Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
The new language regarding 5 year abatements is as follows: "every application for a tax exemption subject to a tax agreement under Section 304-12B, must be filed and approved before proceeding with the project, that is, prior to construction commencing;" From what I can tell, that means: Improvements to single family homes, new construction of single dwelling, improvements to multiple dwelling, conversion to multiple dwelling, improvements to commercial and industrial structures --> resolution approval by city council and not subject to 12B New construction of commercial or industrial structures or multiple dwellings by tax agreement. --> is required to comply with 12B which should be subject to the new law (per above) But I am not a lawyer...check it out here: https://www2.municode.com/library/nj/j ... ordinances?nodeId=CH304TA Rolando proposed it so that people would be required to comply with PECA in order to get a tax abatement. PECA is essentially a good faith contract with the city to hire locally.
Posted on: 2016/6/22 21:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Thanks Candice for clearing that up. I also received a PM from someone stating that they were able to qualify recently for a 5 year abatement.
My one building is 4 units, but it is pretty large, but doesn't have a commercial unit. Do you have handy the criteria that a building owner must apply before starting work?
Posted on: 2016/6/20 12:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
That is incorrect. Here is what was changed, you cannot apply for the abatement after the fact if your building is a certain size or contains commercial property. You have to file for it before you break ground. I cannot remember the original intention, it was legislation that Rolando put up. However, I think we should change it back because we've had people who have done good things (the EXACT things we want in terms of renovations) not being able to qualify for an abatement and have relatively small places (for example on Newark Avenue.)
Posted on: 2016/6/17 20:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The height restriction and the setbacks I found maddening when I was trying to layout a building on a corner lot. No matter what I did, I kept creating another 'Bayonne Box' because it was the only way to layout a place without having railroad type apartments. Tall ceilings in city apartments really improve the rental value. People don't feel so claustrophobic. Building codes will incentivize builders to not go over three stories anyway. Once you hit 4+, you have to put in sprinklers, which REALLY drives up costs. Just raise the heights to 55 ft and be done with it.
Posted on: 2016/6/15 13:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
A user named 'Mitts' stated the 5 year abatement is gone: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=402525 Next year if the budget gods are willing, I would like to upgrade the craptastic siding I have on two building in the Heights. It would be nice to get a little bit of a tax break to help defray the cost.
Posted on: 2016/6/15 13:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
But as I pointed out in the previous thread, this 30' 3 floor build is actually impossible in the real world where a "flat roof" isn't. It's pitched, so that a 45' deep house is at least 3 feet higher at the street side. BTW, this is what creates the blank fascia that the typical ornate cornice is built upon. I'm guessing this impossible criteria is the reason so much conforming R1 infill is 35' peaked roofs, which are given an extra 5' for their pitch. I'm no expert, but it sure looks like someone screwed up royally in the R1 standard.
Posted on: 2016/6/15 3:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yup. That's exactly why the NA were arguing that practically speaking it never happened and where the 31' came from in their original counter to plannings initial suggestion.
Posted on: 2016/6/15 2:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Candice,
I had thought the 44' current R-1 height you quoted was wrong, so I looked it up. It's actually pretty complex. 44' is only with a peaked roof and 12' ceilings. A "normal" brownstone type 9' ceiling flat roofed building can only be 30', as I read this. 350-40 https://www2.municode.com/library/nj/j ... VZODEST_S345-40ONTWFAHODI 
Posted on: 2016/6/15 1:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Hi peeps -
Brief update here. We've been wanting to rezone this area for a while as it would give right incentives for folks to upgrade homes and we could avoid one off variances. I may be off on the edges, but this is essentially the history and where we were. What is allowed today 2 family, 3 story, 44 ft height limit Original proposal 4 family, 4 story, 44 ft height limit Revised proposal 1 - based on NAs' ask* North of Newark: 4 family, 4 story, 44 ft height limit South of Newark: 3 family, 3 story, 31 ft height limit *argument made was that 44ft was very theoretical and not practical in terms of what people actually built given that 3 stories have been allowed for some time Where We Are Now I stopped the revised proposal 1 from going to planning board because I felt that a significant zoning change needed to have an official mailing to property owners, especially since the proposal was to take something away (height.) However, in the meantime we heard back from legal that there would be a legal risk in down zoning the height in this way without going through a master plan change. SOOOOO... The question we are now discussing on the city side is this: do we wait for master plan or do we do something temporary in the meantime. IF it makes sense to do something temporary it will not include any reduction in height but likely be one of these two options Increase # of units only (today at 2) Increase # of units (today at 2) and # of stories (today at 3) That said we are still trying to figure out if it makes sense to do anything or just wait until the master plan. MDM - what happened to remove the 5 year abatement? I am not aware of the abatement going away. Contact me on email so I can get more details. If this is something we can add back on, I will sponsor as it is a no brainer.
Posted on: 2016/6/14 23:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There are plenty of crappy properties around me that would be good for a tear down.
Maybe Yun would be receptive..... and possibly Boggiano (I am in his ward). I would also like to see the 5 year tax abatement for major capital improvements re-instated.
Posted on: 2016/6/14 21:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Interesting they're going to put the master plan on the table. Hey MDM, lets give Yun a howl and demand R-5 in the Heights! Although it may be too late, looks like every damn lot has a Bayonne Box already on it.
Posted on: 2016/6/14 3:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
I figure anyone trying to keep up with the zoning discussion might be interested in knowing what they told us at the June VNA meeting.
No in-depth report this time as it was a long day and most of my notes are just so much chickenscratch. But here's the key takeaway: that whole discussion about updating the zoning? the survey that's supposed to go out to residents in the current R-1? it may no longer be happening, at least not any time soon. It came up somehow to the council/planning board that seeing as the city master plan hasn't been revisited in forever and a day, it might be a good time to update it. So they're looking into that idea. However, the process of updating the master plan would obviously clash with the whole rezone-downtown-R1-to-R5 discussion that's been going on. So that discussion would be delayed until after the new master plan has been drawn up, which could take anywhere from 18-24 months to complete. Again, that's IF they decide to go forward with it. So everything's sort of up in the air right now.
Posted on: 2016/6/14 2:42
|
|||
|
||||