rear yard setback that is five feet short of what is required. Keep in mind our current codes call for lot depths of 100 feet, rear yard setbacks of thirty feet, and side yards of six feet. The developer’s attorney claimed that the odd shape of the property is a hardship. But we ask to whom? And what is the hardship, less of a profit? The New Jersey land use laws state that variances are only to be granted if they do not adversely affect the neighbors, and only if they benefit the entire community. How does squeezing in five houses in our back and side yards not adversely affect us, and how do they benefit the community? Not with additional revenue. If each house has two children attend our schools that alone will put us at a tax negative The Planning Board said upon approving the project that they believed it will improve the quality of the neighborhood. We hoped they were kidding, but didn’t think so. Therefore I must ask, who in their right mind would think that building large thirty-one foot tall houses six feet from side and rear yards of existing houses is an improvement?

We know this property will be built on. We know that both the developer and the seller, sale pending Planning Board approval, want to make the highest profit possible-God bless them, but at what cost to we the neighbors? It really was sickening to see the Planning Board gush over the new plans, praising the developer and his new architect for their efforts. The way they carried on they sounded like a school boy praising the girl of his dreams when he finally got a date with her. But we are the residents; both the developer and the seller will make their money and be gone. We have to live with what they leave behind; what about us? Why didn’t the Planning Board consider our “quality of life?” Also, we question whether or not it was proper to re-vote on something that was already settled. Sounds like something another town board did in June 2006.

The bottom line here is that once again we the residents got shafted. A town board decided to go against what a majority wanted, possibly violating the law in the process; all to appease a developer with plans for yet another sub-division in our already too crowded town. I myself never had a problem with the size of the houses or their style, just the number of them. The house on Prospect Street is a one for one replacement so that isn’t an issue, but five houses on one acre of land is too many. If this lot was in Cedar Grove they could only build two on it because they have half acre zoning there. In Chester they could only build one; they have one acre zoning. And in some towns they could build none because of even greater acreage requirements. So four houses on one acre in Nutley would not be, and is not, a hardship. It is fair. Five is not fair, it is an abomination! And so one has to wonder why this re-vote was allowed.

Sincerely,

Gregory J. Palma

Nutley Community Preservation Partnership


	Enclosure/Passaic Avenue An open letter from the residents of Enclosure regarding a proposed development on Passaic Avenue, around the corner from their street. Enclosure has been designated a Historic District. Why We Are Not In Favor of This Project 1: Size: Proposed building would be overwhelming for the area. It will be too large for such a small piece of land. Outdated zoning requirements never envisioned such an enormous project. 2: Traffic: A traffic problem already exists. The proposed building would create an additional traffic burden, especially with the two newly opened restaurants across the street. Dangerous traffic situations will ensue. 3: Flooding: There is a high risk for drainage problems regarding adjacent properties as well as the entire area. 4: Fire Safety: This project does not allow for a fire truck to turn around safely once it enters this small space of apartments. Surrounding homes would be at risk for potential fire hazards. 5: Parking: A parking shortage already exists for the small businesses in the area. This will worsen the congestion on Passaic Avenue. Restaurant patrons will begin using the surrounding streets for parking (indeed, this already is happening). 6: Tax Burden: This project will benefit the builder--not the taxpayer. The cost of overdevelopment is far-reaching. More services will be needed, including schools, police, fire, sewer services, trash removal, and police and fire protection. Any tax revenue received from the development will not be nearly enough to cover these needs. 7: Quality-of-Life Issues: This suburban residential area will need to deal with Dumpsters, noise, lights, congestion, snow-removal issues, flooding issues, fire-safety concerns, privacy issues, and so on. 8: Precedent: A similar project was rejected by the Nutley Zoning Board in 1986 for many of the reasons stated above. This project is much larger than that proposed then. Why now, in 2007, is this even being considered? Traffic is much more intense and flooding has become a much more serious issue here. It is still too small a space for a fire truck to enter and quickly get a potential fire under control. This places the surrounding homes and businesses at risk. 9: Environmental Issues: Perhaps an environmental planner should be on the Planning Board to address environmental issues. Other townships have this input. 10: Last but Not Least: Preserve Our Historic District! Forum... Forum... Forum... Forum... Forum... Forum... Forum... Clover Street An appeal for financial help from residents of the Clover Street area of Nutley in their drive to limit development on a vacant parcel in their neighborhood: In November 2007 the Nutley Planning Board re-voted on and passed the Clover Street project, a major sub-division of property at the end of Clover Street. The property is bordered by yards of houses on Clover, Church, and Prospect Streets. In August 2007 the Board did not approve the project, but did so with the re-vote in November 2007 granting five variances. Some of the neighbors have retained an attorney and filed an appeal in Superior Court. They maintain that their re-vote was improper, and that the Board should not have granted five variances. This approval allows for the construction of six houses on the property, and the entire property is just over an acre in size .The neighbors only want the existing zoning laws enforced; which will allow for fewer houses to be built. As attorneys and legal actions cost a great deal of money, and the first court date was Friday 5/16/08, the neighbors are asking for assistance. Any contribution would be greatly appreciated, even if just $10 or $20. It all adds up, and will be a great help and much appreciated. Checks can be made payable to Greg Mascera, Esq., and forwarded to Greg Palma at 119 Church Street. Thank you. An open letter (sent to the Nutley Sun in mid-December) from a resident of the area of Clover and Prospect streets regarding a recently approved subdivision in his neighborhood. It seems that the age of computers and emails has caught up with us. On 12/2/07 I emailed a letter to the editor concerning the Clover Street sub-division development and instead of it being printed, a letter I submitted in March 2007 was reprinted. Though it was interesting reading the letter again and seeing how much has changed since. The beautiful trees I wrote of are gone. The developer panicked when he heard of the pending tree preservation ordinance and got permission from the seller to cut done the tress before it was enacted. Dozens and dozens of trees were removed; some around 200 years old. I personally left messages for both the developer and his attorney pleading with them to at least save some of the large Oaks, but they didn’t care. What really is sad is that if they had taken the time to read the ordinance they would have seen that any tree in the footprint of an approved structure can be removed, therefore they needlessly clear-cut the property, changing are neighborhood forever. But more was to come. The developer wants to extend Clover Street with a cul-de-sac, and he initially wanted to build six houses on it, requiring many variances. He also wants to replace the old house on Prospect Street that goes with the property. When that presentation took place at a Planning Board meeting a Board member asked if removing one house would eliminate the variances. The developer’s engineer said no. I asked if removing two or three would, and he said “probably.” The questions continued and finally the developer’s attorney asked for an adjournment. They came back months later with plans for five houses on the cul-de-sac; still seeking to replace the one on Prospect. The Board had many questions regarding the height of the roofs, the square footage of the houses, and the style of the roofs; but didn’t seem too concerned about the number of houses or variances. In fact, when one member asked if removing a particular house from the cul-de-sac would help, the developer’s engineer said no, prompting the Board member to say “so then you can’t build on it without variances.” We in the audience wondered what that was all about because it is obvious that by eliminating two houses variances would be eliminated; the developer’s own engineer said so at a previous meeting. There were additional hearings and finally in August 2007 the Board voted. The project did not pass. We the neighbors were shocked, but elated. However our elation did not last for long. The developer’s attorney decided to review the tapes from the previous meetings and said he found that one tape was missing. If a Planning Board member is going to vote on a project when testimony was given at more than one meeting and the member missed a meeting, then the member is required to listen to the tapes from that meeting before voting. Because of the missing tape, the developer’s attorney claimed it wasn’t a fair vote. The Board agreed and allowed another vote on November 28, 2007 and guess what happened? That’s right; they approved the project. They said that because the developer hired a new architect who lowered the roof heights by three feet, which was required by code anyway, reduced the square footage of the houses by an average of six percent, and changed the facades, the project was now acceptable. Only one member said he still wished they had eliminated the long rectangle shaped house in the rear, but voted for it anyway. By the way, the tape miraculously reappeared. We the neighbors have some questions. If the tape was missing when the attorney went to review it, was it determined whether the tape was missing on the date the Board member reviewed the tapes, or was it just convenient to presume so? We also would like to know on what date the tape reappeared, and whether anyone knows where it was. Could it have been on vacation? We further want to know why the Board ignored the variances required, calling them minor. We already have minimal required set backs, especially compared to towns similar to ours, so these “minor variances” totaled up are really major ones. For two of the houses variances were granted for lot depths that are over five feet short, even though the attorney said less than two at the meeting; the plans show over five. For two others, variances were granted for lot depths short by seven and almost eight feet. And finally a variance for a rear yard setback that is five feet short of what is required. Keep in mind our current codes call for lot depths of 100 feet, rear yard setbacks of thirty feet, and side yards of six feet. The developer’s attorney claimed that the odd shape of the property is a hardship. But we ask to whom? And what is the hardship, less of a profit? The New Jersey land use laws state that variances are only to be granted if they do not adversely affect the neighbors, and only if they benefit the entire community. How does squeezing in five houses in our back and side yards not adversely affect us, and how do they benefit the community? Not with additional revenue. If each house has two children attend our schools that alone will put us at a tax negative The Planning Board said upon approving the project that they believed it will improve the quality of the neighborhood. We hoped they were kidding, but didn’t think so. Therefore I must ask, who in their right mind would think that building large thirty-one foot tall houses six feet from side and rear yards of existing houses is an improvement? We know this property will be built on. We know that both the developer and the seller, sale pending Planning Board approval, want to make the highest profit possible-God bless them, but at what cost to we the neighbors? It really was sickening to see the Planning Board gush over the new plans, praising the developer and his new architect for their efforts. The way they carried on they sounded like a school boy praising the girl of his dreams when he finally got a date with her. But we are the residents; both the developer and the seller will make their money and be gone. We have to live with what they leave behind; what about us? Why didn’t the Planning Board consider our “quality of life?” Also, we question whether or not it was proper to re-vote on something that was already settled. Sounds like something another town board did in June 2006. The bottom line here is that once again we the residents got shafted. A town board decided to go against what a majority wanted, possibly violating the law in the process; all to appease a developer with plans for yet another sub-division in our already too crowded town. I myself never had a problem with the size of the houses or their style, just the number of them. The house on Prospect Street is a one for one replacement so that isn’t an issue, but five houses on one acre of land is too many. If this lot was in Cedar Grove they could only build two on it because they have half acre zoning there. In Chester they could only build one; they have one acre zoning. And in some towns they could build none because of even greater acreage requirements. So four houses on one acre in Nutley would not be, and is not, a hardship. It is fair. Five is not fair, it is an abomination! And so one has to wonder why this re-vote was allowed. Sincerely, Gregory J. Palma Scroll down to read the open letter from residents of Enclosure, regarding a proposed development on Passaic Avenue!

Nutley Community Preservation Partnership