Glen Ridge Mulls PODS Ordinance

Glen Ridge is quite strict about how things look around town. Some 80 percent of the homes in the borough are in the heavily-regulated historic district. Contractor lawn signs are not allowed and even political lawn signs are a rarity.

So it’s kind of a surprise that Glen Ridge is just now getting around to regulating the portable home storage units known as PODS. (Montclair has had a PODS ordinance since at least 2009.)

Under a proposed ordinance, residents who want to park a POD at their house will have to pay $50 for an application — and, under normal circumstances, get just 30 days of POD parking. A one-time 30-day extension could be allowed.

In the case of a major construction job, accompanied by a building permit, a POD could be allowed to stay up for 90 days, with the possibility of a one-time 90-day extension. Reapplications will cost $25.

The ordinance, which will be introduced tonight for first reading by councilwoman Elizabeth Baker, was aimed towards one Glen Ridge resident who’s had a POD in their yard “forever,” Baker says. “Long enough that the neighbors were complaining. We didn’t anticipate that people would use them as sheds.” She said she didn’t know what street the offending POD was on.

In addition, the ordinance would require that the PODS be situated on “paved off-street surfaces” as far from the street as possible.

What do you think of PODS? Convenient storage or landscape blight?

 

 

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Pods are not the nicest looking addition to a neighborhood but if someone is need of one temporarily (or even longer) I’m not going to complain. As far as contractor signs I can’t stand them but I don’t see how a town can tell someone they can’t put one on their property. Violation of property owner rights imo. If someone were to challenge them I think the town would lose.

  2. It’ll all just become “stuff” for the dumpster in time. Cut a hole in top and cart it away.
    Herb, I know it’s hard to believe that GR can regulate it’s aesthetics. That’s why you live in Montclair….throw up those utility poles helter skelter and vinylize your life away.

  3. Seems like Elizabeth Baker has a lot of time on her hands. I am sure there are other ordinances more important than a POD on a somones lawn that she “forgot” where it was?

  4. “Cut a hole in top and cart it away.”

    My vote for Comment of the day- yes, even though it’s only 10am, this about says it all. Throw. Out. Your. Junk.

  5. I think Elizabeth Baker is doing her job as a councilwoman and responding to complaints of people in her town, Pagal. Who want to live next to that on a permenent basis?

  6. Herb,

    It already has been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court – GR is well within its rights. Commercial signs do not have the same protection as political speech. A small exception was carved-out specifically for properties that are offered for sale: one sign, if placed on the actual property that is available for purchase, and only while it is actually available for sale (which is why GR does not permit signs that say “Under contract” – at that point it is merely an advertisement for the realtor).

Comments are closed.