After nearly 3-1/2 hours of presentations, questions, comments and discussion, the Maplewood Planning Board voted 7-1 against recommending the addition of Block 12.02 Lot 169 — or 11 Inwood Place — to the Movie Theater Redevelopment Area in Maplewood Village.
The Maplewood Township Committee can now accept or reject the recommendation.
The lone vote in favor of adding the parcel to the redevelopment area was Mayor Vic De Luca, who said he did so because the township needs to meet and submit its Fourth Round Fair Share Housing obligation of 216 proposed units to be built by 2035. And because the Fair Share Housing Center and the owners/developers of 11 Inwood Place — and several adjacent lots — have taken the township to court seeking remedies.
The developers — 161 Maplewood Investors LLC — are seeking to build a 65-unit building with 13 affordable units on the Bank of America parking lot and lot 169/11 Inwood Place.
11 Inwood Place (Google maps)
“When we started on this trip of looking at how to develop downtown, we were very aware that this property was in transition,” said De Luca. “It was a buffer between the commercial and residential. When we spoke to developers, we kept saying, ‘This is a building that we don’t want you to acquire.’ We knew the historic nature of it.”
“So the developers who own 161 Maplewood Avenue [the Bank of America building], they bought [11 Inwood] and now they own it, are asking us to incorporate it into their development plan. This is not coming from the town. Again, we were not pushing this,” said De Luca.
“I think there were a lot of very good points made tonight,” said De Luca, referencing the many residents who spoke eloquently about preserving the character of the town and respecting the historic designation of Maplewood Village, including 11 Inwood. “But there’s a changed planning view. … Unlike some towns, we have not shirked our responsibility in doing affordable housing, but every round you have to submit a new plan. And we did submit a new plan. And then in August of 2025, we received two challenges. One challenge was from Fair Share Housing, and one challenge was from 161 Maplewood Investors, the owners of the Bank of America building and the owners of lot 169 [11 Inwood Place].”
“This was a situation which the courts looked at this and said, ‘Well, you have the owners telling you that they’re willing to develop affordable housing on property they own. Why are you putting up zoning roadblocks?’ We would say, ‘Hey, it’s historic. It’s got to go for a design review. It’s got to go for a demolition review.’ We said, ‘It’s in R-1-7, not in the commercial [zone]. It’s a transitional use.’ We said all those things, a lot of the stuff we heard tonight. But I will again say that the rules have changed. The developers have a lot more power than they had before, and the judges are just looking to get these projects done. As a elected official here, I have to look at the big picture. I understand there’s a lot of people looking at this, but I have to look at the big picture for Maplewood. The agreement that we’ve been talking about with Fair Share Housing does not just deal with the site here. It deals with five units on Parker, one unit on Dunnell, about 10 units on Springfield Avenue. That’s all in that agreement. And if that unravels, [we are] losing immunity from developers.”
11 Inwood is adjacent to the Bank of America parking lot on Inwood Place. (Google maps)
“So this is a very difficult decision,” said De Luca. “You know, I sit with the Historic Preservation Commission as the liaison, and I listen to their arguments and they’re all very valid.”
“But I just want to say again, the rules have changed,” said De Luca. “Every town is going through the same thing. And I think the thing that we can’t let happen is that the whole town becomes subject to developers coming in thinking they’re going to overbuild everywhere. This was not a township initiated process. This was a developer’s process. And we’re trying to do the best we can, given the parameters of the affordable housing law.”
“I think there have been very compelling cases made by everybody today,” said Planning Board member Stephanie Scott. “And I want to balance affordable housing. I don’t want to lose transitional lots. I don’t want overbuilding. But I want to protect the township. And I think finding a way to do that — the backstop is when whatever comes back to us through planning and proposals is going to be our way out — and I hope to see as much engagement as possible throughout the entire process from the community, for everything that gets built here. We’re in a difficult situation and we don’t have enough ways to redress where we are right now. And with that said, though, I plan to vote no.”
Scott’s comments were met with loud applause from the many community members gathered who spoke throughout the evening.
Planning Board member Tim Fryatt also said he would vote no, but asked the audience to “stay tuned to the Planning Board. That [movie theater] redevelopment plan will be coming back here. There was a lot of conversation about the theater and rightly so, but there’s so much more that really needs to be analyzed in that plan, about the massing of the uses, in particular the ground floor retail uses, the walkability, the vibrancy of downtown, the architectural character, all those things are coming. So please do stay tuned, and come back.”
Area in Need of Redevelopment Investigation
Block 12.02, Lot 169
The Maplewood Theater, which 161 Maplewood Investors LLC was previously seeking to purchase and develop, has remained in the hands of the Loffredo family. The family recently signed a lease with an operator and plans to reopen in late 2026 or 2027.
Fryatt added, “I have significant concerns that the proposal complies with the Master Plan, which at the end of the day is our mandate. And I think the Grygiel report [presented by the town’s planner] did not prove that lot 169 is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area.”
Planning Board Chair Karen Pisciotta said she was very affected by the Historic Planning Commission’s testimony for preserving the building, which was built in 1908.
She also said she was not swayed by the argument that an easement on the property compelled its addition to the redevelopment area.
“Throughout this evening, I have not heard a compelling reason to add lot 169 to the non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment. And so I’m voting against it,” said Pisciotta.
Pisciotta added that she was disturbed by the current affordable housing law. Although she supported its goals, she felt that Maplewood and other towns were “being held hostage.”
Voting to keep 11 Inwood Place out of the redevelopment area were Stephanie Scott, Dean Dafis, Salimah Latham, Pisciotta, Elizabeth Ward, John Sullivan, and Fryatt. De Luca was the sole yes vote.
