Just got an appraisal done on Wednesday to refinance and they are asking why we are using a legal 4 family as a 3 family. They want some kind of documentation saying we are allowed to use it as a 3 instead of a 4. We are going to talk to the appraiser directly to see if we can clear it up.

I just had my 2-family appraised that has a "bonus apartment" which I just use as a guest room. The appraiser said he had no choice but to leave it off the report since the report must follow certain formulas. Apparently, all these guys do is count the bedrooms and plug the numbers into their software. There is nowhere to account for a "bonus apartment" so all they can do it call it a finished basement or whatever. It doesn't affect the appraisal value one way or another, since that is generated by recent comp sales.

Who do we call to report illegal apartments? I actually know a few people who rent out their basements/ garage space & turn them into a small studio apartment.

Thanks Chief.

But doesn't "decommissioning" the 3rd unit mean that the income component of an appraisal is drastically cut? Or is it really just comps on a 2 unit?

Since you said nothing about changing the CoO, does that mean it simply doesn't ever happen? I was wondering if a lot of them were never applied for to keep the taxes down.

Quote:

It's a big no-no for the banks if you try to get a mortgage on it. You may get away with it but I wouldn't count on it. I do a lot of 2-4 unit properties and this comes up from time to time usually when purchasing from an old timer. I have my client or the realtor remove the stove and fridge prior to the appraisal. As long as the gas lines are capped you should be OK. Some banks make you remove the cabinets as well. You can use a 3 as a 2 and a 2 as a 1 but not vise versa.

Has anyone actually gotten the "bonus apt" in a 2 family approved to a 3 family CoO? I was looking at such a property in a historic district but am nervous about the illegal apt. How do appraisers treat them, as empty space or income producing?

If 30% of properties are in this boat, maybe I should chill as long as the space is safe and potentially legal. But I've enough experience with Buildings dept to fear what could happen if I came on their radar.

Quote:

If you live in a R-1 zone (1 and 2 family homes), it's relatively simple. I think you just submit your plans and they will be approved. But you can't always assume what your block's zoning is based on what you see around you. You might discover that you actually live in a R-3 zone (low-rise apartment buildings), and even though what you want to do is less dense than zoning allows, you'll still need to get a zoning variance. Between the architect, lawyer, professional planner, and fees, it could run $10k. I speak from experience here. Your best first step is to call zoning and find out what you're actually zoned for.

How easy is it to legally convert a one family home into a two family?

Asumming the zoning is correct (other houses in the street are all 2 and 3 family), and the size of the house is adequate (this is a 4 story building, so could comfortably accomodate two families), what is the process to make it a legal two family?

Robin.

I like the idea around beefing up the census counters - completely different approach to a long-time problem. Seems to me like an innovative idea that not only could fill big holes in the budget but doesn't cost anything. Can't remember the last time something like that was presented.

Coincidentally, there was a story on NPR yesterday that talked about the difficulty illegal apartments pose for census takers in NYC.

Census: The Hard Task of Counting New Yorkers

I just wanted to share with you all my editorial that was published in today's Jersey Journal as it relates to illegal apartments in Jersey City.

Steven Fulop


IN THEIR OPINION
A better illegal apartments plan
Friday, June 05, 2009
By STEVEN FULOP

SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL

Last week, Mayor Healy raised the issue of the city capitalizing financially on its sizable number of illegal apartments. This is a significant quality-of-life issue that has broad repercussions in terms of safety, public services, and potentially state and federal funding if these residents aren't being recorded. Although I prefer a different approach to resolving this problem than through the legalization of these illegal apartments, I am in complete agreement with the mayor that we need to address this all too frequent occurrence.

Illegal apartments affect their neighborhoods in a variety of ways. Since they typically lack a secondary exit or basic fire suppression equipment, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors, these apartments pose disproportionately high fire risks to their tenants, other occupants in the house, and neighboring structures. Additionally, given that illegal apartments increase the population of a neighborhood beyond the level for which it was planned and built, all residents in the neighborhood suffer from diminished services such as sewage, trash pickup, and the overall cleanliness of the area. Likewise, the scarcity of on-street parking in certain parts of the city is only made worse through the existence of illegal apartments.

The problem with the mayor's current proposal is that the worst offenders wouldn't choose to participate. What would likely happen with legalization for illegal apartment owners would be that owners of buildings most easily brought into compliance with building and safety codes would step forward. Owners of older buildings and those posing the greatest threat to public safety would abstain and their buildings would remain a threat to their neighbors. In this regard, a legalization program would do very little to resolve the very real dangers these apartments pose.

In the current economic environment, any potential source of new revenue for the city can be tempting. However, waiving long-standing procedures and codes in an attempt to generate revenue is fraught with fairness issues. If the illegal apartments are allowed to remain, what do we say to the person in the future who would like to divide their home into apartments and enjoy the same right?

If the mayor's objective is safety, we are not solving the problem since the worst violators won't be compliant. If the mayor's goal is to generate more revenue for the city, it is important to note that this can be done in connection with the Census without condoning prior illegal activity. In the last census in 2000, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers post-Census report indicated that Hudson County had the second highest rate of undercounting in the country, with an estimated 13,620 residents going unreported in that count. Since Jersey City represented roughly half of that total, the loss of state and federal aid amounted to more than $70 million, according to published estimates of $10,674 of state and federal aid lost per each uncounted person.

Currently, the city has very few people dedicated to next year's Census. By temporarily reassigning existing city employees to assist in the census-taking process, we can, in a cost-neutral way, gain a truer understanding of the scope of the illegal apartment problem and avoid the negative repercussions that would follow legalization.

This more patient approach would not only allow us to begin to address the mayor's concerns around determining the exact number of illegal apartments but also meet another of his goals by identifying a major source of revenue through correcting the census undercount.

In the meantime, we should be adding inspectors to find the worst illegal apartment offenders to ensure their safety as well as that of their neighbors. Increased safety, a large new source of recurring revenue and the resolution of a long-standing blight, all at minimal cost to the city; what's not to like?

STEVEN FULOP is the Jersey City councilman for Ward E, which is made up of mostly the Downtown section of the city.

?2009 Jersey Journal
? 2009 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

Quote:

This sounds like it really has less to do with the proposal at the top, and more to do with you expressing your rights as 50% owner of the property. Surely legally there needs to be a condo association of 2 members making all decisions once half the property has been sold. Not only have your owners rights been flouted, but I would think you are owed half of whatever rents he is making from the illegal apt.

Binky, I get you, but there's lots of sides to the "conservation of character" debate. R1 on my block forced the construction of 2 set back, short, peaked roofed, 2 families on lots that were gaps in a row of 4 floor, flat roofed, red brick apartment houses. It looks horrible, and nothing like the character the block must have had before the lots were vacated decades ago, presumably by fires. I've seen infill in similar spots in Hoboken that fit right in with the character of the block. I don't get the logic of zoning that precludes most of the pre-existing structures.

what leverage do we have to protect ourselves?

we worked hard to save for our down payment and purchase of a condo in one of these two-family style new constructions.
after the other unit continued to sit on the market, the builder came in and built one of these illegal apts behind the garage. we now live with two other families who rent and don't treat their place in the same manner one would if they owned. (and have invited extended family to move in with them). it is noisy, beyond capacity, etc.
our master deed clearly states we bought into a two-family dwelling (zoned as condos), not three. we'll now be incurring more legal fees as we have to bring our attorney into this.
has anyone else encountered this who can offer advice? what do we need to do before this additional apt is made legal?

Quote:

No. Not everyone has an illegal apartment in their house. But they would be able to once this ball starts rolling. Of course, not everyone wants to have one, but they would be foolish not to obtain the right to one so as to increase the house's value when it is sold.
There are apartment buildings in this city with groups of people living on mattresses in the basement. Should we make sure that they have a refrigerator and stove so that it is a legal rooming house?
And by the way, last year wasn't someone talking about making basement (garden) apartments illegal because of the flooding?

And Brewster, call it social engineering if you will, but I don't think that wanting my neighborhood to retain the character it had when I bought my house is a bad thing.

Property tax is one thing, and they can give some sort of amnesty if they want to for that... but what about their income taxes? I wonder if Uncle Sam will be so forgiving. Illegal apartments = unclaimed income most of the time.

Just sayin'.

Quote:

+1, again and again...
30% of properties estimated and would be revalued. Increasing the tax revenue by selectively carving out groups of the population, scapegoating them (who is going to defend landlords with illegal apts.) and making them pay. Anything to avoid doing a citywide reval cause it would make for a city of mostly angry voters, even his supporters. If that happens he believes he will be serving his last years in ANY political office.

I am sure we will hear more of these kind of ideas floated in the near future because with Abbott funding gone, supplemental aid gone, and new PILOTs almost dried up because of the bad real estate market the city needs another revenue source to plug the budget, FAST....

How about the novel idea of enforcing the codes? I know, I know..this is the Twilight Zone, JC style.

"Sneaky Heally" indeed, must admire his politics though.

The density issue isn't an issue. I say this because the people are already illegally living there anyway and maybe parking here anyway. The city is just trying to get what they deserve. Parking in urban areas has always been an issue.

Quote:

All very true. There's no such thing as a (legal) free lunch.

Our last green card inspection cost us several hundred, plus several hundred more in penalty because we missed some fine print in what we needed to do after receiving the report.

I don't know much about the sprinkler issue, but I thought it has more to do with the scale of renovation than number of units. If you renovate past a certain "repair" point they can make you upgrade all sorts of plumbing and electrical stuff. I've yet to see an older multifamily rental building with sprinklers, however those don't tend to be extensively renovated but not condo-ed.

When a building changes from 2 to 3 families, it is now under state law. The homeowner will have inspections from the state. What is considered legal as a 2 family is now deemed illegal as a 3 family. You are spending a lot of money to bring the building up to code. The state inspects every 5 years and charges the homeowner for the inspection.
Yvonne

From Article:
Quote:

Lets stop scaremongering and misquoting the proposal as reducing housing or safety standards. All that's being proposed is giving a zoning variance to apartments that can meet or are up to code but are currently over the zoning density allowed. This is a density, not a safety issue.

this is a slippery slope. i can see the social benefits from an amnesty that leads to increased tax base as well as improved living spaces.

by extension, this increases property values and acts as an indirect tax revenue. and this city needs more tax revenue because it has squandered away, through its ill-conceived tax abatements, revenue that could have been used to fund the enforcement of rules that improve or benefit the community.

but, it will further marginalize those who have no option but to live in unsafe apartments. and this city does not really embrace those living on the margin of society.

we can only hope that these rules will be enforced with greater consistency than the parking rules ....

or we can just dream ...

Quote:

Sneaky Healy.... this way he can do a partial re-val without actually saying so.

This is a very slippery slope.....i can agree on points from both sides of the arguement though. Also it will increase property values by adding legal units.

In response to someones post about turning 1 family house converted into 3 or 4 condos....can you give me an example? I have never heard of this....those are probably zoned 3 family homes being used as a 1 family and turned back into 3 separate condos. therefore it was a 3 family turned into 3 condos.

Its those apartments that keep the banks at bay and foreclosures - Healy goes after them now, his life will be hell and any future political ambition will be kissed away - Timing is everything!

Quote:

You fail to make the distinction between safety code and social engineering zoning. If a basement apt can be brought up to safety code, and only violate the density code, there's at least an argument to be made.

IMO, way too much of this town was made R1, a nearly suburban code. On my block there's 4 to 10 family buildings, with McNair towering over all, but the R1 restricts new infill construction to 2 families no taller than 35 ft and not sharing a wall with the neighbor, like every other older house on the block. This is simply trying to engineer the flavor of the street away from what it once was, and were it a historical block, would never be allowed.

It's scary to hear the mayor even contemplating this..and dangerous too.

Quote:

Not in JC where $$$ rule.

See "WALDO", uh, I mean "PAD".

Worst idea ever.
Zoning is done for a reason; it protects all of us.

If two family houses can automatically be rezoned for three, why not three for four, etc.

There will always be people getting over on the system and providing substandard, unsafe living, and there will always be people living in it.

Making what are now illegal apartments legal does not in anyway stop more from being created later. In fact, it encourages it.

Quote:

You make a good point, but I think the idea could work.

Also: I don't think bad code enforcement is the "reason" for illegal apartments, but it may be the reason the folks haven't gotten caught.

Anyway, I agree there are problems with the who clowns that will be doing the what enforcement.

Quote:

How exactly? They can't/don't enforce what they have now, that's why all the illegal apts.

You just made my point:

Can't enforce something? Make it legal; problem solved.

Quote: As yet, he hasn't gone after anything. It's just an idea, it seems, and needs fleshing out for: specifics; practicality; aligning incentives; legality, etc. Anyway, I like the idea of bringing these apartments back onto the reservation. It will make more taxable/ ratables for the city, will ensure code enforcement, and make for safer dwellings for many city residents. The tax increase to owners may pass along to those renters, but where the benefit is better and more reliable housing stock, that's acceptable.