Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
The comments at the end of the article say a lot. It seems you really have to do your homework before you make this grand purchase. I wonder how many of those units will be owner occupied ?
Posted on: 2016/4/12 0:49
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2016/4/11 23:09
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm assuming the developer made a presentation - are copies of that available to the public? Did the issue of modifying the proposed building's footprint and massing get discussed, to see if the developer was at least amendable to some changes to make the neighbors happier? In approving the variance(s) for 369, the Board could have taken into account the impact on future non-compliant development on adjoining lots to aspects of the first building, such as the lot-line balconies Who is on this Board? Are there people with expertise in design, site planning, real estate?
Posted on: 2016/4/8 18:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2016/4/8 16:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
 When will there be a realization that there are very serious issues with the R1 zoning here in that it necessitates the need for so many variances. The existing 369 5th Street is zoned R1 but is grossly nonconforming. They too would have had to receive a variance at one point to build with zero side and yard setbacks. So I can understand why the board approved this new development as it would be improper to have a grossly noncomplaint 369 5th Street masquerading in the R1 zone east of the subject site (whose residents are hypocritically fighting a development of a smaller scale), a previously approved eight-storey building to the immediate south, and the NC zoning to the west. The city tries to fix the issues with R1 by introducing the proposed R5 zoning and the community rejects it, so fine, the village will continue its game of escalating variances. Enjoy your revals. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/4/8 16:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Totally agree, F the kids! They can live in the dark. While we're at it, we should let these developers and slumlords take over city parks too.
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/4/8 15:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Good. Maybe the NIMBYs should trot out better arguments than "Waahhhhh, we'll lose our free parking" and "Think of the children!" when they decide to oppose something. Unfortunately, they got their way with the R5 zoning.
Posted on: 2016/4/8 13:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2015/3/27 14:48 Last Login : 2017/6/16 10:24 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
10
 |
Thanks for the update
Posted on: 2016/4/8 13:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
The proposal was approved unanimously.
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/4/8 13:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2015/3/27 14:48 Last Login : 2017/6/16 10:24 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
10
|
Was there any progress made last night or did it get moved to the next hearing?
Posted on: 2016/4/8 11:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
Joined:
2009/6/11 13:44 Last Login : 2017/4/10 23:12 From Henderson Yards
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
123
|
CEO - I'm not supporting the tear down of the original NY Penn Station here. And it's also not the tower that the opposition would have you believe. It's an old ugly apartment building that is getting replaced by a new larger apartment building with (I believe) the same ownership. We live in a growing city and need to act like it. We're not selling our souls here.
Posted on: 2016/4/7 21:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/9/18 3:58 Last Login : 2021/9/23 15:07 From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
907
|
And this - "Residents point to studies showing that sunlight is beneficial for growth, which includes building stronger bones, healing skin conditions, and cancer prevention. Varghese is frustrated that at least seven children who live in the building will be directly impacted."
Are they going to leave the windows open during the summer? UVB rays can't pass through glass. Most of their other arguments are just as lame. If they really want the last laugh, sell the building as a tear down to a different developer so they can get a variance to build an even taller structure.
Posted on: 2016/4/7 20:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
We have witnessed the birth of the NIMBL-Y! (Not In My Balcony Light).
Posted on: 2016/4/7 18:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
I was at that VNA meeting - and you are correct that the developer's point was that since his building was close to those that are zoned NC, he shouldn't have to comply with the R1 that he is zoned. That is classic zoning by variance, and I am concerned about the success of an argument about being "NC adjacent" being the same thing as NC. Also - all he wanted was the height and density goodies of an NC, but not the other parts of that zoning that can make the added height and density more palatable - commercial space or parking.
Posted on: 2016/4/7 16:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
But you can get behind slumlords who don't live in the neighborhood and are trying to maximize profit at the expense of the people who do live here. Got it.
Quote: Tino wrote:
Posted on: 2016/4/7 13:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2009/6/11 13:44 Last Login : 2017/4/10 23:12 From Henderson Yards
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
123
|
Not really the point I was going for, but sure I guess it does. The developer/lawyer's main points were that the building is practically in the Newark Ave. zone and should be zoned accordingly, the adjacent building heights are in line with what they're trying to build, adding a garage for parking would kill 2 permanent street parking spots and only net gain a couple spots.
The neighbors' main arguments were that they're not enough parking and that the building would cast too many shadows. It wasn't that they had bad arguments, but they were so rude and disrespectful that the VNA leaders eventually had to ask them to leave. So yeah - are the fears valid? I guess, but they're just not people I could get behind. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/4/7 3:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2015/4/15 21:55 Last Login : 2017/10/22 19:17 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
19
|
Quote:
So: douchy on one side trumps embarrassing on the other side? Did any of the sides make any valid or convincing factual arguments at the meeting? I wasn't there, so I can't evaluate the level of embarrassment versus douchyness, but in most cases I find I am generally anti-douche.
Posted on: 2016/4/6 13:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2009/6/11 13:44 Last Login : 2017/4/10 23:12 From Henderson Yards
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
123
|
The developers presented on this project at the Village Neighborhood Association a few months back and while the lawyer for the developer was obnoxious and rather douchy, the reaction from the people who live across the street from the property was so over-the-top, so NIMBY, so embarrassing, there is no way to take the opposition to this project seriously.
Posted on: 2016/4/6 4:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
I agree that profits should never be used for developing a property. After all, Bernie Sanders could become president. My understanding is that r1 is only 2 units though. The existing 6 family building is not even r1.
There is a 6 story that just got approved next to my building on Newark Ave and 3rd. My 16 unit condo (5 story) fully supported it as I was sick and tired of that sorry mural that looks like the Statue of Liberty in a jungle. I am all in favor of great design building replacing collapsing buildings in the Village. That's exactly what we need here. What's wrong with more height? I dont want newport but 375 5th is already next to a 5 story building! surely there must be a compromise here that would make those balconies happy but let the developer still build too. That would be a GREAT reason to grant a variance. Make those balconies happy; sure they shouldnt have been there in the first place but make them happy and build something more than what zoning allows
Posted on: 2016/4/6 0:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Wishful_Thinking wrote: Quote:
In this case, there is little economic hardship in the development - a 6 apartment building currently exists, although in bad shape - and it has been owned by the same family for decades. This is not the case of someone paying so much money for the property that developing within the zoning rules is impossible. With apartments in the Village going for between $650 and $700 a square foot, even if they tore down and re-created the existing building it would make profit. And if the zoning rules were enforced, the market would keep the prices in check. Land where one can build only 3 stories is going to be less expensive than land where 6 stories are permitted. Part of the problem in the Village is that height and lot coverage variances started to be handed out with such frequency that developers started paying more for parcels than a conforming R1 building could sustain. But I don't think the community is under any obligation to make good on their gambles.
Posted on: 2016/4/5 23:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
how is this a parcel that can't be practically built on? there's already a perfectly functional building there, that the owners have let go to hell. now they'd like to tear that down and replace it with something twice as large. that sounds like a straight-up land-grab (and a bad precedent). the neighbors with the might-be-covered balconies should never have been granted a variance to go straight to the property line like that, but one bad decision doesn't excuse future awful planning.
Posted on: 2016/4/5 22:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you have good zoning ordinances, you probably won't see a lot of applications for variances. Typically, variances are granted when the property owner can demonstrate that existing zoning regulations present a practical difficulty in making use of the property. I would imagine in the case of this property - and probably a lot of properties in JC - the R-1 zoning just doesn't make it economically viable to build much of anything, given land values, construction costs, etc. Thus, the request for a variance to build something that is economically viable. In too much of Jersey City, good planning for future development has given way to catering to vested interests. In the Village, you have a lot of people who benefit and enjoy the under-developed nature of the area, yet the values of their properties keep going up, along with the cost of acquiring land, so that when the City caves to their demand for no development you get situations like this - a parcel that can't practically be built on, unless the waivers are granted. While I sympathize with the residents, I for one won't sign the petition - what we need IMO is for the city to revisit it's masterplan and do away with R-1 zoning except in neighborhoods with a clearly suburban character, like Bentley Avenue, and enable better zoning for a denser city. One question - how did 369 Fifth Street, with the affected balconies, get it's waivers? There must have been one to allow non-conforming light wells or side yards, which is what the balconies will become if something is built to the lot line and closes them in.
Posted on: 2016/4/5 18:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/4/5 11:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No zoning law can properly address every single issue or need; and variances are not granted just because you ask for one. They can be a useful tool for urban planning.
Posted on: 2016/4/5 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You really had to bring your kids into it? That's so lame. "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!" Face it, you people only care about your property value so spare us the drama.
Posted on: 2016/4/5 0:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sheesh! I can't wait until the day stateaidguy and the enemies of Fulop get their wish of removing JC from the list of Abbott districts and a state-mandated reval.
Irony is a building built with significant variances to zoning is now advocating against a building next door asking for those same variances. To be honest, I wish you guys luck even though there is a hint of hypocristism. ZonIng shold be more flexible and variances only used for those rare cases with strong publix support. JC_User, reading comprehension must not be your strong point. I was arguing that taxpayers in Jersey City should support new development, like the developers of 99 Hudson, as it did not receive a tax abatement and will contribute millions in revenue, reducing the taxes the rest of us pay since it's a zero-sum game. It was esentially the same argument you just made. No, JC_User, I don't think you're a NIMBY. The OP may technically be one though.
Posted on: 2016/4/4 0:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Why have zoning laws if there are variances ? Can I still sign even though I do not live within the radius of said project and ward ?
Posted on: 2016/4/3 22:26
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sign our Petition!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
https://www.change.org/p/jersey-city-z ... ition&utm_medium=copylink
Please sign and post a comment if you can!!! Thank you in advance for your support:) Please watch this short video: https://youtu.be/59YbpbYCw1c
Posted on: 2016/4/3 21:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
ENJOY YOUR LOWER, YEAH RIGHT, TAX RATES.
Posted on: 2016/3/31 5:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We need your help in the village!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
This is disingenuous at best. A reval is a zero-sum game. Had property prices/values increased uniformly across the city, the tax bill of each property would have remained the same before/after the reval. A reval would/will hit downtown so hard because property prices/values in downtown has increased much more than other areas of the city since the last reval took place. Those are simple facts. But allowing developers to knock down the existing housing stock in the village and replace it with 4 story buildings with increased foot print (building coverage) will not lead to lower tax bills for downtown home owners. What will actually have a noticeable impact on property taxes downtown is to encourage development and revitalization in those areas where property values have lagged since the last reval ? e.g. the towers that are finally being built at journal square and other larger scale revitalization projects outside of downtown. This is an area that I personally think Fulup has so far followed through on campaign promises ? focusing the city?s efforts and tools, e.g. abatements, to encourage development in other areas than downtown ?in the areas where revitalization is needed. But downtown does not need the City to give hand-outs to developers in the form of abatements, gratuitous zoning-variances or large scale zoning changes in the village for development to continue or the community to thrive. And before bringing out the big NIMBY label/stamp (that you have used on several occasions on people expressing an opinion that differs from yours) you should known that I personally would not mind taller buildings than R1 being built as infills on already empty lots or in place of the commercial properties west of Brunswick. But as it?s been said already, if developers want to knock down the existing 100 year old housing stock and build new 4 story or higher buildings inside the village, they should provide some tangible benefit/ give-back to the community in return for the privilege to do so.
Posted on: 2016/3/31 1:41
|
|||
|
||||