Photo Gallery: Two Derelict Houses
Editor’s Note: Last Thursday, January 20, we went to Municipal Court to check on the 91 Cookman Avenue situation. Charles Layton, our usual decrepit housing reporter, is off in India. He told me that the action against 91 Cookman Avenue was based upon the HPC complaint of last summer. (see his July 14, 2010 posting below). In speaking to Mr Robert Day, the Code Enforcement Supervisor, I learned, to my surprise, that his summons to the owner of 91 Cookman had nothing to do with the “Demolition By Neglect” ordinance.
This appears to be something more than just a technicality, since invoking that ordinance (#07-46) was supposed to be a new tool in the fight against neglected historic houses in the Grove. Such ordinances have been used to save historic buildings in California, Connecticut, Detroit, Louisiana and elsewhere.
I asked Mr. Day about this discrepancy, but he said that we should talk to Mr.William Doolittle (Construction Official). We will speak to Mr Doolittle. As for the HPC, the chairwoman of the HPC told me that she would investigate the matter further.
This topic is important for the future of Ocean Grove, so you might want to re-read Charles’ post below. We will try to find out what happened.
Paul Goldfinger
AN OBSCURE TOWNSHIP LAW GROWS SOME TEETH – The HPC Moves Against Three OG Buildings
By Charles Layton July 14, 2010 in Blogfinger
WEDNESDAY 7/14/10– – In a precedent-setting action, the Historic Preservation Commission will ask Neptune Township to inspect three buildings in Ocean Grove that it thinks are in urgent need of repairs. (see photo gallery below)
Under township ordinance No. 07-46, property owners in Ocean Grove’s historic district are required to preserve their properties from defects and decay. If an owner fails to do so, the HPC may request an investigation by the township.
This legal tool appears not to have been used in this way in the past. The HPC decided to use it now because of heightened concern about deteriorating historic structures in The Grove, and because of the township’s failure, in some cases, to deal with that deterioration. Last year, a beloved historic building – the Sampler Inn – had to be demolished because the owners allowed it to fall into disrepair. Last Friday, neighbors at the North End filed a petition with the township demanding action against the owners of the Park View Inn, which has been in a serious state of disrepair for years. (See our article of July 12, “Neighbors Petition Township About The Park View Inn.”)
Park View Inn article in Blogfinger July 12, 2010
At its Tuesday night meeting, the HPC voted to move against the following three Ocean Grove properties: the house at 80 Main Avenue, the house at 91 Cookman Avenue and the above-mentioned Park View Inn at 23 Seaview Avenue.
The HPC instructed its attorney, Wesley Kane, to present its request to the township’s Code Enforcement Department. “This is the first time I have seen this done,” HPC member Kennedy Buckley told me. He and another member, Jenny Shaffer, said that ordinance No. 07-46 allows any citizen to report to the HPC any structure in Ocean Grove thought to be in a substandard condition. If the HPC agrees, it may then request a township investigation, as was done with the three properties last night.
The applicable section of the ordinance is called the “Demolition by Neglect” section. It requires all Ocean Grove owners to maintain their properties against the following defects:
(1) Deteriorated or inadequate foundations;
(2) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety;
(3) Members of walls or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, tilt or buckle due to defective material, workmanship or deterioration;
(4) Members of walls or other vertical supports that are insufficient to carry imposed loads with safety;
(5) Members of ceilings, roofs and their support system, or other horizontal members which sag, split or buckle due to defective material, workmanship or deterioration;
(6) Members of ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members that are insufficient to carry imposed loads with safety;
(7) Fireplaces or chimneys which list, tilt, bulge or settle due to defective materials, workmanship or deterioration;
(8) Deterioration or defects in paints, coating systems, sheathing or flashing resulting in destructive moisture or water penetration or rot;
(9) Any fault, defect or condition in the structure which renders the same structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.
The ordinance states that the HPC may notify the township of any structure it deems to be suffering from demolition by neglect. Furthermore, any citizen may notify the HPC of such conditions; the HPC, if it agrees with the complaint, may then ask the township to inspect.
If an inspector finds deficiencies, the township then notifies the owner, and if the owner fails to make repairs the township may issue a court summons and impose fines. The township may also undertake repairs itself and place a lien against the property to cover all costs associated with the repairs.
The HPC seems of a mind to encourage citizens to take advantage of the Demolition by Neglect law. Buckley suggests emailing information about deteriorating buildings to: rhavey@neptunetownship.org.
Often, in Ocean Grove, people have watched helplessly as a neighboring house falls into disrepair. And often, they have been uncertain what to do.
The house at 91 Cookman is a good example. Marybeth Robb, who lives a block from the Cookman house, says the place “has been completely neglected. It has been abandoned.” She says in the seven years she has lived nearby she has never seen anyone enter the house. “It is unconscionable,” she says, that someone would leave a house in that condition. She considers it a potential danger to her two small children and to other children in the neighborhood.
The most obvious problems with this house, viewed from the outside, are a deteriorating roofline, rusted out metal railings, overgrown vegetation and a second-floor porch that is falling apart, with rotting posts and rotting floor boards that have collapsed onto the first floor. It appears that the entire front end of the house could be in danger of collapse.
This house and the other two buildings cited on Tuesday night may serve as test cases for the Demolition by Neglect law. If this law works in these cases, people like Marybeth Robb may finally have a way to force the township to take corrective action against negligent owners.
Can towns impose higher taxes on a derelict property? In some towns an cities, unimproved lots are taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the loss of tax revenue on what could be a commercial or residential property. Considering that these buildings pose a higher risk to adjacent properties (fire, animals, potential hazards to children, opportunities for crack houses, insects & disease from standing water, etc), I would think a town would be justified in increasing the tax to make up for the increased risk and possible costs.
What a waste of our tax dollars and time for township employees! If all the blatant violations from 91 Cookman go on ad infinitum (13 years and counting)..our laws (no matter from which contingency) are a sham! I have to look at this house every day..a fire and safety hazard..as well as an eyesore..lowering my property value as each rodent enters!
Every property maintenance violation that is not resolved within the allotted time period goes to court, just like 91 Cookman. What I believe happened in this case is that only property maintenance inspections were made, not the construction inspection which the ordinance requires. Why the correct inspection wasn’t carried out—and why the HPC doesn’t seem to have taken notice of that fact—remains a mystery.
So how is demo by neglect law any different from the procedure where Code Enforcement receives a complaint, investigates, and then gives violations for failure to observe the town’s ordinances?
Why was there such a fuss about enforcing #07-46 ordinance when we already had existing methods?
As I understand the demo by neglect law, the HPC has the right to ask the township to move against an offending property. The township then inspects and if it finds violations moves on that. So in the Cookman case the township did move, and did take the property owner to court. But then the court dismissed the case. If that’s how this law is going to work — everybody does his part and then the court dismisses the case on odd grounds — then I think we have a problem.
RE: different anonymous – “Jerry, I didn’t say that.”
Perhaps it was the inference that might have been avoided
Jerry, I didn’t say that.
Paul D I also believed the Township had the ability to repair and place liens; unhappily the answer has been NO. I am looking into a different (rather unorthodox) way to save threatened properties. Not punitive lawsuits and fines, but instead a positive approach involving our OG community of interested persons. I should learn shortly if this scheme has even “a chance in hell” of materializing. I will post a comment either way. Wish me luck.
ken.
Why not file an appeal on the ruling? Is there a lawyer in our membership who would be willing to pen our discontent of the decision to the township, on a pro bono basis?
If the case was not tried under the Demolation by Neglect Ordinance it should be reintroduced to test the parameters and speed of the Ordinance.
From comments on this Blog, it seems to be within the township’s authority to make repairs and lien the property. Why not restore the outside, in accordance with HPC guidelines and execute a lean which would be satisfied when the property is sold.
Meant to say, was our NEPTUNE administration totally blameless?
So, Different Anonymous…
Are you saying that our administration was totally blameless?
Now that politics has been injected ….I wish there would be a November opportunity to vote my feelings on the State administraion’s handling of the blizzard and the problems that has caused Neptune.
Can we please get back to the local scene with the comments.
I have to point out that many of those “names” are pseudonyms. It’s pretty common on blogs for commenters not to use their real names. We do allow anonymous postings here. The content is more important to us than the names. But if a commenter does give his real name, then the comment would have more credibility. Also, this is a small town, and without the protection of anonymity, people might withhold their opinions. Radar has made many constructive comments on this blog, so we welcome his contributions even with his Wizard of Oz protective shield. Paul @Blogfinger
Note to Anonymous:
Why are you hiding your name? Most everyone else who offers opinions, comments, suggestions, etc has their name used………
Interesting that the “Hold Our Feet To The Fire” link is not working…
Radar, if you have a bone to pick with the Home Owner’s association, how come you didn’t run for a leadership position there?
As to holding people’s feet to the fire, you had that chance last November. Chances are, you all will forget the handling of the snow plowing AGAIN for the 2nd year in a row and re-elect the same people in November…
Re the court’s action on the Cookman property: The HPC now needs to pursue this issue further; not to do so would be to exhibit extreme timidity and to admit that the “demolition by neglect” law has no meaning. If, as it seems, the township has not taken the HPC’s request very seriously, then why not? Has the township ever responded in any formal way to the HPC’s request? We don’t know. How does the township government intend to respond to this strange court ruling now? Do we need more fires in this town to make people take the issue seriously? What, exactly, is going on? The township government owes Ocean Grove an explanation.
ANONYMOUS & I.M. RADAR have interesting (if opposing )points of view.The next OGHOA election would be very exciting if only they chose to square-off in debate for President.
The HOA BYLAWS do indeed allow any issue be raised and discussed during new business. At today’s meeting, after a very thorough “snow removal” discussion, the membership raised their concerns. Uppermost was how could neglected property complaints be ignored, the North End Redevelopment, how to improve communications, and how can we increase membership. Nobody present asked about excssive taxation (in fact, the point was made earlier that Neptune is running “lean” with no intention to add expenses nor personnel that might add to out tax burden) or any other of I.M.’s list.
ken.
[…] an-obscure-township-law-grows-some-teeth-%e2%80%93-the-hpc-moves-against-three-og%c2%a0buildings […]
Radar I read the Homeowners election just past without a candidate for President. You could have been the advocate you keep looking for on all issues.
Yes! I trust blogfinger will keep us up to date on the progress of these actions, and I hope it will result in change.
“KNOWLEDGE IS POWER”
“The OGHOA, Organized 1953, has BYLAWS in which ARTICLE 2 states: The purposes for which the Corporation is formed and the business and objectives to be carried out and promoted by it are as follows: a. to work for the improvement of cultural, civic, and environmental conditions in Ocean Grove. b. To promote, encourage, and provide social and friendly intercourse among its members and between the residents of Ocean Grove. c. To promote the study of problems of the residents…, stimulating attention to those problems on the part of others, and to hold meetings and discussions with respect to same. d. To enable the members to gather together for mutual benefit and enjoyment, and to promote activities of a civic and social nature.”
If all were right and good in this world OGHOA meetings would consist of some small talk, an occasional guest, coffee, juice and donuts. However members take advantage of ARTICLE 8. SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS. In (8) New business, any member may voice concerns or issues for open discussion among the members. Issues that generate sufficient interest usually end up in the form of a motion that is voted upon, the majority of a quorum decides. This is how the HOA became involved in the lawsuit to maintain a commercial free boardwalk, influencing the 2000 MasterPlan to hold DOWN density in OG by fighting for specific room sizes, common areas, proper bathrooms for each unit, etc…which slowed dramatically the conversion of hotels and B&Bs into condos. The HOA’s active participation in the North End Redevelopment discussion resulted in favorable concessions. The Parking Committee and resultant shuttle services. Let us not forget the OGHOA’s pressing the Sampler issue.
These issues were first raised by the membership at open meetings and agreed upon to pursue. ANY member may raise new issues. THAT’S HOW THE OGHOA WORKS!
Aux contrare!-one presumes too much if he or she believes one’s own particular issues take precedence (even agreement) over others’.
Contrare (really),
ANONYMOUS
Contrare Anonymous!
We need an advocate who will hold the township’s feet to the fire on all these issues: rundown properties, excessive taxation/fees, money-making enterprises delinquent with tax payments, inadequate parking solutions, reduction of housing density, excessive administrative overhead, etc.
Isn’t that suppose to be the mission of a homeowners association?
Sounds too good to be true. It will be interesting to watch what happens. It would be unwise for residents to file too many complaints until the results of the first are seen. Overwhelming the township’s limited resources at this time might be counterproductive.