Thank you BRIGHT MOMENT....I knew that place reminded me of something....whispers in the back of my lower brain.

First, I confess to a secret wish to have quiet, pools, tennis, covered parking and a dock all in a safe quiet place -- my better suburban angels -- but I KNEW that place looked like something I'd seen...something to be feared at a primal level.

That having been said......
ITS THE FREAKING "PRISONER"......Secret Agent Man Redux.

No tame Disneyland metaphors....it is Evil I tell you. Evil.

On the other hand, if someone has a boat, I'm willing to take on, or even be a part of evil under certain conditions......

Jersey City:
Who's Laughing Now?"

Nice find ZsaZsa. I hadn't noticed the "supplementary" zoning regulations contained in that other 'general extras' section (? 345-60. ---- Supplementary zoning regulations. [Amended 9-10-2003 by Ord. No. 03-113; 10-8-2003 by Ord. No. 03-134]). Interesting rules on home occupations (and other interesting points) I hadn't noticed before.


2. Standards for Specific Accessory Uses.

a. Home Occupations.

i. The practitioner must be the owner or lessee of the residence in which the home occupation is contained.

ii. The practitioner must reside in the home as his or her principal residence.

iii. There shall be no external evidence of the home occupation.

iv. The practitioner shall not utilize the services of more than one non resident employee.

v. There shall be no retail sales, manufacturing or industrial operations conducted on the site.

vi. No more than one business visitor shall be permitted at any one time.

vii. There shall be no sign identifying the home occupation and there shall be no identification of such home occupation upon any mailbox.

viii. The residential character of the neighborhood and the premises shall not be subordinated to the home occupation use.

ix. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling for residential purposes. The maximum area devoted to the home occupation shall be limited to not more than forty percent (40%) of the total area of the floor where the home occupation use is located, excluding space used for a private garage, or nine hundred (900) square feet, whichever is smaller.

x. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates glare, fumes, odors, electrical interference, medical waste, or other nuisance factors detectable to the human senses outside the lot on which the home occupation is conducted.

I don't know the answer. Do you know how your street/building is zoned? The JC Municipal Code is on line free at this site:

http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/jersey/

If I recall, Zoning is Chapter 345, and Article 5 has permitted principal uses for the various zonings. Not sure that will answer the question, but it can't hurt to look it over.

Yup...I got that....so was I.....and I don't really want to get rid of the old and infirm--it would be self-immolation. And I think its going to flow South only from the way its painted.

Quote:

Hey...don't get me wrong...I'm all for gentrifying anything of value within arguable walking distance of the river, throwing out the existing residents, the old, weak, infirm, or anyone less fortunate or different than me. And I too believe that OTHER PEOPLEs' cars should be kept off the roads. But hey....why should they go and wreck a perfectly good paving job that it TOOK FIVE YEARS TO GET???

As for the meetings...I do go from time to time.....but wait...(everything goes slightly blurry, as the flashback starts)..... I see myself sitting there month after month in 1998-99 with Goldman Sachs architects (who want our association approval to help with PILOTS and building restrictions) telling us about the pedestrian walkway through the covered, futuristic atrium rivaling the Wintergarden...from Hudson St. to the Ferry -- not to mention the other building...[blurring clears up]....Oh, sorry, I'm back.....yup, if we could just get the developers to promise to do things the right way.....Wait....no....maybe it would be better to get the CITY TO CONTROL THINGS WITH THE DAMN PERMITS.......

I say give the contractors and builders all of the money, exempt them from everything...sacrifice our pets....I don't care...just make them stop screwing up the few streets we have that still work. That expansion around the Trump building site is an insult. I can just see someone, somewhere planning the same for 77 Hudson, the adjacent part of Greene and VanVoorst between Morris and Grand.

ps. Note re tonight's meeting--there will be a report regarding Washington being one way between CC and Montgomery. What fresh hell is this?

I would like to ask a huge favor of the City -- dealing with 77 Hudson and the new building at the other end end of Sussex (at VanVoorst). It has to do with how the City permits out usage of the surrounding streets to the builders.

After living in a construction zone for 5 years, I was THRILLED to get Greene open, and the whole of Paulus Hook paved. I wait daily to drive Washington between CC and Montgomery -- pathetically, it will be the high point of my summer.

What a delight. It is wonderful. Years of patience are paying off.

However, I?ve noticed that with each successive building project here, the contractors take over much more of the adjacent roads than used to be the case. (Montgomery at Greene is a good example of a multi-year takeover of the surrounding streets.) Much of the time it is unnecessary. And in later stages these closed lanes tend to become parking for construction workers.

And now the new Trump building has cut through the pretense and simply closed and fenced off a lane on all sides. Again, at least one of these closed lanes is just free parking for workers most of the time.

If the builders at the two ends of Sussex do this I?m going to either have a breakdown or get mad at the officials who allow this. Upset voters are not friendly voters. In this case, each builder will coincidentally have an entire section of a presently unused block of Sussex to work from -- that they can utilize exclusively. There is no need to wreck the newly paved streets and cut off use of street by building fences in the middle of the roads on VanVoorst, Greene and Hudson.

Please, they have a lot more exclusive space than builders in NYC get. Give us some breathing room.

I am not anti-development or anti-anything...just really, really tired. And now, with Sussex about to be in a construction sandwich for a couple of years more.............

We had the same thing happen. Complained and he came out to talk and then spent a good deal of time discussing it with us. After he fixed the problem, he gave us a phone number and asked for any other thoughts in the future.

He's the Steve Fulop of federal government officials......

Made my day and week!

Does anyone know the asking price for the building on the corner of Warren and Grand?

Well.....here's something to cheer up some and discourage others.....Over the weekend, whilst watering the trees and flowers, a long-time local realtor (one I believe without question) paused in his appointed rounds and let slip that there were 2 pocket listings in PH for $3 million--one a rowhouse and the other a condo. I think I can guess where one is...but I'll be damned if I can figure out the second....any thoughts??

Quote:

I am so jealous. I love that building.....if you are a shrewd investor or ever decide to sell it otherwise....please let me know--what a buy for you!!!!!!

Quote:

In Paulus Hook? Probably not in a rowhouse...although if you are really game, I'd try 3 things. First, take a walk up Sussex at the very end...West of Warren..there are a couple of narrow rowhouses there that may still be for sale...and if not, take a look at the house on the South side of the street at mid-block that seems abandoned....you might be able to find out the story on that. Second there are still a very few empty lots left. One on Lower Sussex, one on upper Sussex, one on Morris, etc. If you could get permission to build something smaller like the old stationhouse (the picture you posted) you might get out of the whole thing for far less than an existing rowhouse. Third, call and talk to some of the people who have been here a long time and are real estate junkies....like Dan at DeRuggerio or Al Burr (a local builder/renovator) or Bill Grey an engineer who co-owns Lighthorse Tavern and who, I believe, still has a building crew on the side.) They've built and sold here for a long time and know virtually everything--all the little details.

Disclosure....Al renovated our rowhouse in '97 and we absolutely love it...and Dan is always trying to get us to sell it! I eat at Bill's and we were working on our buildings at the same time and shared equipment.....other than that, I'm not related to any of them. (And I'm sure other people can add to this list.)

It was on the market for about 3 days. I've always liked it. By the time the realtor called me back, it was sold. Apparently the new owner is renting it.

I'm voting with Steveikin....I think your view(s) contain an a priori (and negative) view about the waterfront area in JC that I don't share.... so here are some factors that could push the value up a PH building well over that price.

1. Some historic buildings are narrow, others as large as 25'

2. Some 100+ year-old buildings are regular depth--others were completely extended and have 1/3rd more space.

3. Some P-Hook buildings have parking for 2 or more cars--either at the building or, like the corner of Washington and Sussex, just steps away. (This is virtually unheard of in most historic rowhouses.)

4. Some buildings have up to three apartments in addition to the owner's space.

5. Some gut re-builds use the historical items (existing stairs, mantles, details etc.) but are re-plumbed, wired, insulated, etc. to create a totally modern house inside the old shell (or go beyond even that...see Sussex just West of Warren--a new level of renovation).

So here's the question...how much does a 100+ year old, yet completely modern 5000+ sq/ft building with 2 parking spaces two blocks from 3 forms of transportation--and near the water-- in a tree-lined beautiful neigborhood a 10 minute commute from downtown cost in NYC? Rough guess...wait a second...they don't even really exist. Any rowhouse 2 blocks from the water in Manhattan is 15 min from any public transport. That same bulding in the upper 80's would be about $8-12 million.

For that matter, what would a 5000 sq/ft house with all modern features but historical detailing be worth in Short Hills? So what about it being in JC makes it lose all of that value????

Also, where in NYC can you get into your car in 2 minutes, and drive 5 minutes to a mall, movie, 2 supermarkets--or get out of the city via the Turnpike without going through a tunnel or over a bridge??? (I know, in NYC you can walk, but on those 33 degree days when the wind is blowing the rain in your face, a car sounds PRETTY good.)

The only reason you would find $2mm odd is because we're all in the "its just Jersey City" mindset. (Thank goodness my wife talked me out of that 8 years ago when we could still afford to buy here!!!! That was when people were saying how could ANYONE ever even THINK about one of these selling for $600k--which appalled many in 1997.) In truth, these historic buildings in P-Hook are probably worth (and will probably rise to) well over that as the constant construction on Greene and the end of Warren ends and people around here wake up one morning to find they are living in just about the nicest place you can imagine! Also, more will be divided for condos, further reducing the number of remaining full houses (or buildings that can be converted back into a full house) to a small number.

But, as always, I could be mistaken!!!!