papadage wrote:
It was issued months after the passage of the Historic District. All the bold fonts in the world won't change that fact, nor the fact that he did not use the appeals process in any way, but instead decided to be a crank and just complain and state conspiracy theories.

It's all in the decision for the case to proceed. The judge tossed the due process claims for being inadequate.

papadage wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST

He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.

papadage wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST

He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST

Pebble wrote:
There are some very important things that a lot of people are overlooking here...

1. The city is NOT driving up and down the streets looking for people doing work on their homes. They aren't checking for permits.

2. This individual was turned in by his neighbors. I don't know which neighbors, but I know that several neighbors called the city to complain about the type of work this person was doing.

3. The individual explicitly stated that the entire purpose for the vinyl siding was so that he could rent the house out and move to Portugal.

4. The individual's permits did not state what the material of the new siding was which is why the permit passed.

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

Lastly, having listened to Fernandes speak about this, my take-away was that he's a guy that had no interest in restoration. He purchased a home and was looking for a cheap fix. He's also very dishonest in his explanation on the series of events and he's simply looking for a pay day from the city.

He could have complied with the city's rules and regulations for the area rather quickly and for a lot less money than the lawsuit along with the wear and tear on the building along with the wasted money on the vinyl siding he purchased. Instead of that, he played "victim" and got lawsuit happy.

I have zero pity for the man.

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

Bamb00zle wrote:
All this talk of lawsuits made me think of the harassment suit Dan Wrieden, the City Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), bought against the City. He claimed somethings about his boss harassing him. I wonder what the City's defense was/is? Maybe it's all settled by this point?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city_cruz_lawsuit.html
http://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-conten ... /anthony-cruz-lawsuit.pdf

In my experience, observing things over the years, Dan has abused the historic preservation code for a long, long time. If I were his boss, I would have said some choice words to him out of frustration at what he, and the HPC, have done....

Anyone know anything about the status of that suit? I haven't seen anything reported since that initial filing.

Bamb00zle wrote:

What I do have an opinion about is the abusive use of the Historic Preservation rules. The HPO and HPC routinely exceed their lawful authority in the application of these restrictive Zoning rules. The ultra vires actions of the HPO and HPC have prevented many people from repairing and maintaining their houses because of the cost of the work demanded. It has caused a huge amount of damage to many people and particularly to individuals and families of limited means, and of color, for many years. The current City Administration has done nothing to stop this abuse.

The powers granted to the City under the MLUL to enable regulation of historic preservation are limited to just that: ?historic preservation.? An example of the application of these limits is seen in the provisions in the MLUL regarding ?demolition by neglect.? The lawful power of a municipality is limited only to requiring an owner undertake ?stabilization? of the deteriorating historic structure, to preserve it from slow destruction. That is all the law permits. It does not authorize a municipality to compel or order any other kind of work on the historic structure.

Those same limits apply to all Historic structures, whether they are in danger of ?demolition by neglect? or not. The City does not have the lawful authority to require anything more of an owner than ?preservation.? And you can't preserve something that doesn't exist. Attempts by the City to make owners re-create ?fake historic? features such as wood windows, cedar siding, iron fences, anything that does not still exist in some form, are not ?historic preservation? and are therefore outside the City's lawful authority.

light12v wrote:
....perhaps you can enlighten us about Farrell's affirmative defenses contained in the document link below, particularly the one that states " City Defendants are entitled to ABSOLUTE STATUTORY IMMUNITY" & advise if you perceive Fulop's Individual Interests as in Concord or in Conflict with Jersey City's interests.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3903312-Show-Multidocs.html

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, ... have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.

Well put, light12v, I agree completely. HPC and HPO over-reach with the historic preservation rules makes it very difficult (or impossible) for owners to repair and rehabilitate these wonderful old houses where many have lived for decades. A reasonable, balanced and lawful application of the historic preservation rules would mostly be beneficial, helping people maintain their homes and preserve the character, diversity and soul of these special neighborhoods. The current heavy handed, over-zealous approach by the HPO and HPC, with it's ensuing disparate impact effects, runs counter to overall public good.

Regarding the West Side, many residents, including families who have owned their homes for several generations, expressed well-founded concern when the Historic District designation was rammed through by the City. During the Ordinance second reading City Council members promised to update and clarify the historic preservation rules. Well, no surprise, that never happened. At that same time, it was appalling to see Joyce Watterman vote in favor of the new district. Doesn't she know how these types of restrictive zoning rules have been abused over and again, for decades, to the detriment of minority families, and families with limited resources? She should be ashamed of that vote.

Since you live in that district, and with November's election coming up you might reach out to Councilman Chris Gadsen about all this ? I don't live in that Ward. You'll recall he won handily last time, against Fulop's hand-picked, historic preservationist, City attorney candidate. In a community debate before that vote, Fulop's guy showed he was totally clueless, telling homeowners we need more Historic Preservation Officers to ?help?! No one was fooled, and of course he lost. I've also heard the City is trying to introduce another historic district around Astor Place. Folks over there should be very concerned and get involved in the lead up to the elections. Ward E homeowners are also affected and should ask their candidates what they will do to stop the abuse of the historic rules.

Unless the City clarifies that the Historic Ordinance is limited to ?Preservation? and can't be used to compel owners to undertake ?restoration? or ?reconstruction?, it will take a law suit to stop the abusive, aggressive, over-reach by the HPO and HPC. A thoughtful judge reading a well researched and argued brief, including all the applicable sections of State law (MLUL), City Zoning code, legislative and regulatory history, and the context in which it was all developed and is applied, will inevitably conclude there are limits, and HPO and HPC actions often overstep those limits. A suit bringing a disparate impact claim would rely on a relevant 2015 Supreme Court ruling and federal laws.

It will need a dedicated attorney, someone (or group) who has been aggrieved or suffered disparate impact, with the time, money and interest to bring a case. In my opinion, the outcome is clear. I've looked at several historic preservation matters and it is not a forgone conclusion that municipalities and HPC's prevail. I believe the court will find many actions of the JC HPO and HPC outside their limited authority to regulate ?preservation? and would clarify the limits of their authority. In a disparate impact case in Federal Court, you'd have to wonder if the City isn't liable for damages given they've been so derelict in their oversight of the HPC's misuse of the Ordinance, and the resulting harms so serious.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30

Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.

Thanks light12v and jerseymom. This is all getting rather interesting, don't you think? Stay tuned, the next episode could be even more exciting.

light12v wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30

Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30

light12v wrote:
I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, ... have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.

Bamb00zle wrote:
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires ? provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when ?reconstruction? is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules ? they must follow the code ? just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to ?reconstruct? replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.

Bamb00zle wrote:
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires ? provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when ?reconstruction? is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules ? they must follow the code ? just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to ?reconstruct? replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?

That's rich. I recall you and your parking cartel cried racism to get your way on parking regulations the council proposed in Downtown.

Really? I think you confuse my words with someone else. I have never said that. So now if "racists" cannot be used, you accuse me of using it. Very liberal of you.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?

That's rich. I recall you and your parking cartel cried racism to get your way on parking regulations the council proposed in Downtown.

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?