Dorm being planned for Valley Street?

I guess an important question in my mind right now is this: Would students paying rent to live in this building be accorded the same rights as any resident in town? Or are their behaviors singled out for extra scrutiny since they are college students?

If a neighbor of mine with a short driveway had frequent overnight guests who had to park on the street, would that be the same kind of problem as if students who rent a dorm did the same?

Just musing right now. But it's important for how we want to debate this development. 

I remember my college days and also many recent homeowner complaints around college housing.  You can expect sincere partying episodes often, and littering.

Well, time to check in.  First, let me say I speak only for myself, not for the Academy Heights association.  The vibe I get from many of my neighbors is one of opposition to this project.  I'm trying to look at it on my own.  As I said, the university has offered to provide additional parking on campus for residents.  I'm sure it won't be free. 

   The courtyard and focus of the building will be internal, and hopefully the professional on site manager can keep it from being a party house.    

   Every student will need a parent to co sign a lease. What young adult would want to overpay for a shared room in an apartment that their parents had a say in?  I don't think professional folks will move in.  

   There is very clearly no direct connection with Seton Hall.  That question was raised an answered more than once.  This is not a partnership.  It is a private development.

   Again, I think it may be about the best option for that space, as long as we keep an eye on it as it moves through the system.

What are the primary points of opposition? 

FilmCarp said:

 I don't think professional folks will move in.  

I wonder. What other options are there for young people just getting started in their careers? A 583-sq.ft. studio at 3rd and Valley is over $2,000/month. I couldn't afford that. For a recent college grad, sharing a room with a stranger in a nice building with amenities might look pretty good compared to the alternatives. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a co-living project in M/SO. That's where each occupant has their own bedroom and bath and shares common living spaces and kitchens. That would attract an older crowd than SH students, and probably a lot of NYC commuters who don't need cars. (This is not the same as cohousing, which is a different discussion entirely.)

mrincredible said:
I guess an important question in my mind right now is this: Would students paying rent to live in this building be accorded the same rights as any resident in town? Or are their behaviors singled out for extra scrutiny since they are college students?
If a neighbor of mine with a short driveway had frequent overnight guests who had to park on the street, would that be the same kind of problem as if students who rent a dorm did the same?
Just musing right now. But it's important for how we want to debate this development. 

 The problem is that there is no overnight parking allowed on any street from 2am to 6am.  Exceptions are made only for housing that predated the no overnight parking rule.  If your home has parking but doesn't have enough spots for the cars you have, that does not allow you to get a permit.  So if a house has parking for 6 cars, and 7 students rent it and each has a car, they now have one too many to fit in the driveway.  So they call in one of the roommates car as an "overnight guest."  They continue until the car gets denied for being parked there too many times, they then put that car in the driveway and the next car gets put on the street and called in as a "guest."  they continue this rotation.  

How does this affect neighbors?  For one thing if a street has too many residents abusing the overnight guest courtesy then blanket denials will sometimes be put out, so when a resident with a legitimate overnight guest calls they get denied permission because the college house on the same street abused the courtesy too many times.  This actually happened to me, when we moved into Maplewood college kids down the street had been abusing the courtesy and our street was put on a blanket ban, they refused to give me permission to park the U-Haul truck that we had moved all our stuff.  I had just moved in so I didn't realize that the ban was just for our street, but after talking to a friend who was also a MPD dispatcher I found out what the actual issue was.  I know this has happened in South Orange also.

If a college student has an overnight guest and wants to call in their car, they are allowed to.  They are not being singled out from actual overnight guest courtesy.  They are being singled out when they abuse the courtesy as a workaround to not having enough parking spaces.

For whatever this is worth, if the private dorm is actually just a private smaller apartment building that is oriented towards students and student life, my son lived in one for about six months when he was at Rutgers New Brunswick about eight years ago.  Just renovated, with a four or five apartments per floor, they were set up to appeal  to students - each student had fairly large bedroom, there was a small kitchen with washer/dryer, and a very small living room.  It wasn't exclusively for students, but given the set up and design, that's who stayed there.  Parking was limited but it was very near campus and most students use the Rutgers bus system or walk to class.  So the parking situation would be different from this proposal.  But it was very professionally run, safe, clean and when my son ended up moving during the year to a frat house, he was able to sublease his room easily.  

No affiliation with Rutgers, but a very viable option.

Thanks for the insights, spontaneous. 

It seems to me that adding high density student housing like this could help in a couple of ways. Maybe fewer single family homes end up being rented by students if more options like this development become available. I don't think we have a housing glut in the neighborhoods around Seton Hall, so maybe some of those homes end up rented by families instead of students. That might relieve some of the parking problems you describe. Of course it potentially raises the dreaded spectre of more children moving into town and crushing the school system even further.

Hypothetical I know.

Any such advantage could end up cancelled out if the new building just means the parking problems move to that neighborhood instead.

dianaid said:
For whatever this is worth, if the private dorm is actually just a private smaller apartment building that is oriented towards students and student life, my son lived in one for about six months when he was at Rutgers New Brunswick about eight years ago.  Just renovated, with a four or five apartments per floor, they were set up to appeal  to students - each student had fairly large bedroom, there was a small kitchen with washer/dryer, and a very small living room.  It wasn't exclusively for students, but given the set up and design, that's who stayed there.  Parking was limited but it was very near campus and most students use the Rutgers bus system or walk to class.  So the parking situation would be different from this proposal.  But it was very professionally run, safe, clean and when my son ended up moving during the year to a frat house, he was able to sublease his room easily.  
No affiliation with Rutgers, but a very viable option.

That sounds very similar.  This, too, is right at the Seton Hall bus stop.  

I support the dorm proposal, but I agree that Valley Street has a disordered look to it that isn't appealing.  I have no problem with the scale of 3rd + Valley, but it's a bad looking building, particularly from the Valley Street side.  I would rather the developer just tried to build a normal looking apartment building, rather than a building that architecturally emulates the nearby houses.

Anyway, I assume this would be costly, but something I think would improve Valley Street's look immensely would be to bury the power & telephone lines.  

The density of power lines and telephone poles on Valley Street just seems extremely high to me.  In front of 3rd & Valley there are four poles within 15' of each other.  The lack of trees makes the power lines even more noticeable.  

Does anyone else feel the same way?

Does anyone have a guess about what the costs to bury the lines would be?

I bring that up at every meeting I attend.  It seems insurmountable because it involves PSE&G, who can't be forced to do anything, even if a developer is paying for it.

Spontaneous -- the towns new guest parking policy would seem to contradict what you are saying.  

Anyone who is a multi-family building has to park in the garage for overnight parking ($5.00).  

new policy is on the village website.

kthnry said:

FilmCarp said:

 I don't think professional folks will move in.  

I wonder. What other options are there for young people just getting started in their careers? A 583-sq.ft. studio at 3rd and Valley is over $2,000/month. I couldn't afford that. For a recent college grad, sharing a room with a stranger in a nice building with amenities might look pretty good compared to the alternatives. 
I wouldn't mind seeing a co-living project in M/SO. That's where each occupant has their own bedroom and bath and shares common living spaces and kitchens. That would attract an older crowd than SH students, and probably a lot of NYC commuters who don't need cars. (This is not the same as cohousing, which is a different discussion entirely.)

 People are actually paying that for a studio at Valley and 3d?  Sheesh.

Runner_Guy said:
I support the dorm proposal, but I agree that Valley Street has a disordered look to it that isn't appealing.  I have no problem with the scale of 3rd + Valley, but it's a bad looking building, particularly from the Valley Street side.  I would rather the developer just tried to build a normal looking apartment building, rather than a building that architecturally emulates the nearby houses.

Anyway, I assume this would be costly, but something I think would improve Valley Street's look immensely would be to bury the power & telephone lines.  
The density of power lines and telephone poles on Valley Street just seems extremely high to me.  In front of 3rd & Valley there are four poles within 15' of each other.  The lack of trees makes the power lines even more noticeable.  
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Does anyone have a guess about what the costs to bury the lines would be?

 It's sometimes tricky for pedestrians/runners or bike riders in this section of Valley.  The sidewalk gets very narrow at certain points due to telephone poles and parked cars.

mikescott said:
Spontaneous -- the towns new guest parking policy would seem to contradict what you are saying.  


Anyone who is a multi-family building has to park in the garage for overnight parking ($5.00).  
new policy is on the village website.

 So they have to pay now, that won’t stop students from abusing overnight guest parking if they live in a place that doesn’t have room for all of their cars 

I don't understand why there is so much push back against just asking that they make sure parking is accounted for since a dorm has different parking needs than a residential building.  I'm not saying residents should protest the building, I even agree that there are a lot of good things that could come from this for the town.  I'm just saying that for the quality of life of neighborhood residents, parking needs to be looked into before hand.  Normal residential parking code won't be sufficient for a dorm, that is all I'm trying to say

I'm not pushing back, but I did address this in my first post.  Seton Hall has agreed to provide overflow parking on campus, I'm sure for a fee.  Easy access by jitney.

I am not sure parking on campus will help with the concerns spontaneous expressed. A lot of the residents will want to keep their cars closer to where they live, especially at night. This is the kind of street parking spontaneous was more concerned about.

If the building has an enforceable policy of parking that requires cars to not be on local streets overnight that would be more helpful.

FilmCarp said:
I'm not pushing back, but I did address this in my first post.  Seton Hall has agreed to provide overflow parking on campus, I'm sure for a fee.  Easy access by jitney.

 I don't think college kids living on Valley are going to want to park their cars on campus. 

There doesn’t seem to be a real honest assessment of how traffic/parking issues will impact an already dense part of town. Evidence is the loading dock on Third and Valley. We can’t just throw up these developments without these considerations. I don’t know who’s been doing traffic studies but they obviously don’t live anywhere near

Valley St.

The developer does their own traffic study and presents it to the planning board as part of a presentation.  

What is the issue with the loading dock at Third and Valley?

The loading dock at third and valley is a mess.  And I supported the development, and continued development, so I do care that these things be watched more carefully.  The dock sticks straight into the street, is narrow and low, and has a light pole right next to it.  It is very difficult for a truck to get into.  (As an aside, I am licensed to drive trucks.  I know a mess when I see one).  They also keep the dumpster in the same bay, so it is really unusable for tenants moving in or out.  Thus, trucks park on the street in a no parking area.  The solution would have been for that bay to be angled out towards the street, and for the dumpster to be on the street side of the bay.  Then a truck could pull up and easily back in with little trouble for traffic.

  That said, This development is supposed to keep that all within their parking deck and off street.  It bears watching.

I don't live in the Academy Heights neighborhood, so this doesn't have an immediate impact on me.  What does concern me though is the amount of development happening overall in SOMA.  Don't get me wrong, I don't need SOMA to be a sleepy little town and I'm very excited about many of the new restaurants that are opening in South Orange.  However, we keep adding more and more apartments   and traffic has really gotten bad around here.  It's now impacting what should be quieter residential streets due to people getting frustrated and trying to find alternative routes.  I find it disappointing that neither Sheena nor Vic has acknowledged this problem (or at least that I'm aware of).  Valley Street just can't handle anymore traffic than it does.  It's not like we can widen it without impacting people's properties (and do we really want that?).  It's as if we keep building and building without any thought about the traffic.  And please don't tell me apartment dwellers won't have cars.  Trust me - I rented for years in this area and always needed a car.  

There is already a dorm on Valley used by SH students. I don't think it is an issue.

Those who do not live on,or east of Valley, may not be impacted by the density, traffic, and student life that is experienced in that area. It pays to hear out the tax paying residents who will be affected. 

annielou said:
Those who do not live on,or east of Valley, may not be impacted by the density, traffic, and student life that is experienced in that area. It pays to hear out the tax paying residents who will be affected. 

 All residents have the same rights -- whether they pay property taxes or not.  

mikescott said:

annielou said:
Those who do not live on,or east of Valley, may not be impacted by the density, traffic, and student life that is experienced in that area. It pays to hear out the tax paying residents who will be affected. 

 All residents have the same rights -- whether they pay property taxes or not.  

 Everyone pays taxes...........either directly to the town or a portion of their rent is allocated to tax payments by their landlord

author said:

mikescott said:

annielou said:
Those who do not live on,or east of Valley, may not be impacted by the density, traffic, and student life that is experienced in that area. It pays to hear out the tax paying residents who will be affected. 

 All residents have the same rights -- whether they pay property taxes or not.  

 Everyone pays taxes...........either directly to the town or a portion of their rent is allocated to tax payments by their landlord

 Seton Hall  students who reside on campus do not pay taxes. 

Rabbis/Priests/Pastors who live in a house owned by the religious institution do not pay taxes.  

And I think some people think that those who own and live in a single family home have more rights than those who indirectly pay taxes via rent.  

maps said:
There is already a dorm on Valley used by SH students. I don't think it is an issue.

 Every neighborhood reaches a threshold at some point.  Just because one dorm exists now does not mean one more won't do any harm.  Effects are cumulative, not binary.