A homeowner in Orange is claiming that the construction if a new 87-unit apartment building built along her property line has caused sinkholes in the asphalt in her backyard, fissures in her driveway, and cracks in her home’s foundation. Now, Carolyn Hayward King, who lives on Mountainview Avenue, wants the developer to make things right for the damage to her home.
“We were so insignificant — that’s how we felt and I still feel it today,” King said.
The apartment building is located at 448 Scotland Road and the owner — Scotland Holdings RSBRM Urban Renewal — recently began leasing out apartments this year.
King believes the problems to her property stem from the new building being constructed with zero setback. In other words there is no space separating her property line from that of the new building.
This is unusual for an apartment building. In Orange, zoning laws typically requires new mid-rise buildings to have a 10-foot setback. However, in 2020, the City Council passed the Central Valley Redevelopment Plan that allows new buildings in District 4, which runs along Scotland Road from Laurel Street to Codner Street, to have zero setback.
King hired a geotechnical firm, Veridian Engineering, that released a report two months ago confirming the problems to her home are due to “soil disturbance caused by the adjacent excavation and construction activity.”
“There’s a void under here,” said King pointing to the driveway pockmarked with holes.
Joe Brisk, who is managing the development for Scotland Holdings RSBRM Urban Renewal, acknowledges that damage was caused to the property, but claims that his offers to repair the King’s property have gone ignored.
“We’ve been very accommodating to try to to help her,” Brisk said. “But that’s not what she’s looking for. She is simply upset that a project was built next to her, which I understand.
Brisk said that he made meetings with King prior to construction and gave in to some of her requests — one of which was that there would be no windows on the rear of the building overlooking her yard.
In 2021, the Planning Board approved the application, despite King and her neighbors speaking out about the plan. The following year, the City Council approved a 30-year tax abatement for the project.
During the Planning Board hearing, the developer’s experts testified at the meeting that the project in terms of height and lot coverage, according to Derek Stinson, civil engineer at Newline Engineering, hired for the project.
The redevelopment plan allowed the developer to build on 90 percent of the lot area — Brisk’s project is 88 percent — and construct a building that is 85 feet talk — Brisk’s 71.5 feet tall. Typically, local zoning laws allow 70 percent lot coverage for buildings of this size.
“We’re certainly taking advantage of all the allowed space that we have in accordance with the redevelopment zoning,” Stinson said
Volora Howell, Mountainview Avenue, said the new seven-story building is out of place on a residential street composed of mostly single-family homes. “I wouldn’t want to live next door to a seven-story building,” Howell told the Planning Board.
King believes some fault lies with the city for drafting a redevelopment plans that allowed such a large development. City officials never responded to our attempts for comment.
“The city didn’t protect us,” King said.
