By Charles Layton
We continue to receive comments about the “Demolition by Neglect” ordinance and questions about whether it is working and, if not, why not.
But before addressing that, some background:
Last July, the Historic Preservation Commission asked the Township to investigate four unoccupied and run-down Ocean Grove properties — 91 Cookman Avenue, 24 McClintock Street, 80 Main Avenue and 23 Seaview Avenue — to find out whether, in effect, they were being demolished through their owners’ neglect. If they are, it’s a violation of the law.
Upon receiving such a request from the HPC, according to the Demolition by Neglect ordinance, the Department of Code Enforcement is supposed to contact the owner and arrange for an immediate inspection. Code is then supposed to report the results of that inspection back to the HPC. If the inspection confirms that demolition by neglect is taking place (the law contains a definition of this) the HPC then orders the owners to correct the defects.
Code did not follow that procedure. It did inspect the buildings, and it found major problems, but it did not really make a determination as to whether the properties were, in fact, being demolished through owner neglect. Nor did it give the HPC a report or keep it informed by other means. For many months, people at the HPC have seemed not to know what is happening. Instead, Code followed its normal procedure under the property maintenance laws: it cited the owners for violations and, when the violations were not corrected, it issued summonses and proceeded against the owners in court. Those cases are still in court; to its credit, the Township is pressing forward with most of them.
At the last Township Committee meeting, Kathy Arlt of Ocean Grove asked the Committee why the Demolition by Neglect ordinance was not followed. Township Attorney Gene Anthony told her that the enforcement officer – Bill Doolittle, director of construction and code enforcement – had discretion under the ordinance to follow either the Demolition by Neglect procedures or those of the property maintenance laws. Doolittle’s power of discretion stems from a sentence in the Demolition by Neglect ordinance which states: “Nothing herein shall restrict or otherwise prohibit the Construction Official [Doolittle] from acting in accordance with applicable state regulations, building codes or municipal building codes.” (This language is not crystal clear.)
Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn told Arlt that the problem with going the Demolition by Neglect route is that the HPC has no enforcement power, whereas Code Enforcement does: it can issue summonses. Yet the Demolition by Neglect ordinance gives the HPC the power to “direct the issuance of a … summons” to a non-responsive owner. That seems like enforcement power.
Another section of the ordinance says that if an owner fails to make repairs as ordered, the HPC may request the Township to undertake those repairs and then to place a lien on the property to recoup its costs. This also seems like a useful enforcement tool. When the Township places a lien, it then turns around and auctions off the lien to a third party, so it gets its money right back. One or two Ocean Grovers, commenting on this blog, have suggested doing that very thing with some of our derelict properties.
But the truth is, the HPC seems now to have lost its appetite for proceeding under Demolition by Neglect. The Township Committee also seems more comfortable with having Bill Doolittle call the shots. In the end, our concerns about which procedures to follow won’t matter much if the Township, one way or the other, succeeds in solving the problem of derelict houses in Ocean Grove. And we really hope it does succeed.
-0-
UPDATE: At the end of Tuesday evening’s meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, a wide-ranging discussion broke out about the Demolition by Neglect ordinance. Kathy Arlt of Ocean Grove described her efforts to get the Township to take the ordinance seriously. Members of the Commission made it pretty clear that, as a way to save derelict buildings, they consider the ordinance pretty near useless. Commission member Cathleen Crandall said such ordinances are “almost impossible to enforce.” The HPC’s chairwoman, Deborah Osepchuk, said it is almost impossible to inspect a house if the owner refuses access to the inspector, which commonly happens. Inspections, of course, are an essential part of what the ordinance is all about.
It was a painful conversation to listen to.
Marybeth—The owner of 91 Cookman was given 60 days, starting from March 10th. She would have to demonstrate that she’s making serious progress by the end of that time in order to get an extension; if she isn’t making progress, it would be back to municipal court.
Marybeth, Anita, Kathy — It’s obvious that concerned Grovers need to stay up to date on where all these dilapidated places stand with the courts, the HPC, the Zoning Board and Code Enforcement. What we have here, enforcement-wise, is a maze of bureaucratic zig-zags.
We are seeing now, in the classic case of 24 McClintock, how an owner can dodge one arm of our government (in this case, Code) by running to another (in this case, the Zoning Board) and starting up a whole new procedural string. And before you know it, the strings are like spaghetti, the enforcers abandon the field in confusion or frustration and the building in question continues to happily rot away.
We’ve seen this with the Park View Inn for years. Also 27 Surf last year, when the neighbors couldn’t get the place fire inspected because of a problem of legal definitions — it simultaneously was and was not a “hotel.” Also 14 Spray last year and the year before, where township officials ignored neighbor complaints for months and couldn’t even be bothered to return their phone calls or answer their emails.
Some of us had hoped that Demolition by Neglect might provide a way through the procedural mish-mash, but it appears not — either because Demo by Neglect isn’t the right weapon or because it is in the hands of an HPC that lacks the political power to push hard enough to see the process through.
In the meantime, it appears that all we citizens can do is remain vigilant and keep complaining when the process bogs down. But now that Mr. Doolittle has declined to use the Demo by Neglect ordinance and, instead, has taken control of the process himself, the ball is clearly in his court. If the system continues not to work — as in the case, right now, of 24 McClintock — he’s the one responsible.
I think we have sympathetic officials in the Township government who’d sincerely like to see these problems fixed. But they won’t prevail unless we citizens keep pushing. On 24 McClintock, on 35 Embury, on 78 South Main Street, on 80 Main Avenue….
Both of these structures are clearly in the same category as 27 Surf Ave. was last summer when concerned neighbors wanted it inspected for fire safety and were told that as a private residence no inspection could be made by ANY dept.
(see article in APP by Michelle Gladden)
Charles or Kathy, can you clarify what kind of approval 91 Cookman has obtained? And what the deadlines are for getting the approved construction done? I am among the group of aggrieved neighbors who live with this eyesore. The building is unsafe and an attractive nuisance to kids. Let’s hope no child is injured or worse while Code Enforcement and the HPC play their violins.
91 Cookman has received HPC approval for WHAT?? Exterior repairs that are like a band-aid on an oozing sore? To my knowledge no interior inspection has EVER been done there. Why are we condoning repairs on a house whose interior is a dismal abyss?…unsafe for habitation or entry! How do we get code enforcement INSIDE to see that this should be a teardown and is a disgrace to our “historical” image and a 12-year nightmare to neighbors!!
Could you imagine living next door to a home like 24 McClintock? I’ve met the neighbors a few times walking my dog. The nicest, hardest working people who keep their own home and property beautiful. This is where they come to decompress … and then they have to sit and listen to the sweet sounds of tinkling glass as it falls onto their only outdoor space, their side yard patio. And wonder who or what is living inside.
It is digusting that it is allowed to persist. Just disgusting, and there is no excuse from either the owners or the township to justify this.
Takes a lot to make me angry. This does.
Here’s the run-down as I know it.
91 Cookman: HPC approval obtained; no building permit posted on the house yet, however. (As of yesterday.)
23 Seaview (the Park View): settlement stipulation being drafted.
80 Main: Application to demolish and/or repair pending at the HPC.
14 Surf: Continued postponements in Municipal Court.
24 McClintock: I believe the Township would have to start from square one, as the existing violations are more than a year old.
Thanks, Kathy, for clarifying that. We should probably do a little run-down soon on exactly where all of these cases now stand. It doesn’t seem right that 24 McClintock will now just get lost in the shuffle. It’s still in horrible condition, and getting worse all the time. I’d like to know if the court’s dismissal and the Zoning Board’s rejection means the Township has to go back to square one, issue a new summons and so forth.
Just a clarification.
24 McClintock Street was inspected, pursuant to a citizen’s request, in August 2009. When the owner failed to make repairs, a summons was issued. The case was dismissed when the owner indicated that he planned to file an application with the HPC and Zoning to renovate the property. This Zoning application was rejected in February of 2010, and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been refiled. 24 McClintock was not reinspected in 2010 after the HPC’s request, and no court action is pending.