The Planning Board has put off until March their decision on a proposal that would require sellers of property in Jersey City to get inspected before completing a sale. The plan introduced by Councilman Khemraj “Chico” Ramchal was designed to protect prospective home buyers against purchasing properties that have illegal apartments or unauthorized off street parking.
Bob Cotter, director of the city’s planning department, called the proposal “a good idea,” but he said the resolution sent to the Planning Board was flawed and needed to be reworked. While Cotter said the intention was good, the resolution has led to confusion, and had not been previously reviewed by his office or by the city’s legal department.
Underscoring his point, the Jan. 20 hearing on the measure brought out of hundreds of residents, business owners and real estate agencies. Most were confused by the proposed new regulations and what infractions they would cover.
Cotter said there was a lot of misinformation connected with the proposal, and that the plan itself needed to be better crafted.
The proposed plan would require property owners to get a Certificate of Compliance from the city before they can buy or sell a property, after a determination whether proper permits had been obtained for improvements.
Inspectors, Cotter said, would only go to a property if the details of the sale – such as how many apartments are in a building or how legal parking spaces are available – did not match city records show for the property.
“The city should be inspecting properties anyway. Why do they need to do it when someone is trying to sell?” – Tony Soares
____________
Nearly as controversial was the $150 fee that would be attached to each sale of property.
Conflicting records could make inspection plan problematic
Under the proposed plan, a homeowner would have 20 days to appeal an inspector’s decision on a property to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. But some of the real estate professionals said this would put too much power in the hands of inspectors as to what is legal and illegal.
They also said tax records on properties sometimes conflicted with planning department records. Most often when real estate people are selling a property, they deal with tax office records.
Also, many records on city properties are incomplete due to a fire in City Hall in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Records compiled after the fire tend to be accurate, but not those from before the fire.
There are also conflicting records on the state level, which holds its own inspections of larger rental properties throughout the state, mostly involving fire codes.
Board member John Seborowski asked how the planning department intended to deal with the discrepancy of records and whether or not the city could use data gathered for a citywide revaluation two years ago.
The city halted the revaluation in 2013 after 95 percent of the properties had been reviewed.
Cotter said he would look into the matter.
Halting illegal residential dwellings is one of the reasons behind the new inspection plan. But Cotter and others said inspections would not stop that. He predicted that people would move out for the inspection then move back in later.
Residents, realtors speak out
Cotter said he had only reviewed the proposal a few hours prior to the planning board meeting, and realized that it needed revision. But instead of withdrawing it, he presented it to the board to get input.
He and the board got an earful from angry residents and real estate people, many of whom came with a misunderstanding of what the proposal was supposed to do.
Many believed that inspections would take place with every sale. Cotter said only those that conflicted with city records would be inspected. Some residents believed that inspections would be required each time a new tenant moved in. Cotter said the new rule covered only the sale and purchase of property.
Originally, inspections for infractions were to also be done if a property was to be demolished, a provision that Cotter said would not likely be in the final draft when it is reintroduced in March.
Board Member Orlando Gonzalez criticized the planning department for not being better prepared and the public for assuming that there were nefarious motivations by the city.
“We’re residents of Jersey City, too,” he said. “We’re not against you. We’re here for you.”
City Councilwoman Joyce Watterman, who also sits on the Planning Board, said the planning department has to meet with local real estate professionals and the city’s legal department to get their input.
In the public comment portion, Bruce Alston, who deals in real estate, said delaying sales could result in lost sales. He said the market is not yet fully recovered from the recession and this could hurt the local market further. He said this would also be a problem for senior citizens selling their homes and for people facing foreclosures. He said the requirement for bringing a property into line with city codes should be on the buyer, not the seller. This would not cause a delay in the sale.
Mary Mills, a local realtor, said the city needs to inspect properties in order to deal with garages that are being rented out as apartments.
While some illegal apartments can be spotted from outside because of utility hookups, she said, other residents hide the hookups inside.
While she had concerns about the city having proper records, she believed the inspection at sale was a good idea.
Nick Taylor for the city planning department said the idea behind the law is to protect the buyer. But a number of residents and real estate people who spoke said this is not the city’s job, and that buyers have attorneys and bonded inspectors to investigate properties to make sure what is being sold is legal.
Former Hoboken Councilman Tony Soares, who was interviewed about this issue, operates real estate offices in Jersey City and Hoboken. He said it takes about 30 days to complete a sale and said an inspection at sale could pose an increased burden on the seller of a property, especially if the person is a senior citizen who cannot afford to bring a property up to code or a person whose property value declined and needs to sell the property in order to avoid losing additional money.
“If they don’t have money to do what the city wants, they might not be able to sell,” he said. “The city should be inspecting properties anyway. Why do they need to do it when someone is trying to sell?”
Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.