What a shame. It's going to sit there and decay now. Here was a chance to make a fabulous venue out of that great old building. Just a shame.

That's a real crying shame. A well-respected member of this community was willing and able to preserve this landmark and made, what sound like, very reasonable concessions to the residential neighbors. Who do they will suppose will buy it now? Certainly no one with a vested interest in this community. Kinda like buying a house near an airport then trying to have the flight patterns changed because you don't like the noise. Only different.

Apologies- I should have said "to buy the property from the Woman's Club," as it appears Kerns never completed the purchase.

well, calling local residents lowlifes requires an apology too. Perhaps, MOL code of ethics is leaking onto this civilized site.

Peggy-yes, it's ashame, it really could have been lovely. I'm guessing the only solution left is blowing up the building to put up maybe 2 homes or perhaps apartments/rentals. Ugh. That said, I can also seeing it sitting like it is now for another 3 years.

Pot meet kettle LOL: MOL code of ethics? You can no longer post there because YOU were lacking any....

I'm delighted. This town is living in a dream world! So glad the neighbors had a great lawyer.

Good point Carolyn.

I guess the point I was making is that this is where readers go to discuss things in a respectful manner. MOL is the site one might use to be obscene. In any case, thank You Tom Kerns for trying to make something good happen but in the end, the neighbors have spoken.

I want to cry......I was so excited to think that the Woman's Club was going to be renovated and become an active part of the community again. A self supporting venue that would be used to support the arts, provide a space for private functions and best of all to be brought back to it's original grandeur. This breaks my heart....:(

I was thrilled that HK was taking over the building--it's such s wonderful space. Now I am fearful for its longevity.

Let's not let the personality conflicts get in the way and block the common good. This can be worked out go back to the table and to the neighbors be careful you don't win the battle of personal warfare and loose the war.
A deep pocket entity may grab this instead and you well intention neighbors my jump out of the frying pan right into the fire. My Granma always warned me against cutting off my nose to spite my face. Guys back to the table a deal can be worked out that's in the best interest of the community and the good intentions of everyone.
Climbing Everest is never easy - but there are windows of opportunity when missed, make even the descent perilous and are regretted forever.

Carolyn,

If my memory serves me correct, the WC was designated a SID a few years back following a TC vote. I believe all except Ryan voted in favor. If this is the case, does this mean it is an impossibility for a potential buyer to raze it?

I believe this had nothing to do with those who brought suit having great lawyers...the only thing the lawsuit did was hold up the process...their suit was not upheld. I dont think you'll see two or three private homes there, but most likely another "townhome/condo" development, or, what almost happened previously, a long term care Alzheimers facility or some other such buyer. That purchaser not only wanted to put in the long term care facility, but wanted the town to exercise eminent domain to take over some adjacent properties in order see their vision through. Cant happen? Historically, small towns cant fight deep pocketed companies because eventually the legal fees cant be justified. So yes, its a sad turn of events.

Well whatever the case, the neighbors feared noise levels and traffic so they did what they felt they needed to do. Mr. Kearns did what he felt he needed to do.

Maybe we need to do something drastic. How about we move Town Hall to the WC,and sell Town Hall to a developer. With upgrades, the WC could easily function as an old school TH with plenty of parking to boot. A developer could have a field day with TH. More high end rentals like the former Police Station development.

I really wonder what the neighborhood hopes to accomplish by blocking/stalling this? Can anyone tell me what they HOPE will happen to that property? I thought the HK plan was great, and Hank brings up some frightening alternatives... what did/do the neighbors want, and how do they expect to get it?

Such a pity that the Woman's Club is now going to sit and decay further or worse be torn down some day. What a beautiful building, what history is connected with it.
I was a member of the Junior Woman's Club of Maplewood for over 10 years, we had events there monthly and had large groups attend these events. People did not linger around the parking lot after the event was over, the noise what not that would keep people up or wake them up from there sleep. There were also weddings held there, church groups had they services there - it was the only way that the Woman's Club could make money to survive. And now when the town has someone who was willing to renovate and keep the building in the original style - this is a problem? What am I missing? Maplewood is a very unique small town for many reasons, the Woman's Club is part of that uniqueness - it's what makes out town stand out from others. So yes, it is a sad that Mr. Kearns has pulled out of the deal but who needs that drama in their lives I would probably have done the same.

To be clear here is my personal position:

The WC facility should be viewed as an important part of the fabric of Maplewood. Personally, I believe the issues between Tom and the neighbors could have been, and could be, worked out. Wouldn't it be amazing for a town that takes pride in it's diversity to find a mutually-beneficial solution despite their well-intentioned disparate opinions on the issue?

I think a solution needs to start with mutual respect. As I shared in an earlier comment, I have gotten to know Tom and most of the neighbors involved over the past two years. They are all good people, with good intentions, who have disparate opinions on the same issue. You might even call this a common aspect of diversity - we all look at the same issue with different eyes.

If Tom or the neighbors do not want to, or believe, they can find common ground than let's put our collective creativity together and find such a solution. Have a good day - John

John,

It seems to me as if the neighbors have won. They don't want excess noise and they don't want excess traffic. I view the situation as being one where unless the structure is used as some type of facility that doesn't create noise like a nursing home, there really isn't anything that can be done with this building.

It's not like the neighbors are all of a sudden going to say, ok, you can throw weddings there but only until 11PM, etc. Kearns does not need the building or the headache. It's probably a lost cause to think he wants to go back for a round two.

One thing I'm unclear about is whether the neighbors allege illegal parking or noise violations of town ordinances with the WC events. These neighbors do not own their streets in front of their homes and anyone is free to lawfully park on them. And, people are free to make noise within reason during many hours of the day- these neighbors are not entitled to special noise protections not available to the rest of us.

What a shame that this all happened due to greed (tax and lose) on part of the town. The WC was a fine institution that was started 'back then' when women had very limited options with no social aspects outside of marriage. The place should have a heritage grant placed upon it and have historic funds come forth and fix it all up. It is a grand bit of the past just like dear ole' CHS has upon the town's history - it's original floor-plan "A Wing" was illustrated in the Enc. Britannica as an ideal school ! The WC should be saved and kept pristine for all the future to look back and see how pristine things looked along with the remaining gas lamps still around in nearby So. Orange (really want to see them, go to Glen Ridge - THE ONLY TOWN IN THE NATION STILL ENTIRELY LIT BY GAS LASMPS) We need to keep history for the future. Mere destruction leaves nothing of value behind. sure hope Maplewood does the right thing and save for our children!!!

CJV, with your keen interest in this issue you might find value in reviewing related documents that are on file with the Town.

Since Lamona LLC was seeking a change of use for the venue they are for creating a plan that provides a minimum number of parking spaces to accomodate events. In the end, the onsite parking available was not adequate for a venue of this size. There were suggestions that they should work a deal with a place like St. George's or Morrow to use their parking to achieve the required threshold, but I am not sure how that potential parking solution evolved.

The noise issue is also addressed in a town ordinance. The ordinance calls specific decibel limits at certain times in town - lower at 9 PM, and considerably lower at 11 PM. If a compromise could not be worked out the neighbors would be within their right to contact police when the noise exceeded the ordinance. Naturally, neither Tom nor the neighbors wanted this to be the case.

So, this is not about the neighbor's expecting special treatment, as you wrote. It is about the planning required of a business that would have a significant impact on parking and noise in the Village.

Without a clear, tangible solution to both issues there is no way, in my mind, that compromise was possible. Later - John

John, you've suggested several times that the Mayor and TC "get involved." I encourage anyone who believes your suggestion they have not, or that somehow they are apathetic to this project instead of strong supporters of it, to read the prior Patch article on the subject:
http://maplewood.patch.com/articles/womans-club-buyer-gets-use-variance-sale-moves-forward

PS John, reviewing such documents leads to the neighbors demanding a parking plan that does not use on-street parking, as I expected and as you falsely denied. Reminding again, the street in front of your home is not yours- it belongs to the common good, and that includes those of us who wish to see downtown develop further and our tax base increase.

JoeF,

The township committee including Mayor De Luca voted against such a designation, instead granting it SID. In other words, that shipped has sailed.

I remember attending my best friends wedding @ the WC and it was absolutely beautiful all those years ago. When my grand-daughter was about to turn16 and we were in the planning stages of her celebration I remembered the WC and considered it as a possible venue unitl we went to view it. I was really surprised that the property was left unkept and appeared delapitated. A property that holds such magnificant character should not be wasted but given its life back. It's funny that we will complain about small things but what about when your out and about enjoying the theather, concerts or other forms of entertainment in someone else's back yard (so to speak) what about where they think you should go!! There is a solution for almost every problem its a SHAME one couldn't be remedied for such a beautiful space. So now since there was no solution; who's problem is it??? Whose afraid of progression/change is sometimes warranted !!!!

CJV, you continue to allege that I blamed the Mayor or the TC for not being involved. Is there anything I can say or write to convince you that this has not been my contention? I have written the TC could be/should be more engaged, more influential, and exhibit more leadership on the issue, but I do not believe I ever said not involved.

The variance was not given by the TC, but provided by the zoning requirements. It may be a surprise to you but many people do not trust the intentions of politicians and/or zoning boards. I was at some of the meetings and believe the Board disregarded the parking requirement in providing the variance, without good cause - there were experts on both sides of the aisle. The neighbors did not trust the decision of the Board, and were concerned with the problems the variance would create. So, they, used the solutions available to them to contest the variance. Why should they be considered lowlifes for following the available channels for resolution?

To your second point, it is the zoning requirements that determines the amount of parking required based on the use of the property - not the TC.

CJV, you have called neighbors lowlifes, you have quoted me incorrectly more than once, and now you are sharing my alleged mis-truths. I still wonder if the conversation would be more constructive and respectful if you shared who you are. Just a thought - John

Carolyn, I noticed the TC last night introduced a parking change for Woodland. Can you tell me what this is about?