The Montclair-basedMental Health Association of Essex County (MHA) is suing the town of Montclair for violating the civil rights of mentally ill people, as a result of objections to proposed plans for buildingmental health housingat 354 Orange Road (seen, left).
As is typically the case with controversies, this issue has two sides. Residents of the Fourth Ward, where the project would be located, are angry at the prospect of such housing creating more unwelcome density. The executive director of the MHA — the nonprofit group proposing to build the facility — doesn’t understand the logic behind the opposition.
The proposed housing would consist of two separate buildings, with six units each, on a one-acre property between an apartment complex and a senior citizens’ home. William Scott, president of the Montclair Residential Preservation Group, insists that the new housing would change the character of the neighborhood, which is mostly single-family homes. Scott spoke on behalf of his group at the town council meeting on June 14. He expressed, for the record, his disappointment with Superior Court Judge Sebastian Lombardi’s overruling of the Montclair Board of Adjustment’s refusal to let the project go forward.
Scott complained that the MHA did not consider Montclair’s master plan or the neighborhood’s existing Bedroom Distribution Ordinance when making his decision. “It specifically states,” Scott said of the ordinance, “that we are not to have all one type of bedrooms, just one-family bedrooms, in a particular facility, and that we should have balanced bedroom distribution – two bedrooms, three bedrooms … [the MHA] did not take that into consideration. There was no direct comment or communication with any of the residents who live in the Fourth Ward.”
But Robert Davison, executive director of the MHealth Association of Essex County, insists that the proposed housing would leave a minimal footprint on the block.
Davison told Baristanet that the MHA’s plan is to build is a pair of buildings, along with amenities including a basketball court, that would be considerably smaller than the neighboring 38-unit apartment complex and the 100-unit senior citizens’ home. “Frankly,” he said, “I don’t see why there’s a problem. Our proposal is modest compared to each of these developments.”
He also noted that his development would take up a quarter of an acre — less than 25% of the lot. Davison believes that the size of the project will not be detrimental to the single-family character of the area. He told Baristanet that he is aware, however, that many local residents have made prejudicial comments against mentally ill people, quickly pointing out that Scott was not among them. “I have no quarrel with Mr. Scott,” Davison said, calling him a man of integrity.
Nonetheless, the MHA is suing Montclair. This sounds ridiculous to Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville, who says that no such charge could be further from the truth.
Baskerville says that Fourth Ward residents have consistently fought to keep the area zoned strictly for single-family housing, and that the MHA housing proposal is only the most recent example.
“They’ve never tried an institution of this size,” Baskerville said of the MHA, “and they thought they could build it in the Fourth Ward because people would be too fatigued to fight.” She dismissed Davison’s arguments about the apartment complex and the senior citizens’ home, noting that the former was “grandfathered” into the zoning and that the latter was built with a variance similar to the one the MHA had sought from the Board of Adjustment.
As a pediatrician, Baskerville is sympathetic to Davison’s interest in providing mental health housing, and she insists that such housing would be welcome in the Fourth Ward if it were to conform to zoning regulations.
“I certainly understand the need for housing for people with all kinds of disabilities,” she told Baristanet. “We all welcome diversity in the neighborhood. The issue is only a zoning matter, and people are trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The only thing that’s going to matter is spirit of goodwill, getting to know your neighbors. However it turns out, I hope there’s no ill will or bitterness on either side.”
In that spirit, Councilor Baskerville has tried to help the MHA look for a more appropriate location in Montclair for his project in lieu of a more suitable proposal for the Orange Road property. But goodwill may be fading on both sides.
Resident Karen Anderson-Bell made that apparent in addressing the Montclair Township Council on June 14 with regard to an appeal of Judge Lombardi’s decision. Anderson-Bell expressed a desire to get separate attorneys to handle an appeal, which the Montclair Residential Preservation group is already suggesting to the Board of Adjustment. She voiced concern that the town’s character could be compromised by the decision of a judge who doesn’t know Montclair.
“This was where you can be important,” she said to the council. “You could help the town by doing the appeal to fight the discrimination case.”
As is typically the case with controversies, this issue has two sides. Residents of the Fourth Ward, where the project would be located, are angry at the prospect of such housing creating more unwelcome density. The executive director of the MHA — the nonprofit group proposing to build the facility — doesn’t understand the logic behind the opposition.
The proposed housing would consist of two separate buildings, with six units each, on a one-acre property between an apartment complex and a senior citizens’ home. William Scott, president of the Montclair Residential Preservation Group, insists that the new housing would change the character of the neighborhood, which is mostly single-family homes. Scott spoke on behalf of his group at the town council meeting on June 14. He expressed, for the record, his disappointment with Superior Court Judge Sebastian Lombardi’s overruling of the Montclair Board of Adjustment’s refusal to let the project go forward.
Scott complained that the MHA did not consider Montclair’s master plan or the neighborhood’s existing Bedroom Distribution Ordinance when making his decision. “It specifically states,” Scott said of the ordinance, “that we are not to have all one type of bedrooms, just one-family bedrooms, in a particular facility, and that we should have balanced bedroom distribution – two bedrooms, three bedrooms … [the MHA] did not take that into consideration. There was no direct comment or communication with any of the residents who live in the Fourth Ward.”
But Robert Davison, executive director of the MHealth Association of Essex County, insists that the proposed housing would leave a minimal footprint on the block.
Davison told Baristanet that the MHA’s plan is to build is a pair of buildings, along with amenities including a basketball court, that would be considerably smaller than the neighboring 38-unit apartment complex and the 100-unit senior citizens’ home. “Frankly,” he said, “I don’t see why there’s a problem. Our proposal is modest compared to each of these developments.”
He also noted that his development would take up a quarter of an acre — less than 25% of the lot. Davison believes that the size of the project will not be detrimental to the single-family character of the area. He told Baristanet that he is aware, however, that many local residents have made prejudicial comments against mentally ill people, quickly pointing out that Scott was not among them. “I have no quarrel with Mr. Scott,” Davison said, calling him a man of integrity.
Nonetheless, the MHA is suing Montclair. This sounds ridiculous to Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville, who says that no such charge could be further from the truth.
Baskerville says that Fourth Ward residents have consistently fought to keep the area zoned strictly for single-family housing, and that the MHA housing proposal is only the most recent example.
“They’ve never tried an institution of this size,” Baskerville said of the MHA, “and they thought they could build it in the Fourth Ward because people would be too fatigued to fight.” She dismissed Davison’s arguments about the apartment complex and the senior citizens’ home, noting that the former was “grandfathered” into the zoning and that the latter was built with a variance similar to the one the MHA had sought from the Board of Adjustment.
As a pediatrician, Baskerville is sympathetic to Davison’s interest in providing mental health housing, and she insists that such housing would be welcome in the Fourth Ward if it were to conform to zoning regulations.
“I certainly understand the need for housing for people with all kinds of disabilities,” she told Baristanet. “We all welcome diversity in the neighborhood. The issue is only a zoning matter, and people are trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The only thing that’s going to matter is spirit of goodwill, getting to know your neighbors. However it turns out, I hope there’s no ill will or bitterness on either side.”
In that spirit, Councilor Baskerville has tried to help the MHA look for a more appropriate location in Montclair for his project in lieu of a more suitable proposal for the Orange Road property. But goodwill may be fading on both sides.
Resident Karen Anderson-Bell made that apparent in addressing the Montclair Township Council on June 14 with regard to an appeal of Judge Lombardi’s decision. Anderson-Bell expressed a desire to get separate attorneys to handle an appeal, which the Montclair Residential Preservation group is already suggesting to the Board of Adjustment. She voiced concern that the town’s character could be compromised by the decision of a judge who doesn’t know Montclair.
“This was where you can be important,” she said to the council. “You could help the town by doing the appeal to fight the discrimination case.”
