Quote:

Next weeks meeting is to introduce the ordiance, the public does not speak before a 1st reading. The one in two weeks is the most impt. to attend and if able, you can speak before the council. You need to call the city clerks office and put your name on the speakers list. Good idea to call the other 8 and you may want to tell your neighbors to do the same.

Thanks pinkowitz for looking into this. I, unfortunately cannot attend this Wednesdays council meeting, but if you are going can you please write in and let us know the outcome of the meeting? I will, in the meantime, pursue contacts with as many councilmembers as possible.

I called Councilwoman Spinello to find out what is going on with all of this.

Here?s the status:
Councilwoman Spinello advised me that she spent the last two weeks researching the legal standpoints of this ordinance, working out any possible kinks that may be challenged in court.

The outcome:
Councilwoman Spinello is sponsoring to introduce the ordinance at this Monday?s Caucus meeting/Wednesdays Council meeting. This will be this first reading, and the council will vote to introduce the ordinance, and in two weeks at the following meeting, they will vote to adopt this ordinance.

I encourage anyone in favor of this to: call the other 8 Council persons and ask them to vote YES this Wednesday to introduce and in two weeks to vote YES to adopt it.

Although I agree with you that the jj is not known in my book for it's accurate accounting the article did state that " most [not all] of the properties lying between Gifford Avenue to the north, Harrison Avenue on the south, Bergen Avenue on the east and West Side Avenue on the west."


In any case, I have contacted both Mary Spinello, her aid, and Bob Cotter's office. I am freaking out because I was told that since the owner of the property on Fairview submitted paperwork before this ordinance could be approved, he may still be able to go through with his plans. This seems ridiculous. I would think that as long as his request has not been processed than he should be required to wait until this ordinance has been decided. Anyone know how this works?

figures -- gotta love that JJ, always getting their details right.

as somebody who owns a 100+ year old home on one of those other streets just outside the zone originally reported, i'm glad to hear other blocks in the beighborhood haven't been totally forgotten. unless, of course, you're our ward's councilwoman. in which case, we can go scratch...

Actually, this is right. I have a map copied from 30 Montgomery, and one portion of this zone falls exactly in the boundaries you outline. Other blocks in the area (Kensington, Jewett, Fairview) are also part of the proposed zone, but the "mass" of the zone is where JJ says.

in greenville, the zone is bounded by Danforth and Lembeck between Garfield and Ocean.

[quote]
NONdowntown wrote:
if you're looking to correct false statements, then contact the Jersey Journal, which has consistently reported that the R1A zone in question was bordered by Gifford Ave to the North, Harrison Ave to the South, Bergen to the East, and West Side to the West.

if you're looking to correct false statements, then contact the Jersey Journal, which has consistently reported that the R1A zone in question was bordered by Gifford Ave to the North, Harrison Ave to the South, Bergen to the East, and West Side to the West.

it is NOT incorrect to post that Fairview Avenue is not within this area, because Fairview is four city blocks north of Gifford Avenue.

If there is a discrepancy between the actual proposed R1A zone and the area reported in the Jersey Journal, that's something that should be addressed. Lord knows the JJ isn't known for its accuracy, or its fact-checking.

Quote:

FYI, contact numbers for your city councilmembers-at-large:

Mariano Vega, Jr. (Council President) - (201) 547-5268
Willie Flood (Councilwoman-at-Large) - (201) 547-5134
Peter Brennan (Councilman-at-Large) - (201) 547-5319

Just to clarify what was incorrectly posted earlier, Fairview is WELL within the R1-A zone. Maps are public record so you can check it out for yourself. Your councilperson should have a copy. Or, you can go to Planning at 30 Montgomery and ask to see a map there. They can't tell you no.

Everyone should continue to call their council person and implore that they bring this item back onto the agenda for the next council meeting. Any claim that fears of so-called "spot zoning" are false - also public record is a legal opinion that says it is not spot zoning. These council people were elected to represent their areas and protect the city - they are not doing either. Right now the major roadblock is Sottolano because he opposes this NOT ONLY in his district, but citywide. He is attempting to influence everyone.

Please, continue to tell your councilpeople how you feel - this item is very important to the future of our city so no more ugly houses go up in what should be a beautiful neighborhood.

Worm, your description of this horrible 'pink brick' epidemic is perfect. We should flush them all down the toilet. What an eye sore.

".......so within a year or two the once ugly pink/white brick looks as though diarrhea was poured onto it only adding to it's awkward presence among the surrounding houses."

I see more and more of these cheap two family buildings every day. We should protest at 30 Montgomery (4th floor.) All the contractors have to gather there to show their plans, etc. "NO PINK BRICK" signs should be made!!!!

The city officials must stop this now. Write your council members and tell them to not allow the pink brick. Christ all Mighty! How much more expensive is something a bit more brown?!

The cheap front doors, horrible design, and horrible railings.....I could on and on......

Venting is good.

Worm, you should definitely call councilwoman Spinello if you have not already. She needs to hear that people in her Ward, especially those that live in the affected properties, want this change.

Also, send me your e-mail by PM so I can add you to our list.

Mary Spinello has been disappointing as a council person to say the least. The property on Fairview that was mentioned in the article is a beautiful three story Victorian home. The owner of this property resides in a newly built pink brick house (complete with a cement lawn) across the street. To the left of him is another two family Victorian home (that he also owns) which recently suffered a fire. I can only imagine his intentions in regards to the property he is looking to have torn down across the street. If this ordinance is passed too late, my view wil be surrounded by pink brick and white cement. I will probably suffer severe weight loss because the sight of it will make me throw up constantly.
The laws surrounding the construction of these new brick houses are littered with holes. The houses are allowed to be built with a garage on the first level which then means that the property directly in front of it gets filled with cement. Although you are only supposed to use the driveway to access the garage, the laws cannot be enforced so as a result there are always cars parked there. The choice of white painted steel banisters inevitably rust so within a year or two the once ugly pink/white brick looks as though diarrhea was poured onto it only adding to it's awkward presence among the surrounding houses.

Mary Spinello has been disappointing as a council person to say the least. The property on Fairview that was mentioned in the article is a beautiful three story Victorian home. The owner of this property resides in a newly built pink brick house (complete with a cement lawn) across the street. To the left of him is another two family Victorian home (that he also owns) which recently suffered a fire. I can only imagine his intentions in regards to the property he is looking to have torn down across the street. If this ordinance is passed too late, my view wil be surrounded by pink brick and white cement. I will probably suffer severe weight loss because the sight of it will make me throw up constantly.
The laws surrounding the construction of these new brick houses are littered with holes. The houses are allowed to be built with a garage on the first level which then means that the property directly in front of it gets filled with cement. Although you are only supposed to use the driveway to access the garage, the laws cannot be enforced so as a result there are always cars parked there. The choice of white painted steel banisters inevitably rust so within a year or two the once ugly pink/white brick looks as though diarrhea was poured onto it only adding to it's awkward presence among the surrounding houses.

JP and Non LQQK @ PM

From the Conservancy's December 2006 newsletter (if you want to be on our e-mail list, send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll add you!)


----------


In an effort to prevent the growing phenomenon of ?tear downs? throughout Jersey City, where historic houses are demolished and replaced by cookie cutter style housing, the Planning Board unanimously took a small step forward by recommending a new ?R1A? zoning for certain neighborhoods in Jersey City. Unfortunately, the Jersey City City Council has blocked this legislation, further endangering several historic resources in Jersey City.

As we have discussed in previous newsletters and updates, most of the city's zoning is in the ?R1? category for single and two family residences. The standard lot size for R1 Zoning are 25 x 100 feet. Also included in R1 zoning, however, are neighborhoods with one and two family housing on substantially larger lots (such as 104 Farview Street, above). These areas include portions of West Bergen, Greenville, and Jersey City Heights, all of which include several examples of 19th century Victorian Style houses. Because these areas have been categorized as ?R1,? property owners may, as of right, demolish these houses, subdivide the lots, and replace them with two modern style cookie cutter houses.

The R1A zoning district, initially proposed by Jersey City's Planning Department, would alleviate this problem. The new zoning would keep the same permitted uses as in R1 zoning, but amend the lot size, width and depth requirements to ensure that these properties cannot be demolished and subdivided as of right. The new zoning, as originally drafted, would have applied to certain neighborhoods in West Bergen and Greenville.

On December 5, 2006, the Jersey City Planning Board recommended the changes, but removed the Greenville neighborhoods at the request of Planning Commissioner and Ward A Councilman Michael Sottolano, who requested a chance to review such changes with his constituents before including Greenville neighborhoods in the R1A zoning.

On December 13, 2006, the City Council was scheduled to hold a first reading of an ordinance to enact the Planning Board recommendations. The ordinance was removed from the agenda at the request of Ward B Councilwoman Mary Spinello, whose office has informed us that she had questions about whether such zoning would be considered ?spot zoning.? Both representatives from the planning board and from the city's law department have informed us that they are preparing opinion letters ensuring the council that the zoning is proper in all aspects.

The Conservancy supports the prompt adoption of the ordinance as recommended by the planning board. In addition, once passed, the Conservancy supports adding more areas to the R1A zoning district, including neighborhoods in Greenville and the Heights. Any further delay will risk the destruction of more historic resources. In fact, we have learned that due to the current delay, the city will most likely be powerless to prevent the demolition and subdivision of two properties in the West Bergen neighborhood.

Please contact Ward B councilwoman Mary Spinello, (201) 547-5092, email: SpinelloM@jcnj.org and request that she drop her objections to the ordinance and allow it to be placed on the City Council agenda. In addition, contact Ward A councilman Michael Sottolano, (201) 547-5098, email SottolannoM@jcnj.org, and ask that the relevant areas of Greenville be added to the R1A zoning. Finally, contact your local ward and at-large councilmembers and ask for the R1A zoning ordinance to be promptly adopted.

It's not a "spot zone." The R1A, as proposed by planning, would have covered those areas in Greenville and West Bergen that had lots that fit the zoning.

In some cases, only parts of blocks have these large lot sizes. You already have some smaller lots because the houses on them were previously demolished and subdivided, or because part of a block already had a set of row houses on standard size lots. Or in some cases, you have larger apartment buildings on part of the block.

It would make no sense to apply the "R1A" zoning to lots that had previously been non-conforming. The purpose is to save those areas of the city that DO conform.

Unfortunately, councilman Sottolano requested that Greenville be removed from the ordinance, claiming he wanted to consult with his constituents. Then councilman Spinello, without informing planning of her objections, had the city council table the ordinance.

Her aide informs us that this was due to the concerns that this would constitute "spot zoning." Both the planning dept and the law dept are preparing (or may have already prepared) opinion letters explaining why this is not spot zoning and why the zoning is entirely legal and appropriate.

Presumably, this will alleviate councilwoman Spinello's concerns. Unfortunately, delaying the introduction of this bill will probably allow at least two more teardowns in West Bergen (one on Fairview, one on Gifford).

Joshua Parkhurst
President
Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy

the ward B bulldog is named Ralf, and though he has no experience in public service, he is potty trained, and clearly more dedicated to the residents of Ward B than his current councilperson...

curious, who is the ward B bull-dog?

there's a discrepancy somewhere - likely in the JJ's reporting - because every story on the zoning proposal has specifically referred to the spot-zone's borders as Gifford to the North, Harrison to the South, Bergen to the East, and West Side to the West. Fairview is well outside this area.

Note that the JJ recently reported the house-invasion on lower Fairview as taking place on Fairview near MLK (the two streets don't even come close to intersecting).

Just because the JJ prints it (and the Senior Planner may or may not have said it) doesn't make it so. I'd check on it for yourself if you really have a stake in the matter.

As for Spinello's eleventh hour tabling request - i have no doubt she's up to something. not that it's a bad idea to make sure the ordinance is passed as legally bulletproof as possible, but as a resident of her ward, i can say she inspires little trust. when on earth is her term up? we'd run our bulldog against her (and hopefully win)...


Quote:

Fairview is covered. Note the last line of the article above:

"Two projects are in the pipeline - one on Fairview Avenue, the other on Bentley Avenue - that would be affected by this ordinance, said city Senior Planner Kristin Russell"

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that Fairview avenue was considered under this ordinance mainly because on the block between JFK and Bergen, there exist eight one and two family properties that are on these oversized lots.

Too bad Fairview Avenue is about 6 blocks north of Gifford Avenue, and thus outside the "spot-zone" in question and would not be within the protection of this ordinance.

Nice to know the city's "Senior Planner" doesn't have a map to look at (and neither does the JJ these days.)

Delay on protection rezoning

Friday, December 22, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

At the request of Ward B Councilwoman Mary Spinello, the Jersey City City Council has tabled an ordinance to prevent developers from buying large, Victorian-style homes, ripping them down and then replacing the one house with two.

"I wanted to find out the legality of this before we put out an ordinance that would be challenged in court," Spinello said. "There were some questions of 'spot zoning,' and I am awaiting an opinion from the city's corporation counsel."

Tabled at the council's Dec. 13 meeting, the special R-1A zone would have applied to a few blocks on the city's west side - most of the properties lying between Gifford Avenue to the north, Harrison Avenue on the south, Bergen Avenue on the east and West Side Avenue on the west.

In some cases, the ordinance would have singled out, or "spot zoned," a few houses, Spinello said.

Originally, the ordinance was intended to apply to areas in Greenville and the west side. But Ward A Councilman Michael Sottolano objected to Greenville's inclusion in his role as a Planning Board member, and those blocks were removed.

"Jersey City should have taken steps to protect these houses long ago," said Duncan Avenue resident Charleen Burke. "Right now, the council is leaving the fate of these homes in the hands of predatory developers."

Two projects are in the pipeline - one on Fairview Avenue, the other on Bentley Avenue - that would be affected by this ordinance, said city Senior Planner Kristin Russell.

Planning division aims to save century-old homes

JARRETT RENSHAW -- JERSEY JOURNAL -- Nov. 20

The Jersey City Planning Division wants to carve out new residential zones in the Greenville and West Side sections of the city in the hopes of saving older Victorian-style homes from demolition.

The city is proposing a zoning change that would increase the required minimum lot sizes from 2,500 to 4,000 square feet, making it more difficult - if not impossible - to tear down the homes on these oversized lots to make room for two smaller houses. A report issued this month re-examining the city's master plan recommended the changes, noting that while the housing boom has brought new construction and new investment into many of Jersey City's neighborhoods, it has also "exposed some failings" in the land development ordinance.

"Pressure to build more residential units has moved to tearing down larger homes on large lots to be subdivided," the report said. "The Planning Division now regularly receives requests to subdivide and tear down older one- and two- family homes with excellent architectural character to make way for two two-family homes on a standard or even sub-standard lots."

The Planning Board last week delayed adopting the changes to the city's master plan, as well as recommending the zoning changes to the city council, which would have to adopt the proposal by ordinance before the changes would go into effect.

Though the planning board is not required to notify the owners of these homes, board members said they wanted to stall the vote until owners were made aware of the potential changes.

A number of homeowners in the area have long clamored for historic protection of the century-old homes, so it was no surprise that residents warmly welcomed the zoning changes.

"I don't want any of those little houses on the street," said Gilda Serrao, who lives in a 100-year-old Victorian-style home on Gifford Avenue. "They don't look nice and they don't fit in with the rest of the houses."

Toby Applegate, who lives on Bentley Avenue, said he supports the changes, but empathizes with homeowners who may have some trouble selling their homes in light of the proposed changes.