For those who are keeping score, here are developments on two of Ocean Grove’s worst problem houses.
96 Lawrence Avenue: On Thursday, the owner, Sandra Solly of Farmingdale, pleaded not guilty in Municipal Court to a variety of maintenance violations dating from August of 2009. These include problems with the main roof, the front and side porch roofs, gutters, siding and faded or peeling paint. No date has been set for a trial.
80 Main Avenue: The owners, Mark W. and Hal Ornstein of Howell, had been ordered by the same court to apply simultaneously for permission to demolish the building and for permission to repair it, which would mean replacing rotted wood, painting wood trim and exterior walls, repairing the roof and replacing missing spindles on the front porch. Their application to make repairs contained no concrete plans and was therefore denied as incomplete. Their demolition application to the Historic Preservation Commission was scheduled for a hearing this past Tuesday, but that had to be rescheduled because the owners failed to give public notice as required. A new hearing is being scheduled for June 28.
(Prediction: the HPC will deny the application to demolish 80 Main on the grounds that the building is solid enough to be saved and is a “key structure” in the Historic District. The Township and the court will then, eventually, perhaps after more foot-dragging, force the owners to make the necessary repairs.)
— Charles Layton
Charles, Zillow has it listed as for sale by owner. The tag line under the picture of the house reads: “Home in need of rehab has been gutted and ready for makeover. Second beach block. Bring your builder and your imagination.” An older Zillow listing has 6 or 7 inside shots from Sept. 2008; it shows a rotting home with holes in floors and ceilings – a total wreck. *And that was almost three years ago.*
I’m glad to hear that the Township is about to address the problem of 24 McClintock. I, too, was afraid that problem had fallen through the cracks.
The owners have been in violation of the town’s maintenance laws for years. As things now stand, the house has rotting wood, many parts are bare of paint, parts of the roof appear to be in a failing condition and windows are not secure — water enters the building with every rain. One can only imagine the conditions inside.
To my knowledge, the last time the house was inspected by the Dept. of Code Enforcement was in 2009. According to Township records, the owner was cited but repairs were never made and the Township let things drop. In July of 2010 the HPC brought the property back to Code’s attention.
If Code is about to take the owners to court now, after all this time, that would be great.
I have never compared any municipal enforcement process to a “Burger King drive-thru,” and I certainly wouldn’t do so in the case of Neptune’s demolition by neglect ordinance. You’ve accused me of doing this twice now, and it’s getting a little tired.
Are there enforcement problems with the ordinance the way it stands? Probably. But how the Township knows what they are without ever using it is a mystery. And how the Township proposes to transfer a historic preservation ordinance—which would not apply to the other seven miles of Neptune—to another department is also a mystery, especially considering the fact that every other demolition by neglect ordinance I’ve ever read (and I’ve read quite a few, believe me) falls under the purview of a historic preservation commission.
Believe it or not, Ms. Jahn, our goal is the same: the preservation our national historic district’s architecture. “We’re going to get tough on owners who let their properties deteriorate,” you declared last summer, and I applauded you for it. I never suspected that, as this summer begins, the Township would still be trying to figure out how to make your promise a reality.
Thanks for the 24 McClintock update. I was getting a sinking feeling that nothing was being done.
Ms. Arlt, it hasn’t been on the agenda yet because we are still working on how to give the demo by neglect real impact by tying it into a department that does have enforcement power and making sure that it is airtight. Believe it or not, Ms. Arlt, we have about seven miles of Neptune Township outside of Ocean Grove to which we also pay attention. Please cease comparing the process of changing this ordinance to being served at the Burger King drive-thru: you won’t get it in two minutes or less, you can’t have it your way (as we have to follow National Historic and state regulations), and you won’t get a crown.
In addition to all this, work on the demo by neglect ordinance revision was slowed down this week due to dealing with the Fletcher Lake swan boat situation and the sudden and unexpected death of Gene Anthony’s mother on Monday, which caused him to be out of the office all week preparing for the viewing on Thursday and funeral and burial on Friday. Some work was done on it this week by our Land Use administrator and members of the HPC, but we need legal counsel to ensure that this is done correctly.
As for 24 McClintock, I believe that case is headed to court this week or next.
Why is there no info about 24 McClintock. I think it’s in worse shape than 80 Main, and on par with, if not worse, than the Lawrence Ave home. I haven’t heard about anyone being held accountable for that rotting mess.
Ken: Your fans are waiting for you to send us more of your remembrances of that era. Sit down at that old Remington typewriter and send us something in the style of Ernie Pyle, Ernie Hemingway or HL Mencken. PG (Blogfinger editorial dept.)
I’m grateful that more is being done, and I give a lot of the credit to Blogfinger for shining the light on these homes. And I thank Mary Beth, not just for giving us an inside view of the process, but for coming here and speaking up. Sad that she seems to be alone in that; maybe I’m just unaware of other posters who sit on the Township Committee.
I must give “credit where credit is due” to Neptune Code and Construction. I have found them helpful when complaints about specific addresses are brought to their attention. (For a most effective response one should go to the Municipal Bldg. and fill out the complaint form. This establishes a record for follow up.)
In response to a complaint by a member of the OGHOA at a Sat. morning meeting, I did just that and was told a similar complaint was made a couple of years back. The out-of- state owner never answered the complaint. Another letter requesting that maintenance be made is supposed to be sent. The legal process is in motion— however slow and unsatisfying that may be. This house is not in obvious disrepair, and only a concerned neighbor would recognize its slow deterioration.
With all due respect, Ms. Jahn, the topic of strengthening the demolition by neglect ordinance has not been placed on the agendas of either the Township Committee or the HPC. In fact, after my second trip to a Committee meeting to press the issue, one Committee person demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the ordinance (copies of which I’d presented to the Committee the meeting before), and reassured me after the meeting that the problem properties in Ocean Grove would be torn down.
If ten minutes of citizen input at Township Committee meetings and approximately a half hour at two HPC meetings constitute an active investigation into strengthening an ordinance that has yet to even be cited (despite your insistence to the contrary, in March), then perhaps I do need a civics lesson. Not in the US or NJ constitutions, but Neptune’s.
Yes, property owners have rights. I agree with you. But the Township has the power to make sure that one of those rights isn’t allowing the property to deteriorate to the condition of 91 Cookman or 80 Main. It’s called a municipal lien, and it appears in both the property maintenance and demolition by neglect ordinances. Other towns in Monmouth County make repairs and impose liens. Is there some reason that Neptune doesn’t?
Just in fairness, I would point out that the township government is now doing far, far more than was ever done before about this problem. In fact, in previous years nothing was done about these derelict buildings. Now, some half a dozen of the owners have been brought to court.
I’m usually the first to complain about the delays, but while the process is slow and frustrating, it is moving in the right direction. That is a hopeful sign.
Ms. Arlt, you know that is not true, because you have discussed it with the HPC several times and because the Township Committee has authorized the Township Attorney to pursue these cases. Are they in court? Of course we’ve started. People don’t like to hear this, but homeowners do have rights and are entitled to due process. Some people see this as “foot dragging,” when actually it is correct legal process. You don’t wave a magic wand and trample over the rights of the homeowner; that is simply unconstitutional.
We are looking at the Demo by Neglect ordinance to give it more teeth. The municipal judge would like to see the Township and the owners of these derelict properties come to an agreement to bring these properties back up to code standards, which is common in these cases, but if that is not possible, then the judge will have the option to set deadlines for repairs that will have serious legal consequences.
The truth of the matter is that the Township is spending a lot of time and money on pursuing these cases, and we are winning. I suggest you brush up on NJ land use laws and the US Constitution.
As has been explained on this forum as well as personally to Ms. Arlt, Code handles these because they actually have the power to do something about it. If things were pursued as Ms. Arlt suggests, it would produce a flurry of official mail and nothing more.
Perhaps Ms. Arlt herself should begin by facing the reality that the HPC isn’t the best avenue to pursue this,— Code is.
The Township Committee won’t relent until repairs are made? Almost a year has gone by since the HPC requested inspections for demolition by neglect on the Parkview and 80 Main, and the Township Committee still hasn’t gotten behind that effort, choosing instead to allow Code Enforcement to call the shots. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there ever been a discussion about solving this problem at a Township Committee meeting. The Township Committee won’t relent? How about getting started.
The Township Committee will not relent until the repairs are made on these and the other homes that have been cited for maintenance violations, including Koplitz.
Koplitz (PARK VIEW and SAMPLER owner) has set the example by showing that there is no financial downside to ignoring the Municipal judge’s orders. Has anybody kept count on the Koplitzes’ string of not complying with Neptune’s Property Maintenance Ordinances? If there is no penalty, why should property owners ever do the work?
“Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice (3x, 4x) shame on me!”