NNJR wrote:
Quote:

Whether Councilman Fulop or any other council members have accepted campaign contributions from developers is not relevant.

While I agree that this is important legislation, this idea will be relevant as it could possibly relate to motive. The publics best interest is not always the reason.

Jeebus wrote:
Isn't all this contrary to providing affordable housing? It really smacks of "exclusionary zoning".

Here is one opinion from the article: "They don't look nice and they don't fit in with the rest of the houses."

Whatever, low income housing rarely looks nice and if I owned a mansion in that 'hood I wouldn't be happy about it. Nevertheless, I'd think that I was better than to use the government to keep others out.

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
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.

SamS wrote:
With the additional 700 or so people moving in to the new developments in the Hamilton Park area, there is most definitely going to be much greater demand for more tennis courts, soccer fields, tracks, etc. etc. So hold on.



Quote:

tern wrote:
We need a soccer field in Ware E.
Currently to play soccer you have to trek to Lincoln park.

The roller hockey rink in Mary Benson park and the tennis courts in Hamilton park are more frequently used for soccer than they are their intended purpose.

Please lets have a public soccer field in Ward E!

Robin.

NNJR wrote:
development is good, corrupt politicians are not.

There is nothing illegal about putting up an "ugly" building, otherwise all the vacant buildings and vinyl siding would be gone.

jc_dweller wrote:
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.

cyclotronic wrote:
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"

mrrogers wrote:
Nice to give stuff to the needy but was it necessary to make them pose for a picture in the paper.A truly good deed should be done discreetly.

soshin wrote:
I think senility set in after 10 years. It happens.

Well at least she has proved that the cromium smoking juvvie criminals that run around kidnapping dogs haven't scared everyone off.........

NNJR wrote:
If you all were on a board dedicated to building design we would still be staring at vinyl siding and abandon buildings.

I'm not saying the buildings are masterpieces but what are you really expecting? Not every building can be the 8th wonder of the world.

I think people are complaining because they are afraid of the changing landscape so hey take it out on things they have no control over.

NNJR wrote:
anti-development crowd in full affect. Is there really a problem with an extra floor or two? There are much more dense areas and if the building is done right could actually be cool.

I sure wouldn't want to live there but that doesn't mean there isn't someone out there that will for a price.

Quote:

I hope he goes belly up or misses the whole market from being greedy.

This comment to me is the same as someone hoping you get cancer... is it really called for?

mrrogers wrote:

Will every square inch of space become a hi rise soon.The kids who play on the ballfield behind that site will be in the dark during the Day.With the 12 story building that was approved across the street,newark ave will look like an alleyway after you pass under the train trestle.

I don't live in that area but as my friend who does Say's"no body seems to give a s___!

soshin wrote:

Why is this crap in a Jersey paper anyway? So we can all feel proud that outsourcing and exploitation is a good thing?

"Nobody in the state of New Jersey should not be concerned about gangs," he said. "This is not a problem limited to any town or any socioeconomic background."