Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

EXACTLY

ANYONE can See that Carlos' project [46 Bentley Ave.] was ISSUED a Permit for Vinyl Siding in AUGUST 2015 & that His project is/remains STALLED since then in UR[Under Review] Status, at the Check Construction Permits Portal on the City's Website.

What ANYONE Cannot See on this Portal is the Sequence of Subsequent Events that happened to Him & His Wife starting 3 DAYS into the project that has Literally Driven Him to the Brink & forced him into attendance at Public Meetings.

Are copies of permits available on-line?

According to the Rule, he could have gotten a CNE (permit) for replacing existing vinyl or aluminum with new vinyl siding; however, he would not have been able to get a CNE to replace wood siding with vinyl. The NYC Landmarks Commission counsel has always taken the position that if a permit is issued in error, approving work that is contrary to the Rules, the permit is invalid. Thus his permit, if issued incorrectly, would not stand. It's the property owners as well as the contractors responsibility to know the law, and not try to take advantage of something approved erroneously; seeing the permit would clear this up.

light12v wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

EXACTLY

ANYONE can See that Carlos' project [46 Bentley Ave.] was ISSUED a Permit for Vinyl Siding in AUGUST 2015 & that His project is/remains STALLED since then in UR[Under Review] Status, at the Check Construction Permits Portal on the City's Website.

What ANYONE Cannot See on this Portal is the Sequence of Subsequent Events that happened to Him & His Wife starting 3 DAYS into the project that has Literally Driven Him to the Brink & forced him into attendance at Public Meetings.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Giovanna wrote:

"a. Vinyl and Aluminum Siding. The Commission discourages the use of vinyl or aluminum
siding on historic buildings. These materials are not permitted on masonry buildings. On
buildings which have existing vinyl or aluminum siding, individual units may be replaced
with matching materials if necessary following the issuance of a Certificate of No Effect. On
buildings with wood clapboard siding and/or shingles, the Commission encourages
retention of the historic material or replacement with matching materials.
b.If an applicant chooses to apply for aluminum or vinyl siding, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required."

Thanks for that post, it's interesting language in that Ordinance.... If the City felt it was on strong grounds to prohibit the use of vinyl or aluminum, then it would have said so clearly. The fact that the Ordinance language does not contain a clear prohibition in all circumstances is telling in itself. The imprecise wording used makes me think those drafting it had concerns about going any further. It's not surprising I suppose, since the enabling legislation giving municipalities the power to regulate historic districts speaks of ?conservation? and ?preservation?. Those are the words used in the relevant sections of the act. The words ?restoration? or ?re-creation? don't appear, so it's a stretch to argue the enabling legislation could be read in a way that it permits the City to compel ?restoration? work. But since the City wields the power by denying permits, they often get their way.

If this house already had vinyl or aluminum siding that he just wants to replace, then he might consider applying for a certificate of no effect to replace it with the same. However, the City and Historic Preservation folks are zealots bent on ?recreating? the late 1800's / early 1900's. Since it's not their money being spent, they'll abuse their power in an attempt to ?force? people into using what the City wants ? expensive wood siding in this example. And they'll try, even if it's beyond the limits of what they are permitted to do under the MLUL provisions.

So, if he has the time and money, when the City rejects his initial application, his next step is the Zoning Board with an appeal. Then, as would seem likely, when the Zoning Board rejects him, he's off to the Superior Court, Law Division. At least there he'll get a fair hearing. And if he doesn't like their decision, he could appeal, and so on, all the way perhaps to the State Supreme Court (maybe they'd agree to hear the case...?), since the fundamental issue is what is an individual permitted to do with her or her property, and what limits on that are appropriate. Rather important questions actually in a free, democratic society....

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Unless you have seen the specific permit, you don't know what was actually requested for.

Having filed requests with the city, you do not need to be specific about the project that you are undertaking. For all we know, the request merely stated the person was re-doing the siding. It was one of Carlos' neighbors that called the city to complain about the type of work being done.

Exactly. Not so cut and dry...

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Giovanna wrote:
I think you're allowed to use vinyl siding if it correctly mimics the historic appearance. That is, there are rules about which types of vinyl siding are allowed and how it must be installed.

That's my understanding, anyway.

Giovanna wrote:

"a. Vinyl and Aluminum Siding. The Commission discourages the use of vinyl or aluminum
siding on historic buildings. These materials are not permitted on masonry buildings. On
buildings which have existing vinyl or aluminum siding, individual units may be replaced
with matching materials if necessary following the issuance of a Certificate of No Effect. On
buildings with wood clapboard siding and/or shingles, the Commission encourages
retention of the historic material or replacement with matching materials.
b.If an applicant chooses to apply for aluminum or vinyl siding, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required."

I posted a link previously to the city?s requirements. It states no vinyl siding. It is possible that there is new siding available that mimics authentic wood, but that is not what Carlos was installing.

It really is rather cut and dry with this individual. The problem is that he believes certain laws don?t apply to him.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Unless you have seen the specific permit, you don't know what was actually requested for.

Having filed requests with the city, you do not need to be specific about the project that you are undertaking. For all we know, the request merely stated the person was re-doing the siding. It was one of Carlos' neighbors that called the city to complain about the type of work being done.

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Yvonne wrote:
Did you hear Fulop? He addressed the crowds and explain why Carlos was removed. He was removed by the mayor's request. He was physically removed, Pebble. There were other people there shooting video, ask them these questions.

Yvonne wrote:
Actually, Pebble, you are wrong. Carlos was thrown out at the beginning of the meeting. If you do not believe me send an email to McDonald of the Jersey Journal or ask anyone who was there. Carlos made no statement when this happened.

Daniel Sicardi wrote this on Facebook:
Carlos Fernandes intends to attend the next meeting with his lawyer! He was carried out of the last one before he could ask or say anything! Mayor Fulop? Stated he was removed because Mr. Fernandes Could say or do anything! Some people applauded! IS this a public meeting? Fulop has said at the four meetings that NO QUESTION IS OFF LIMITS. Iguess he forgot to include Carlos Fernandes!

Giovanna wrote:
I think you're allowed to use vinyl siding if it correctly mimics the historic appearance. That is, there are rules about which types of vinyl siding are allowed and how it must be installed.

That's my understanding, anyway.

Yvonne wrote:
First, you are wrong, JCGuys when Carlos was interview (www.speaknj.com) he called Mayor Fulop many names. I edited those names from the show and I won't repeat them here. I go after the truth not the person. The city is responsible for giving him the permits. It is his house and the city caused this problem not Carlos.

iGreg wrote:
What's the backstory?

Only see a clip of a guy getting tossed from a meeting, was he issued a permit to revamp his stoop and then started gutting a side wall to install a bay window?

More to it perhaps ?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Holy voice Batman, all the kids started to cry and da dog shat all over the shag carpet when that youtube link opened.

Historic

It is not your home exposed to the elements after Carlos received a permit from the city. The work was stopped 3 days after it started, exposing his home to the elements. It is wrong to laugh when you don't pay his bills.

iGreg wrote:
Holy voice Batman, all the kids started to cry and da dog shat all over the shag carpet when that youtube link opened.

Historic