Members of Maplewood Planning Board during last week’s meeting to discuss a proposal to redevelop the area behind the Bank of America building.
The Maplewood Planning Board voted 7 to 1 against including a building at 11 Inwood Place in the Movie Theater Redevelopment Area in Maplewood Village.
The proposal from 161 Maplewood Investors LLC, who have proposed building a 65-unit structure with 13 affordable units on the Bank of America parking lot and the lot where 11 Inwood Place sits, will now go to the township committee for approval or rejection.
The vote came after a nearly four hour meeting in Town Hall before about 80 people.
Mayor Vic DeLuca, who sits on the Planning Board, was the lone vote in favor of the proposal..
“As an elected official, I have to look at the big picture,” DeLuca said. “This is a very difficult decision. We’re trying to do the best we can. I’m going to vote ‘yes’ and I urge you to vote ‘yes.’”
The Planning Board normally has 11 members but there is currently one vacancy. Two members, Tom Carlson and Jenifer Steig, were absent for the meeting. Planning Board members Karen Pisciotta, Dean Dafis, Tim Fryatt, Stephanie Scott, Liz Ward, Salimah Latham and John Sullivan were all in agreement voting “no.”
Scott agreed it was a difficult situation and that she wanted to balance affordable housing but voted “no.”
Dafis said that the very persuasive arguments compelled him to vote “no.”
“We are a community that has always done its fair share for low-income and middle-income housing,” Dafis said. “It’s more important for us to continue to produce more affordable housing.”
Earlier in the evening Maplewood residents were able to first ask questions and later voice their comments.
Paul Grygiel, a planning and real estate consultant, said that there were a lot of considerations.
Corinne Maulsby, vice chair of the Maplewood Historic Preservation Commission said her organization was recommending the board reject the proposal.
“Tonight we are advising the Planning Board to ‘vote no’ on including the subject property 11 Inwood Place, Block 12.02, Lot 169 within the Area in Need of Redevelopment and the Movie Theater Redevelopment Plan with the following reasons. Eleven Inwood Place is a contributing historic resource within the Maplewood Village Historic District, which is listed on both the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. It is also a contributing property to the Maplewood Center Historic District Survey Area.
“The subject property contains a well-preserved 1908 American Foursquare house that is representative of the Village’s early development as a walkable, rail-oriented community. It also features a number of old-growth trees and shrubs that are notable in their own right and collectively form a vital part of the tree canopy along Woodland Road.”
“The property is occupied, well maintained, and in an active area use,” Maulsby said. “A prior 2023 Area in Need study found that it is in good condition and does not meet any redevelopment criteria under state redevelopment law. The study also makes clear that this property is not necessary for redevelopment to succeed. The lot is small and constrained, and redevelopment of the commercial corridor can proceed without it. Including it would primarily expand redevelopment boundaries into stable residential areas rather than advance the project.”
Maulsby also said that under current zoning, the existing structure could be rehabilitated or adaptively reused to provide housing, including affordable housing.
“In fact, the number of affordable units that could realistically be achieved through redevelopment of this lot—just one to four units—is comparable to what could be achieved through reuse of the existing structure, with far less risk, cost, and delay.”
After Maulsby spoke, a resident said, “Preservation said everything I hold in my heart. People come here because of the charm. I’m not somebody who is against re-development. There’s other sites more ripe for the picking. There’s no reason to include this lot. This is a money grab. This is transactional for them. This is our home.”
Another resident said, “It’s disingenuous we’re just deciding whether to use that property or not. It’s just a wrong thing to do.”
A resident who lived in Maplewood over 50 years said, “We have to think beyond the economics of it. The character of Maplewood—a lot of people like Maplewood just the way it is. I do hope you’ll do the right thing and not approve this process.”
About the Author
