Modular housing has come a long way, and Nyack has seen several go up in the last couple of years. Today a house was put into place, as you might have noticed one of its five sections being trucked through our streets (hard to miss).
Helen Ingalls, the proud owner of the new house, watched over the process as the sections were trucked in an craned into place. It is a very satisfying sight, particularly since she went through hell to get the approvals.
It took a tremendous show of support by her neighbors and the threat of a lawsuit to finally bring the Architectural Review Board into line and approve the house. It was quite a fight. First, the ARB didn’t want to tear down the old house, which was falling apart, rat infested, and her builder said it was too far gone to try to restore. Then they wanted her to orient the house toward the corner, and among many other demands, they were going to hold up her building permit because there are no shutters on the house.
The issue isn’t about modular housing.
A quick review: a modular house is like a manufactured house in that sections are trucked in and craned into place, but they are placed on a proper foundation and the structure must conform to all state building codes. It is easily confused with manufactured housing, which has also come a long way and is a good option for affordable housing, but is tarred with the memory of “trailer parks”. The history is interesting, beginning right after WWII and the Interstate highway was built, and the new trailors were hauled around the back of their cars as the family went camping. They gradually moved to a viable form of housing. Today, both manufactured and modular housing are very hard to distinguish from “stick built” structures. The recently built house on Main St., just above Gedney, is a great example of modular housing that most people can’t tell the difference.
The Architectural Review Board stepped WAY beyond its authority in reviewing this new construction, and holding up a building permit for shutters, which has no basis on local law in zoning or any design standards (which don’t exist). It is frankly arbitrary and capricious, and the Village would have lost the lawsuit as it had deprived Helen from her constitutional right to due process. The ARB must become much more humble in its role in reviewing projects and the Village needs to establish design guidelines so the Board can’t hold up people’s lives on their biggest life asset based on the board members’ personal preferences.
Fortunately, Helen had the support of her neighborhood, as they came out to support her project against the will of the ARB. Believe me, that is a rare site, since usually neighbors don’t want to see new construction. The Village needs to develop a balance between controlling bad design and acting as big brother.
So wish I saw this sooner:
As to everyone’s curiosity, yes, in-fact, I do live in this two-family house, with my husband and plan to start a family in this home. Sorry you feel the need to assume that I bought this property in order to make a profit in this terrible real estate market, to the contrary the reason it is two-family is to make it affordable for us to live in the Village of Nyack that I have only hoped to afford to live in for many years.
As to the opinions on my home you might have shown up to the meetings where the ARB had changed my original design so many times it looks the way it does from there opinions, changes, and ideas. I lost it when they were trying to delay it further by adding shutters. If you were at the meetings I would have loved advice as to what to build since you were at these meetings and know that my architect had passed away during the development of ideas brought to the board for review and opinion.
Also I would love to have invited you in to the house prior to demolition and after you signing a hold harmless agreement allowed you to explain how to fix the house that had no foundation, fire damage, thirteen feral cats utilizing it as a litter box, all copper pipes ripped from the walls, along with water damage and the leaning of the house. In addition the house was purchased before there were any rules on demolition and only two (2) weeks before closing on the property did such codes change. Sorry if you do not like my home, but contrary to your beliefs my husband and I could not be happier.
Thanks for the feedback. I don’t know the details, and only talked with a couple of people. I do know that modular housing can be attractive, and so the issue is really how much oversight does the Village have on design. The ARB is acting as if most of the Village is an historic district, which maybe we should declare it as such.
Is this house going to be a rental or owner occupied? The new modular house on Main Street by Gedney is a rental, and doesn’t look too bad. Unfortunately we just don’t build them like we used to.
I was not aware there are design standards. I’m curious to see them.
Please! This house is an eyesore. I spoke out about it at a summer ARB meeting and let me say the only reason that the neighbors spoke on behalf is that they believed that if someone, anyone would “invest” in the neighborhood, it must mean there was hope for this beleagured area. Unfortunately, this kind of cheap, opportunistic investment, meant only to turn profit, has not improved the area. Witness the house built 7 years ago further down the hill on the south side of Depew (the one with the recessed porch). The builder used the same lame arguments to tear down its predecessor and described the current building as “beautiful”. Today the broken out porch railing posts and decrepit siding tell the story about this sort of architechture.
As for the ARB, their charge is to oversee the building of houses that fit into the character of the area, and they dropped the ball mightily on this one. This house looks more like it fits on the edge of the NJ Turnpike in Newark.
I think the village’s lack of will to go to court over this house speaks more to the institutional prejudice about this neighborhood rather than a likelihood of loosing. After all the village has won article 78s in “better” neighborhoods using the design standards (they do exist, I helped write them) in the legislation that guides the ARB.
Ask yourself, if the streets of Nyack were filled, one house after another, with houses like the one you see in the picture, would you want to live here? Much of our housing stock is old and in need of rehabilitation, not anhilation. If we follow the logic of the article you have written, our charming victorian village, called “gem of the Hudson” and cited in the Friends of the Nyacks mission statement for “the stateliness of its architecture”, would better be referred to as “dump on the Hudson”. Let’s not let all the “falling down” houses be replaced with what can charitibly called “trailer trash”.
Barbara Cohig
This new house is totally out of character with the neighborhood and village. The ARB was completely within the its guiding legislation in trying to improve this application.
Look around you people – the character of Nyack is in architecture and we are rapidly losing our sense of place as fine old houses are being destroyed to put up monstrosities like this one.
I own a house on Depew, am a neighbor, and think this new house is an affront to the village. It is a spec house- this person just is looking to make a fast buck at the expense of our neighborhood. The ARB exists exactly to protect us from such disasters as this.
If you want to protect Nyack’s soul, you would support the ARB who was out to lunch with this application. This house is terrible.
John Gromada