Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Quote:
I can understand that a strict implementation of the requirement of 35ft rear yard setback would render a shallow lot difficult to build on. But could you please point to the guideline that you are referring to? I can't find any such exceptions in the zoning code. All that I can find is that if the lot is deeper than 100ft, then the total setback (front + rear) requirements increase to more than 35ft. https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... VZODEST_S345-40ONTWFAHODI ? 345-40 6. Minimum Rear Yard: a. The rear yard setback shall be added to the front yard setback (as determined above) to produce a total of not less than thirty-five (35) feet, provided however, that in no case shall a rear yard be less than twenty (20) feet. The mathematical formula for this calculation is as follows. X = required front yard setback Y = required rear yard setback X plus Y = at least 35 feet b.) Where lot depth exceeds one hundred (100) feet, the minimum rear yard as determined by the above standard shall be increased by fifty percent (50%) of the portion of the lot depth in excess of one hundred (100) feet. Based on that 375 Fifth has 0 front setback, the above suggests that it would need to have a 35ft rear yard, no? What other rules would apply?
Posted on: 2016/3/23 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
The rear yard requirement in R1 is not 35 FT if the lot is not 100 FT deep. 375 5th is only 50-60 ft deep and following those guidelines, they should be leaving at least a 15 set back. the developer should be allowed to get more height and density if they are accommodating the neighbors. I am pretty sure the developer for the gas station site on Newark Ave (which is a different zoning altogether) gave those balconies a healthy size light well.
Property line windows are illegal and that's why the developer had to set those windows in from the property line knowing fully that a building can go up against it. I don't have any issues with the height or the number of units proposed here. 375 5th is next to a new 5 story building now and going from 6 units on 3 stories to 12 on 5 is not a stretch for me. What would be a stretch is if they are not accommodating the balconies. Not fair to compare a mid-block proposed building with 96% lot coverage to a corner building (Oak Condominiums 369 5th) which is 100% lot coverage. ALMOST ALL corner buildings are 100% lot coverage. The ones that are aren't look pretty terrible since that would mean that there is a gap in the street scape. Mid block buildings are RARELY 100% lot coverage (ground floors being an exception) Oak should support more density, and height, for an exchange of accommodating balconies that should have never been built in the first place.
Posted on: 2016/3/23 12:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Interesting about the lot coverage and minimum rear yard setbacks - those would make the difference.
Here is the previous agenda where it was adjourned - as you can see, the variances are both height and lot coverage. http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset/ ... 8b-4559-b913-0665caaa1684 The current building seems to have somewhere between 30 and 50 feet of yard so it could be close - but I doubt they are looking to build without the variance anyway.
Posted on: 2016/3/23 3:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Thanks for providing info. So this is the 375 Fifth Street developer that original wanted variances to build a 7-story, 19 unit building on the lot: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34038 I see some level of irony here in that the developer behind Fifth Oaks Condominiums (with the balconies) must have got a variance to build a building that covers 100% of the lot and 4 stories high in an R1 zone (be it because the building that was torn down to make place for the development was already covering the full lot). The residents of that development is now asking the zoning board to stop the developer of the neighboring lot from getting a similar height and coverage variance because it would block their balconies that abut the side property line. I am not saying that I support granting this new variance - but there is some level of irony in there. Still, even the proposed new R5 zoning standard for the village requires a 30ft rear setback (see 3b) and to build a light well in the new development, in case a building with a window already exists on neighboring lot (see 3c). http://hpnajc.org/resources/Documents ... %20R-5%20PB%20Version.pdf So even under this proposed new zoning standard would the 375 Fifth Street developer need a variance to brick up the balconies of Fifth Oaks Condominiums.
Posted on: 2016/3/23 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I didn't realize there was an issue from the other side as well then. So both corners of the building will have their balconies blocked in? If it's true that the developer is going for 90% coverage instead of the 65% allowed then that's BS and I wish you all luck. Hopefully the board will see how dumb that would be.
Posted on: 2016/3/23 2:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
 |
the variances the developer is going for are both height (5 stories where 3 is allowed) and building coverage (90+% rather than the 65% allowed) - it is currently an R1, and will still be an R1 on April 7th.
The lot coverage that is the biggest problem for the balconies.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 23:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If the new building is going to follow the odd property line and completely seal the balconies off here?s an idea. See if you can get the new building owners to chip in. (you never know) Keep the square part of the balconies up to the column that have the sliding glass doors. Put the railing on the side making a nice square area. For the triangle part of the balcony that has the regular window, demolish the roof and deck on the 3rd floor and the deck on the 2nd floor. What you will be doing is creating your own light and air well. You can still sit on your now square balcony and at least get some air and light.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 22:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It?s interesting to do a Google Earth/Satellite map on 369 5th Street Jersey City.
That building with the balconies is oddly shaped. I wonder if the new building will hug the odd property line. Maybe not and you will at least get air and light in one part of the balcony either the side or back. Happened to someone I know they owned a 3 story building. It had an attached 2 story building next store. The 3 story building had a big dining room window overlooking the 2 story building and beyond. New owners ripped down the 2 story building and went 3 stories. The window had to be sealed shut because it wasn?t a bedroom.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 20:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
It may not be the height requirement that a variance is sought from, but rear yard requirements or lot/building coverage percentage. IF the lot next door is zoned as R1, then it seems as if a 35 feet rear yard is required. See ? 345-40 E.6 https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-34ZODI#! If 35 feet rear yard is required and was respected, then the rear three balconies in the google street view would NOT be bricked up. The balconies and french doors that are closer to the street are built into a well, and the window and french door openings seem to be more than 3ft away from side property line, so seems to conform to zoning from that perspective. But light would of course be reduced if building next door was built upon. As said in previous post, it would be interesting to know from the horses mouth what variance is sought, and how it is specifically related to balconies.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 20:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Lol! Gentrification at its finest. #makeityours!!!
How horrible to lose so much after having given so much to the community that you have displaced.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 20:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
This lot was already approved as far as I know - for a much larger building - 318 Newark Ave http://bgtenterprises.com/project/316-newark-avenue/ I think the lot in question is this one: https://goo.gl/maps/PuE5Wb1GGmo It was adjourned to the April 7th agenda. Your Google view is actually better for understanding the balconies that are going to be blocked - and unfortunately it seems everyone here is correct. The existing building is already 3 stories high and would block 2/3 floors of balconies if extended backwards. So it seems like the best option is to try and come up with some deal where the owner would build taller on the far end of the block in exchange for some space on that side. Otherwise, I guess you can attempt to obstruct as long as possible, but this would seem to be a losing battle - under the new proposed R-5 zone, this lot would be allowed to be 4 Stories as of right, already blocking all balconies.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 19:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
This conversation seems to deal with similar issue - window close to property line: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35408 You have my sympathies: having a wall built right next to your balconies would reduce the light, usefulness and monetary value . But out of curiosity, what is the zoning requirement that they are seeking variance from, that is related to your balconies? Hope it works out.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 19:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So I'm assuming current 'law' (zoning) allows for 4 floors since that's the height of your building. Therefore, even if the variance is not granted, a building of 4 floors is still legally allowed on that site and it will block the views and sunlight from the balconies. CatDog is right. Unfortunately, it was the developer of YOUR building that hoodwinked you due to the shitty design flaw of putting balconies on the abutting property line. They knew full well that vacant lot would eventually be developed, but by then, they would be long gone and the future residents would be left with the problem. Shameful. In all honestly, and I know this sounds counter-intuitive, you would be better off asking that some of the bulk of the new building be setback enough to allow sunlight and views from the balconies in exchange for allowing to build taller on the opposite end of the site, which will minimize the impacts to your building. Of course there is always blanket knee-jerk reaction to any suggestions of greater height or density, even when it would make sense to preserve your views and light. Good luck dealing with your fellow village neighbors on that one.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 19:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2009/3/19 15:20 Last Login : 2020/6/2 11:06 From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
709
|
Quote:
Came here to say pretty much this. I doubt there is much that can be done at this point. You're better off trying to make a deal with the developer of the new property ASAP.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yeah, this is awful. Hope people voice their dissatisfaction.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The zoning issue is the specific height of the building, I don't believe there are any laws against how close they're building to the property line. The problem with your balconies is the idiot that designed the building decided to put balconies directly on a property line. I don't know why the zoning department ever approved that design in the first place.
I feel your pain and it must really suck if you weren't aware of the property lines, but the fault isn't in the guy building on the empty lot, the fault is in your building buttressing right up on that line. I think your only recourse would be to try and work out a deal and buy the rights to some of the land or air on his lot. Though at this point it's probably too late, that building has been in the works for years.
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Out of curiosity, What is allowed to be built under current 'law' (zoning)? Is this the lot in question? https://goo.gl/maps/3LqtNRZVUro
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Hi fellow JC residents. We the owners of Fifth Oaks Condominiums located at 369 5th Street in the Village really need your support at the next city zoning board meeting on Thursday April 7th at 6:30 pm (City Hall, 2nd Floor). Developers of the property next to us are asking for a variance that would allow them to build a 5-story directly next to our balconies. This leave us without natural light or air and creates a safety hazard in the event of a fire. The law says this is not allowed but the developers are asking for permission (i.e. variance) to adjust this law just so they can cram a lot of tiny apartments into one small lot. We are all open to change and progress but not at the cost of the families who have established their lives here. Any support would be greatly appreciated! Please come out on April 7th and let the city know Jersey City families deserve better!
Posted on: 2016/3/22 18:04
|
|||
|
||||