Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Jersey City Rentle Leveling Board meeting tonight. Having been properly advised, in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of New Jersey, today, June the 12th, meeting of the
Jersey City Rent Leveling Board is called to order at 6:10. I'm sorry, 6:05. I'm five minutes a little early. All right, 605. Roll call, please. No problem.
All right, we're going to do the roll call. Uh, please confirm by saying I if you're here. Alexander Hamilton, I. Damon Hill, I. James Eco, I. Joe M. Williams. Mark Isachov. Hi. Michael T.
Brown. Hi. Sullivan C. Johnson. Hi. All right, we do have quorum. There being a quorum, the board will meeting will proceed. Thank you for attending our meeting tonight. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.
Please speak only when recognized by the chair to speak. Address the board and not your adversary. Keep your presentation to the issues in question. The board will listen to all sides of your complaint or application and come
to a decision. All parties will receive the written decision within 3 weeks. You will then have 45 days to appeal the decision to the superior court. So, if you do not like our decision tonight, please be
civil and appeal it when you receive it in writing. I count on your cooperation tonight. Any calls? Cancellations. There we go. Uh, no, there were no German requests for uh this evening.
Chairman. Okay. Um before we get started, all parties on both sides, tenants and council, please hold your rebuttals or your responses to to
three minutes as you present your case. Not to be here five or 20 minutes. We need three minutes of your time. That's it. Express yourself and we go from there. All right. First case is a legal rent petition 108
Sussex Avenue landlord quality prospect. Good evening. Good evening. Speaking to the mic, sir. Neil. Oh, here we go. That's better. Neil Marada on behalf of the uh tenants
appellants. All right. Okay. All right. So, we are here tonight on a petition, rent determination petition filed by the tenants. I'm sorry. Is that better? Yeah, better. Okay, the time won't count against me,
right? Only kidding. Okay, so we're here on behalf of the uh tenants. Tenants position is that this property is subject to rent control and covered by the rent control ordinance. A review of the determination by the
bureau uh actually we believe supports the tenants position. It goes ahead and lays out everything that shows that this property had been a an apartment building, a dwelling.
As we go forward, we you will see as set forth in the record that the uh and one more point of order, the I did submit a late submission from Councilman Rivera last night who resided at the premise at
this property. Um he spoke last night at the council meeting and he said I want to set you know set the record straight once and for all because he keeps coming back that this was a he said brothel because there's an article that says it
might have been a house of prostitution but that it's not a boarding house that it had apartments where his whole family lived and each apartment had its own kitchen and bathroom and I have that and I'd like to um have it submitted to the
board for their review. Uh I think it's the direct evidence on this case that from 6465 to 1976 that that was occupied by his family as an apartment building. The issue here today by the landlord is a claim that
this property had not been a dwelling that it had been a boarding house. The the fact is there is no evidence of a licensed boarding house. The landlord goes on to say that it doesn't have to be licensed that if it's a boarding
house, it's a boarding house. Well, such is not the case. If this board goes ahead and accepts an illegal use as they will then validate that illegal use, there is no record showing that is
boarding house. Moreover, the tax assessor from a Jersey City tax assessor when questioned by Mr. OD about the property flat out one sentence. It is an apartment building.
So, not only that, in the application to the historic preservation uh federal application by the property owner, they list 20 tenementss. Okay, a tenement is an apartment. It's not in the best of shape and that
absolutely is the case here because in 1976 the power was shut off at the building. Now the is there is there how does we proceed tonight? Do I go council goes then I go again?
Depends on how much time is taken. Okay. So then I'll I'll proceed. Mhm. In their papers, they provide an affidavit uh by a gentleman who was a realtor and he states that the property was a boarding house. However,
again, it was not a legal boarding house. If it was, if anything, there were squatters. However, in the document, he says, "As a real estate agent at that time, I knew the owner of the property Eggberg Cross. I tooured the building several times
with Mr. Cross after its operation as a rooming house had ceased, but prior to its sale and conversion." So, he was not even there when he claims it was a rooming house. The the fact is the property
was never licensed and I believe at that time the only way it could be viewed as if as if there were squatters in the premises. Thank you. Okay. Um there's a Jersey Journal article I think both sites both parties site. New Jersey Journal article
says in 1976 that the um there was a fire, 12 families were dislocated and 42 people had to be found homes and all the power was shut off. The only thing happened in that building after that point would
have been squatters. There is nothing to show a validity to a rooming house at that time. What we had before that were families as stated by uh Councilman Rivera. He lived there. He lived in an apartment. He didn't live in
a rooming house. He didn't share a bathroom down the hall. His family lived there. Numerous family members throughout the building. And um at this point the the fact is in 1983 when the
ordinance was was changed to permit uh a property that was previously not a dwelling use and it gives examples the ordinance. It says a motel, a hotel, a guest house. There is no definition of guest house. Okay. Okay. The three
minutes is up. Okay. Let me just sum up. So at this point based upon the evidence that's before you, the valid evidence I submit that this property was a dwelling, it was a residential house and therefore when it was converted and um
from 20 units to 15 units as stated in the zoning board of adjustment, again the zoning board of adjustment, the applicant, the owner admits that it was an apartment building. So based on that evidence, it's clear that this was not a
change from a non-dwelling to a dwelling. An illegal use is not a use. Okay. Thank you very much. Can you please explain how I can show the uh recording? I think it's for the the chair to
determine if that should be submitted at the last minute. Okay. Again, it's if I can on that issue itself, uh the um recording by Councilman Rivera, the statements were made by him last
evening, last night. I was not able to get them beforehand. He went ahead and he stated it because the issue kept coming up and he wanted to put it to bed. I have the recording. I can play it. It can be heard by everybody. And he
is the best evidence as to what that property was. Uh I would also say that you would I would recommend allowing the landlord to respond to that before you make. Exactly. Of course. Let me speak to the
landlord. Sure. Good evening. My name is Tom Cohen appearing on behalf of Judy Shen, the owner who's seated to my left. My colleague is James Layman seated next to her. CN Cohn. Thank you. Thank you. Also, and I
do object to the submission of evidence, quote unquote evidence this afternoon. Um, I was in a meeting this afternoon. Got out of the meeting, hopped in my car, drove here, and first saw this when I was allowed to sit here and organize my notes for this meeting after 5:00
p.m. That's not a time to submit evidence. Another reason I object to it, I want to place an objection on the record, is that Mr. Rivera has made three statements. Councilman Rivera has made three statements on 108 Sussex. And there would be no reason for the same person to make three statements about
the same topic unless he was being goated and asked to make those statements. So the first statement that he made was in July of 2023. Never mentioned bathrooms in the hallways, never mentioned other uses. Then he made a statement in January of 2025. That's
part of the record. And in the January 2025 statement that Mr. Rivera made, which was transcribed, uh it he doesn't mention bathrooms. And then for some reason last night someone approached him obviously and said I he and I do agree with Mr. Marada
that Mr. uh Councilman Rivera said I don't know why this can't go to bed. But when someone says I don't know why this can't go to bed. They're obviously implying that it keeps coming up and there's been no hearing. There's been no evidence. The statements were not made under oath. And I'd like to therefore
say that this is not the time to be introducing new evidence. That's responding only to Mr. Marada's statement about submitting evidence this afternoon and I object to that. I want my objection on the record. I thank you. I have not yet had the opportunity to speak. I was just asked to address the
one point of introducing evidence received this afternoon. So I would like to reserve my time as to representation of the owner. Thank you. If I may just in response, if I may, just in response, it's correct. There were different
statements, but as council stated, he was never under oath. He was never subject to a proceeding. He made comments about the property. So, he was never questioned on the sub when he spoke at the council meeting in January
of this year. He was not asked how many you know was was it an apartment? He said I lived there with my family. All my family lived there. True. There's no doubt that that can be taken out of context that everybody all
the Rivera family lived in a boarding house. Again, it was not a licensed premises. And I'm not saying that they lived in a boarding house. after 1976 when they vacated and the place was shut down then
it was a vacant property and if at most it was squatters but going to Mr. Rivera's statement, Councilman Rivera's statement, the law is clear. Usually, it's in the context of afteracquired evidence where something new comes up and you
asked for a reconsideration because of that new information. Well, this came last night. This did not come tomorrow. So, it's not in that vein, but the same premise applies. Fact is, Mr. Rivera spoke as to that
issue. If this board requests um further confirmation of that, they could always have testimony taken. And I would recommend that because I believe not only his statements uh that he put forward, which are true. I don't see
there's any reason to discount Mr. Rivera on that. But I also understand he has pictures, family pictures showing the property. Again, that's presented at a later date. That would be after acquired evidence. So, right. So, that was not submitted to
No, but I do have a witness who saw the pictures. So, and unfortunately, Mr. River, Councilman Rivera could not be here tonight. He had another engagement. Otherwise, I believe he would have been here. So, okay.
I think more importantly that if we're going to use his testimony, he should have he should be here. If you're gonna use him as an adjustment to what's going on, he should he should be here to I put that on the record for us. But it was last night. Yeah. So, yeah. So, all
right. The procedural rules say that evidence rulings shall be made to promote fundamental principles of fairness and justice and to aid in the as ascertainment of truth. So, that's what you need to decide. Okay. Anybody any any questions?
Any questions? I I don't think it matters. No. Okay. Do the commissioners wish to call anyone? Okay. Yeah. No testimony from uh the hearing officer. Yes. Administrator.
It's up It's up to you. No, definitely. I want to hear from the uh court officer. Yeah. Hearing office. I'm sorry. This is Well, again, you know, we have a determination before you. Um there's no reference in that determination unless
I'm I'm mistaken. Okay. Uh that this establishment is a brothel. Um or or I mean really all I saw was boarding house. Um so do you want to get that on record before
or would you I mean it's really entirely up to you if you motion to close. Yeah, I was going to motion to close because I mean Nope. the lip question. Are we are we just talking
about just the admission of the the recording again? Yeah. Again, this is again to the board. Do you wish to call anybody? Speak to the landlord. Okay. Yeah. Uh again, Tom Con here on behalf of the
landlord. Um, I'd like to, uh, to the extent that any weight might be given to any of the three of Councilman Rivera's statements, I'd like to offer, and I'll try and do it quickly with references to exhibits. 10, I'm going to throw out a number to
you, 10 unrefuted statements by different people over the course of years that this was not an apartment building. So, we start with the Jersey uh journal's May 1967 article that the building department charged
that the premise was being operated as a rooming house without a license. Exhibit 14, the Jersey Journal in July of 1967. This is the brothel argument as if I created it. It's it's absurd. It was Reverend Martin Piaeki. He's the pastor He was
the pastor of Our Lady of Czechoslovakia, a Roman Cathol Catholic Church. He said it was a house of prostitution. The police did everything possible and nonetheless in the first half of 1966, the police made 14 arrests at that uh
location, 108 Sussex. Next on exhibit 12, page 315, the inspection notes require that the exact language is uh what must be done is to install
bathroom facilities. That's a municipal notice. It was sent by Inspector Brown and Inspector I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly, Lo. L O B. They said that it was necessary to install bathroom fixtures.
Mr. Helinsk's affidavit, which is exhibit 6, page 91 tonight, says the property was vacant and uninhabitable and and he walked through it and a gut renovation was done at the end of 83 and the beginning of 84. Mr. Zach's affidavit, which is page 248 tonight,
said that his family lived in the adjacent property adjacent right next door for three generations and he knew the property very well. and his statement was that it was a rooming house before its renovation. And that's page 248 of tonight's evidence. In the
tenants brief on page 13 of exhibit 3, the statement is made that each unit, this is a quote, each unit has two principal rooms, kitchen, alco, and fireplace. Close quote. No mention of a
bathroom. from the Jersey Journal's February 1976 article, uh, which is exhibit 11, page 188, it states that the premises was vacant. There had been a fire. The premises were boarded up, boarded up, pardon me, and all utilities
were shut off. And at the end of 1982, and we're now at exhibit 3, page 24, that a renovator by the name of Property Rehabilitation and Development Corp. Three minutes has passed. I I I just I just have to refute. Thank you. Just I
I'll try and be quick. Uh uh the renovator stated that the work was going to include the demolishing of the bathrooms and the modernizing of fixtures which are now inoperable. In the planning board, June 1982, exhibit 6, page 80, the statement is that the
application was to convert the building to apartments. Exhibit 7, page 108 from the Jersey Journal says, "Renovnation plans are toilet and bathroom facilities for each apartment, replacing hallway toilets used by two families." That's exhibit 6,
page 80. Exhibit 12 at page 432 of the Jersey Journal in November of 1982 says that $425,000 had been awarded in permits in order to cause a renovation. Um, I don't want to take too long, but
uh, the ordinance, which I'm I'm referring to, ordinance section 260, section 1A, the purpose of the ordinance is to create good housing for moderate income people. And we're not in the 1890s
anymore. But when that building was built in the 1890s and Councilman Rivera said all the immigrants from Puerto Rico and his family, they were all coming there in the 1890s, they weren't building buildings the way they they do today. They did do they did do them with
common bathrooms. That's the way it was built. Now, we don't have that record. City doesn't have that record, unfortunately, because of supertorm Sandy. A lot of records were lost. Um, but the purpose of the ordinance is to cause rehabilitation. Well, you got a vacant boarded up building building fire
boarded up, no utilities, eight years according to the planning board. And now someone comes along and renovates it and takes 20 units, makes them into 15. So I have to ask myself, and perhaps you'd ask yourself, why would any developer
take a 20 unit building and cut it down to 15 units, thereby decreasing their possible income stream? And the only reason is because they had to put bathrooms in every apartment. They had to take 20 units worth of space, reduce it down to 15 units in order to create
bathrooms in that space. There's no other reason a developer would try and cut shoot himself in the foot and cut out a possible source of income streams. So I do I do stress that the ordinance says any previous use. It doesn't say it had to be this or it had to be that. And
I want to give an example. It's in our brief. I think is important. Uh, my name is Tom Con. I have a car in the parking lot outside. Um, let's h hypothetically say I don't have a license. And let's hypothetically say that my car is not registered. Okay. I'm
going to leave this meeting tonight. I'm going to get back in my car. Okay. Now, the car is not registered in my hypothetical. I'm not licensed in my hypothetical. That car is still a car. So this business about a rooming house not being licensed is absurd. It's got
it doesn't change the nature of the building. If the building was a rooming house with toilets in the hallway, that's what it was. Whether it had a license, nobody can find a license. Nobody knows. We know that the fire department issued a violation. If you'll
just give me a second to change uh uh it was the building department and the fire department in the May 1967 Jersey Journal said ex this is exhibit 14. The premises was being operated as a rooming house without a license. That's
the citation. Well, this goes to prove that any possible any prior use to be converted, which was the words used by the planning board, makes it uh applicable for rent exemption under 260A1.
I've also want to make one other point. I've listened to a lot of hearings that have been conducted by this by this board, and I've listened to tenants come here and say, I got a 20% increase. I got a 30% increase this year. Well, that
to me is unfair. But I'd like to talk about this building. In apartment 7, the tenant has received a total in 23 years, she has received an increase of 3.1%. I don't mean annually. I don't mean
every two years. I mean over 23 years, a 3.1% increase in total. And the tenant in apartment number two has received a 0.05% increase. 0.05. 05 increase in 13 years.
There's nothing unfair about that. So, we also know that four of the tenants who were miraculously listed as petitioners, even though they never participated before, four of the petitioners never filed a petition. I don't have anything to respond to. It's
not appropriate to let them become petitioners for an appeal when I haven't seen what they're complaining about. They never submitted petitions. They never submitted complaints. So, I just want to sum up, and I appreciate you giving me a couple extra minutes. The burden of proof in this matter is on the
tenants. They're the appellants. They're the ones appealing the decision. They have to prove to you that their case is correct. And I think I've proven to you that the landlord's position is correct. And whatever Mr. uh Councilman Rivera might say, I just gave you about 10
examples that contradict what he says. Okay? I'm not calling him a liar. I think he's totally truthful. I believe what he said. I believe hitting a home run by hitting playing stickball and getting the ball up to the fifth floor was what nine and 10 year old kids do. But I don't think nine and 10 year old
kids remember everything. And uh you know he said he wrote his initials in the West at PS school 16. Well I believe that he lived there and I believe he wrote his initials and I believe the kids had a great time but that's not relevant for today. And those were what
two prior statements said, including the one that was submitted late, not today, late in January of 25. So I ask that you leave the two decisions alone. The 2019 decision, leave it alone. Says the
building is exempt. And I ask you to think about something else. In 2019, a prior director said that this building was exempt from rent control. Did the landlord go out and send out 10 20% rent increase notices? Yeah, the landlord didn't send out any written increase
notices. You know why? It was the pandemic. I'm sorry. Thank you, council. Back here, but I mean, again, the we we were going back and forth on the discussion of the evidence and whether or not we're where we're going to admit it. We're not Okay. Well, again, it's up to the commissioners, but I just don't
want to get off topic and we're not going to petition and then into the right. We're not going to listen to that submission. So, it's Thank you for giving me a few minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. All right. Um, if I may, I I believe
council has given quite a bit of time and there's just a couple of statements I'd like to If you're going to say anything, council, please speak into the microphone. Yes. Okay. Okay. There were a couple of statements that were made that were just incorrect. Uh, Miss Cruz filed a petition 2019. She's right here.
And um, another uh, gay late, she filed a petition as well. She's not here tonight. Okay. received a rent increase in 2019. Show me the rent. Show me. Please address out of time, folks. Exactly. Only address the board, please.
The fact is that the property owner submitted year after year landlord registration statements admitting by the person they submitted an affidavit from, Kevin Hazinski, Halinski, the property is subject to rent control.
That was their understanding. The determination by Ms. Henden back in 2019 was one paragraph. This board goes through extensive time to make their decisions. She made a decision with one paragraph. I've
reviewed the documentation. The property is exempt. That was it. This board goes through extensive review of the documents, states what the documents are, and then makes their decision. The fact is her predecessor,
Mr. OD, had looked into it, did not make a determination as stated by council in their papers. That determination was not made by Mr. OD. Mr. OD did not make a determination at all. He asked the assessor, "What is the property?" And
the response was, "It's an apartment building." In the zoning board of adjustment document, it states right here, the next matter for hearing is calendar number, and this is I'm sorry, exhibit 11, page 163, calendar number 2243, applicant property
rehabilitation and development corporation, the predecessor to the owner here, to convert an existing vacant 20 family dwelling into 14 apartments in a penthouse. house. That's an admission. They're saying, the
owner saying it's a 20 apartment dwelling. I don't know how we can get past that. I understand the board does not want to hear the recording tonight uh from Council Member Rivera. The board does accept hearsay testimony, I
believe, and my client watched the the council meeting. May I call her to say what's stated by Councilman Rivera? I object. That's the most hearsay of hearsay.
Again, if anyone's going to speak, please wait till you're called and speak into the microphone for the recording and for the stenographer. Thank you. So, the um so I would request to have her approach and she could put on the
record what Council Member Rivera stated. No, no, no. Okay. No, we don't need we don't need that. We don't need that. Okay. So again, I I believe the documents, a review of the documents will show that other than newspapers
that way uh precede Councilman Rivera's occupancy of those premises that from his time in mid60s to 1976, the property was apartments. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Thank you.
Let me hear from the landlord counselor one more time. And and just to clarify for the record, uh the the board is not willing to admit this EV into evidence, uh Councilman Rivera's statement at last
night's council meeting. Yes. Okay. All right. Just wanted to get the record clear. Of course, he has two other statements that have already been placed on the record. Go ahead. Uh, I object to, you know, for all the reasons I stated before. It's it's beyond the pale of what's credible evidence for somebody
to say, "Well, I heard somebody say something. I don't know what questions he was asked, but I heard somebody say something." That's not evidence. I've given you my 10 examples. And in the uh June 1982 planning board application
that was just referred to by Mr. Marada, it doesn't say apartments. He's absolutely wrong when he uses the word apartments. Mr. Chairman states, "The next matter for hearing is calendar number 2243. The applicant is Property Rehabilitation Development Corporation
to convert an existing vacant 20 family dwelling into 14 apartments and a penthouse." It didn't say what he just said. He said that there were 20 apartments and that's what that's what's in the record. But I'm reading to you from the record and it was also
submitted by Mr. Marada. It's to convert an existing vacant 20 family dwelling into 14 apartments and a penthouse. Convert. So I I I rest on that. I ask that you please once again consider consider what has been submitted by the
landlord. Consider my oral argument. Consider what the purpose of the ordinance is in terms of creating good housing. The 1890s, the 1960s, and the 1970s are not Jersey City of 2025.
Okay, this city is is it's unbelievable. It's incredible what's happened in this city. And I see these towers that are 50 stories tall, but this building was brick and mortar. Okay, it was built in the 1890s. Okay, I don't know how we can possibly all put our minds back in the
mind frame in in the time frame of the 1890s and imagine what it was like to be an immigrant to come over here, but you didn't move into one of those shining towers on the river. That's not the kind of housing that was here. So, I ask you once again to reaffirm the decisions which have been reached. And again, I
thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. Anybody any questions? Well, actually, um I did have one question. um actually was going to be a question that's going to be posed over to the um rent level agency and I know and
not trying to be too much of a stickler but um 260-6D does require that there is a written statement um from the division of ten tenant landlord relations um that if a
building is vacant that they actually supply something in writing to that nature. Do you know if anything was ever submitted documenting that it's uh I'm sorry you're referring to subsection is 260- 260-6
D paragraph D. Okay. The last sentence uh reads, "Officers designated by the director of the division of tenant landlord relations shall be responsible for certifying and writing that a dwelling is vacant as of
July 1st, 1998." I'm just curious. That's all. Okay. As of the record, no. Uh I don't know that the at that the office has submitted anything, if you will, in writing. Okay. No, it's not a problem. I wasn't trying to catch anybody off guard. Just curious as to whether or not
there was any anything right. Any other questions? Question. Okay. Motion to close the public portion of this meeting. Okay. I have a motion by the chairman, Mr. Dan Hill. Second. Second by Commissioner
Isakov. Uh all all in favor I Okay. Okay fellas. Session is closed. Anybody have a position? Anybody got a position? I think it's I think it's exactly
Oh, I thought this is closed. Sorry, commissioners. Any discussion we want on the record. So, okay. Okay. Please speak into the microphones. All right. Thank you. Just give us a second. Got the must
You want anybody want to say something? You can say something. We can't hear what you're saying. No, I'm just confirming to commissioners. Anybody
want to pose a motion first? Can can we ask any further questions? I would encourage that. Yeah. Okay. Now you have uh four tenants are petitioning uh this rent increase.
So if this building is found exempt, what what happens? Do the tenants have any further recourse if the building is found exempt exempt from um rent control? Right. Outside of this outside of this office um there's
no recourse outside of whatever you decide and that gets appealed and goes to superior court. Yeah. If if it's exempt then they cannot file a petition with our office because we only have jurisdiction over rent control properties. All right. Thank you.
May I respond? May I respond to that question as a lawyer who does a lot of It's closed. entirely up to I think we need to hear from a question.
I would encourage you to do. All right, counselor, be brief, please. Really really really brief. I promise you I will be brief. While while exemption from rent control does provide certain uh limitations and and and uh
circumstances regarding rent increases, there is a state law that is available to every tenant in every landlord tenant case. And it says that a landlord shall not be permitted to make an unconscionable rent increase. That's the exact language of the statute, an
unconscionable rent increase. And what that means is four and 5% increases are okay. Seven and 8% you're in the great air gray area. 10 and 11% you're in trouble. So there is recourse for a tenant to respond to your question sir that you can go to court say the rent
increase was unconscionable too high. It's available to all tenants. If I may um I disagree with council respectfully. There is no statute that provides for that. the the the issue on unconscionable rent increases by case
law and it's by the judge. Council has stated that seven or eight% is in a you know fuzzy area not his exact word. However, the increases have been 7 to n% over the last three years to my clients.
Jersey City is suffering from the biggest rent increases of all time and nobody has a place to live now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, C. All right, Laney.
Um, if I could, I would just like to speak to the tenants landlord. I mean, excuse me, attorney again. Is it Marado? Oh, no. I'm scar I'm sorry. No, Layman. I apologize. The landlord layman.
The issue about the um You could p There has been I think Are you into your mic, Commissioner? Yeah. There's been some argument I believe in the documentation on your behalf that the um ordinance is 260. uh the ordinance and the int the nature of the ordinance that
that it u does not require a rooming house to be licensed in order to qualify for the exemption. I'm just trying to get you to clarify a little bit more as to why it's an absence of records more than anything else. You know, the premises was built in the 1890s. I don't
know anybody who can think about what uh a walkup building was like in the 1890s. It wasn't middle class housing. It was it was for poor. It was for immigrants. That's what Mr. Rivera said, too. And you didn't get your own bathrooms in
those days. And even in the tenants petition, which I cited to, they described the building uh the building as each unit consisting of, uh boy, uh the tenants brief, page 13 of exhibit 3. Quote, each unit has two
principal rooms, a kitchen, an al cove, and a fireplace. Close quote. So, I'm not trying to, you know, the language of the ordinance, which I'd like to address again briefly, says any prior use. That's the exact language
that's in section 261A from any previous use. So, it doesn't matter whether it was licensed or not licensed or it was a a a rooming house, a boarding house, a transients, there were squatters, it wasn't an apartment building. And the
definition of dwelling is set forth within the municipal ordinance. And this property does not meet the definition of dwelling because while you can have an individual, you can have two best friends, you can have a couple, you can have a family, but what you have to have is your own bathroom. That's what makes
it a dwelling. And that's not only case law uh I'm sorry, that's not only the ordinance that we're dealing with tonight. that is also case law from the appellet division of uh the New Jersey Supreme Court and it is also uh the
definition that is used by the United States Supreme Court and James Layman if can you help me with the citations for that please for the I mean I'll give you Supreme Court law and New Jersey appellet division law that defines dwellings. It's in our brief but I can't
find it fast enough. Just give us a second. Okay. It was the case was Schneider and it set forth in our papers. Although I don't have a uh citation for you, but it's in our a couple briefs ago. The
Schneider case says a building was operating as an unlicensed rooming house even though family members live there. And it was an unlicensed rooming house because they shared the building with non-family residents who had discrete living spaces but shared access to ba to
bathrooms. The next case was Country Lane. This is United States Supreme Court. A rooming house is based upon shared shared bathrooms. And that's the exact language out of a Supreme Court case. So whether
you think it was a rooming house or a boarding house or something else or a transients or squattish, whatever it was, it was not an apartment building when it was built. There's no question about that. And that's my 10 examples with eight newspaper articles and
affidavits and everything else. All those people can't be wrong and one man is right. It's not possible that 10 other people are wrong. 10 and all. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. I'll be brief in my response. The
um first of all, council bases his statements on facts that there is no way he could know. He starts out with the building being built in 1890s. It was a walk up. It didn't have bathrooms. There's no way he can know that. It's just not possible. Okay. So,
it's being inflammatory, I believe, in some respect to go beyond what the actuality is. The zoning board of adjustment um application specifically states dwelling. The def the definition of dwelling in
the ordinance specifically states any building or other structures containing housing spaces rented or offered for rent to one or more tenants. consisting of a household or family as defined in this chapter.
There's no discussion about bathrooms, but it is a dwelling. The the fact is the fact is that this property even based upon the uh Jersey Journal article where 12
families were displaced. I understand the board does not want to hear the recording of Councilman Rivera. Again, I would request that the board carry the matter so that Council Member Rivera can either provide an affidavit
or be present. But and also uh council's um witness, Mr. Helzinski, can also appear. The fact is there is nothing stated other than newspaper articles in the 60s that this was a rooming house.
Their witness that provided the affidavit does not have specific knowledge. If you read the affidavit, he says he was in the building after he says it was a rooming house. He wasn't in there when it was allegedly a rooming
house. So the facts are clear. This was an apartment. the the documents presented 20 unit tenement definition of tenement apartment that is the applicant's own words okay
thank you very much thank you folks isn't it just a just to clarify isn't typically I think the landlord lawyer you said that it was a 20 unit building or 20 family building yes when
constructed there Five. When the building was originally constructed, there were five floors. Uh, walk up five floors. Ground level is the first floor, second floor, third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor. As you get to the landing on each floor, you
can turn left, you can turn right. Whichever way you turn, there's two units, dwelling units that have bedrooms and kitchen facilities down that hallway. Right? So when you if you can imagine this when you turn down the
hallway unit unit straight ahead is the bathroom right? But my question my question is more like isn't it typical to use unit and family are interchangeable right in terms of you have a 20 unit unit building you could also have a 20 family building it means
exactly the same thing. Well they they might yes they might and and in the ordinance section that Mr. Marad just said it says family is decign defined later in the ordinance except it's not. But I would say this that you can have a dwelling unit with a family in it. There's no question it's a family
dwelling unit. I totally agree. It's a question of what facilities it has. And you and is it typical to to list that a bathroom is part of that in every single unit or isn't that that is a requirement for a dwelling and I ask that you please
look at our case law right as to what constitutes a dwelling and it does but it doesn't matter how many people are living there they can be I would say in response to you sir that anybody who's living there constitutes a family unit whether it's one person or mother dad
and kids whatever it might be they're a family unit, but that doesn't make it a dwelling if they've got to go out in the hallway to use the toilet. Great. Thank you. This is a much work to it.
Make a decision, man. Let's go. What's the motion? What's the motion? What's the motion? I don't want to stop you from asking questions. I just want to reiterate that they should be on the record. Right. Right. Right. No, no problem. I got it.
Okay. I'd just like to uh if a landlord's attorney could approach the podium once again. Yes, sir. I guess where my level of uncomfortableness is this issue about dwelling. Dwelling if you could kind of concisely
and kind of like in you know speak to me like a fifth grader you know and okay your argument that this does qualify as a dwelling. Okay. So we have several different definitions of dwelling and the first one comes from
the ordinance itself and that's section 260A I'm sorry 260 excuse okay 260-1 the section defines dwelling quote dwelling as follows any building or
other structures containing housing spaces rented or offered for rent to one or more tenants consisting of a household or family as defined in this chapter and then it talks about exemptions. There is no definition of of
family that comes up later. So I've accepted and perhaps some of you have accepted that a family can be pretty much any group of people that live together. I mean they don't have to be married. They don't have to be parents and kids. I mean it could be two best friends. It could be roommates from co I mean could it could be anything that's
family. Okay. But that's not the definition of for dwelling because a vacant building, for example, is a non-permanent dwelling. And the Supreme Court case that I was trying to find before, Texas versus Florida, United States Supreme Court case, says that a
property is considered vacant if it has been unoccupied for approximately one year and necessary utilities were disconnected. This building was vacant for 6 to 8 years. you know, that's what everybody
says. Um, so in considering the critical inquiry is whether the unit was available and suitable for rent uh in and of its own, a building that has sat vacant, abandoning, and uninhabitable is no longer a permanent dwelling. I'd like to
read it again to try and respond to your question. A building that has sat vacant, abandoned, and uninhabitable is no longer a permanent dwelling. This is from the Texas versus Florida United States Supreme Court case. Did I respond to your question? Yes, you
have. I appreciate. Thank you. Sure. If I may. Okay. The um just on the definition of dwelling, I believe that we have to look at the actual definition and stay within the definition of dwelling which states any building or other structures containing housing spaces
rented or offered for rent to one or more tenants consisting of a household or family as defined in this chapter. I understand household and family are not defined in this chapter, but a dwelling is where they live. We have articles
that say 12 families were discharged from this property. So it falls within the definition. The reference to the Supreme Court case and I ref and I addressed it in my brief.
However, uh, at page exhibit 13, page 437, the Texas vers is a case involving four states where the owner of a lot of property was trying to bounce around to
have the best tax impact that he could receive. It was not about the definition as stated by council. The case has nothing to do with the status of a property as a permanent dwelling. The court's focus was to determine
whether Mr. Green, the do the the deedent in the case, abandoned the various properties as his principal doicile to determine which state had a better tax revenue. The fact is the cases stated by council,
the other cases deal with criminal matters and whether something is abandoned for the purpose of somebody going in and um damaging the property, whether they would be held to a higher standard. So that's the fact is those
cases do not support the argument. However, the definition does Thank you. All right. I got I got one question. the uh to the owner.
The um property was vacant before 1983, right? Yes. In 1976, there was a large fire. 12 families were displaced. Uh the
building was in such poor condition that it was boarded up, deemed vacant. All utilities were cut off. No water, sewer, electric. It started in 1976 because we know that's when the fire was. So from 76 to
82 two was vacant. Correct. Boarded up. No utilities, no water, no electric, no gas, no tenants, no nothing. Right. No tenants. Um, what happened in 1982 then? In 1982, somebody got the wise idea that it would
be great to take a building that's been sitting vacant and turn it into decent housing. And Robert Fulton and his company, that property development company that I referred to earlier, got mortgages from a bank called Northeastern Bank of over a million dollars. and he got a grant
from the city for $425,000 in other newspaper article I've cited and he went about and rehab the building and he did it I I I never met the man and I don't know him but you know the opportunity to take abandoned
an abandoned and boarded up and vacant building and rehab it is attractive to a lot of developers or people who know how to do that and Mr. Fulton and his team got that done uh in 1983 and four.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Again, just again just briefly, we got to watch a slippery slope here. If a vacancy is determined to be a non-permanent dwelling use,
then every temporarily boarded up building will become a exempt from rent control and we will have the end of rent control in Jersey City. Vacancy is not a use. The ordinance says
a prior use and here there was no boarding house. There never was. to permit a boarding house um from that is in violation of law and recognize it as such is wrong. And the facts that have been presented that are
documented including the historic preservation application, the zoning board of adjustment application which states dwelling that is the documentation that has been presented by the prior owner and that is relevant to
tonight's proceeding. Thank you. Thank you. Byebye. Okay. Okay. And we have a motion as I'm reading in
the landlord has provided sufficient proof of compliance with 260-1A and has previously been determined by the housing preservation and there was no new evidence has been
provided to determine otherwise. Therefore, that the property was not subject to rent control. I second that motion. I'm sorry. What What is the motion exactly? Motion to accept the decision from the rent
from the tenant landlords to affirm to affirm the the hearing the decision hearing offic's decision based on the information. Oh, I'm sorry. All right, I'll put that in the bracket.
Okay, put your reasons for why you're choosing that. Okay. All right. Um, determined by the two housing preservation directors, uh, Dana Henden and Charles OD, that there was no new
evidence provided to determine otherwise. Um, the reason why I'm I'm putting that is because of um from 76 to 82 the building was vacant. There was
nothing, no movement. Everything was shut off. There was nothing there. The uh previous owner, I guess, came in, brought the building, established um housing for tenants to move in. At that
point in ' 83, it was uh put on as on the record as a building being occupied by by tenants, but there was no uh ordinance to put them in the rent leveling uh situation.
So, because of that is why I'm suggesting and giving my opinion on Okay. So you're you're saying that then it would be exempt under 260 1A. Yeah. Okay. Yes.
Okay. Just to clarify, you're making a motion to accept the hearing officer's determination that was submitted that was published December 24th, 202 uh 2024. Right. Right.
Okay. Do do uh uh I have a second. Second. Second. Okay. We'll have a roll call. Alexander Hamilton. No. Chairman Hill. Yes.
Commissioner Ecock. I. Commissioner Isikov. I. Okay. Commissioner Brown. No. Okay. And Vice Chair Johnson, I abstain. I'm sorry. I abstain. Okay. Abstain.
Okay. So, that is three, four, uh, two against, and one abstaining. Uh, the motion passes. I'm sorry, that was three three yeses, two nos, and an an abstension. It
passes. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, I should have made that motion. That's okay. It's all right folks. Uh we're going to take a break uh for one
minute and convene. Good evening. Thank you very much. Who's that girl? Just a friend of mine, but it's a friend of yours. Oh, good. Hi, this is Tony. Here we go again. You again. Just me. Oh
my god. in the front row, but everyone took up the front. That's That's rare for me. All right, thank you. I think we're ready to go to the next. Okay.
Next case we're calling is Mag 129 Magnolia. Hi, good evening. Good evening. Adrienne Laapour from Goldstein Kellen for Magnolia Apartments 129. Mhm. Go ahead. You ready?
So, my client submitted an appeal of a vacancy capital improvement application. They submitted a vacancy capital improvement application in April of 2024 and they were provided with a calculation based upon their application in November of 2024. They submitted an
appeal of that application and it's that appeal that we're here for today. It was there was no determination by the rent leveling officer that the submission was incomplete or not in compliance with the ordinance. Instead,
the the officer decided I'm going to take my glass off. Decided that instead of using the amount of amount actually spent by the landlord in improvements, which was $72,764.64.
They reduced the cost to an arbitrary amount to saying that it exceeds it exceeds the estimates provided by the National Home Improvement Estimator. The National Home Improvement Estimator does not appear anywhere in the ordinance.
Nor does the ordinance provide the board the ability to reduce the amount of if the landlord can show that they actually spent that amount on improvements. and they reduce now the the allowable increase based upon an approved amount
of $45,974.36. So the ordinance says specifically that in the event of a vacant housing space um they can make application they may raise the rental above the cost of living increase without prior application being made to the Bureau of Rent leveling. And that's important
because it says only if he or she has made capital improvements to the housing space. Such capital improvements will entitle the landlord to increase the base rent of the unit by the following amount. And the amount is the capital improvements up to $5,000 in value based upon you all know based upon a
percentage and over 5,000 based upon a percentage. That language does not say for some other amount to be determined reasonable by the board. It says for the amount essentially actually spent by the landlord. And that's the amount that the landlord raises a tenants's rent by
prior to application because they're relying upon the language in the ordinance. If this board is going to apply a standard that's not in the ordinance and not strictly comply with the ordinance, there has to be a change in the ordinance because due process requires that to landlords. They rely upon what the ordinance says when they
set that rent. And for them to get an a calculation that's lower than based upon an amount less than what they spent, they're essentially this board is taking something from them that they're not permitted to do. the I
don't know if any of you are familiar with but and there's a lot of cases that talk about strict compliance with ordinance by boards but I'm referring to one specifically because it was before the Jersey City Rent Leveling Board and it was called Bishop Bishop Property Management and Magnolia Management
unrelated to my client versus the city of Jersey City Rentle Leveling Board. And in that case, to sort of sum it up, the the the rent leveling office had been employing a standard of calculations for hardship stays that
that was not in compliance with the ordinance. And they were doing it for 40 years. They had they even had it on their rent leveling application for a hardship stay. And they said to the landlord, you can use this calculation. A landlord submitted a calculation and the board said, "We're not using that calculation. We're using the amount in
the ordinance. We're you I'm sorry. We're using the I'll tell you exactly what this says. They they were abiding by the express language of the code of the ordinance, not what the office had previously been
doing and the the um the case was appealed. The board said we have to we can abide by the code even though that's the way we had previously we should apply by abide by the code even though the office was doing it a
different way and on appeal the judge determined that the board did not act arbitrarily and capricciously in abiding by the express language of the code. To the contrary, the judge found that the board accepting plaintiff's definition of equity, which was something other than the code said, would have been an
arbitrary deviation from the code's express language. And I submit to the board that using this standard that this reason, this standard I by that other agent, let me I don't remember what it was called. using the
standard set by the National Home Improvement Estimator is deviating from the express language of the code. It's taking away from a landlord's right to rely upon the express language of the code. And because the code gives the landlord the ability to raise the rent
before actually being approved even more so even more so the officer and the board should strictly comply with the ordinance because no one would expect that it would be reduced by some. It would be like saying we're using the CPI
based upon the um the average in the New Jersey, New York metropolitan area and then the officer deciding we're actually going to use a CPI based upon the average in the metropolitan area somewhere else. That's not what the ordinance says. The landlord has to be able to rely upon what the ordinance
actually says. So reducing it by $30,000 was arbitrary. it was not in compliance with the ordinance and the calculation should be based upon the amounts actually spent by the landlord. I did submit a supplemental
some supplemental documents in the event there was no actual determination. I don't think that I saw by the officer that any of the any of the amounts or invoices submitted by my client were incorrect or that they didn't think that
they were unreliable. It was just reduced based upon that other but I did submit additional ones in the event the board found that they needed to see more invoices or paid receipts so that the $72,000 was fully accounted for. Okay. Thank you.
Can I hear from the uh officer? Sorry. Yes, I do. Um, a couple of things. Uh, I was hired, uh, seven years ago specifically to evaluate construction and the construction that's
done for capital improvements and for vacancy capital improvements. Um, I'm not saying that the applicant or the owner did not spend that $72,000. It's whether or not we feel it's exorbitant or overly uh priced. I'm
definitely not questioning that they spent the money. um at the last cap uh vacancy capital improvements that the applicant put in in um April of last year.
The board determined that we were using a price of approximately $12842 per square foot to evaluate and to uh base their um
base the uh apartment renovations on that number. I basically took the same number for their new application for unit number seven. um when we're going through, you know, I mean, there are there's units that are
going that people say they spend $180,000 and we go through and we reduce them. Uh basically, it's my job to see whether I think it's fair and reasonable. Um that's where, you know, and I use that when we use the calculator. Um,
inspector, are we talking We're talking about the Magnolia Apartments 129, right? The November 13th report. Yeah. Um, okay. So, that lowered what the the landlord had claimed. Yes. And then on
June 3rd, so that was November 13th, 2024, and then on June 3rd of this year, the landlord supplied additional proofs of of the cost of the improvements. Did you review those?
This is for apartment number seven, correct? The hearing tonight? Yes, I believe so. Right. 207. 207. I'm sorry. Can I just address what you're saying? Yes, I would like. Can she address that? Sorry. Those proofs that were submitted
just supplemented what you already reviewed. So, like I said, I don't think there was any determination that the 70 that and I think you just stated that that he's not finding that the $72,000 He's not finding that the $72,000 wasn't spent or the landlord couldn't back it up. Just that he's using it some other
reasonleness standard, which I'm arguing you can't do because that's not what the ordinance says because and landlords aren't on notice of that. So, they are denied due process if you're going to change the standard. So, I did submit additional proofs in the event for some reason you needed more backup, but it wasn't really relevant to my it wasn't
really relevant to my argument with regard to the strict compliance with the ordinance. Okay. All right. Question. Yeah, just quick question, Tom. So, I think that that's really quite relevant to u this additional proof that was submitted June 3 and
whether or not you've had an opportunity to actually go through. Um, no. I I don't believe I did, but again, I'm I'm not questioning whether they spent the money or not. I don't I don't think that's the issue. It's just whether it's reasonable for the size of unit that they were um renovating. You know, they
put $72,000 into renovations for a 358t unit. You know, again, that that's coming out to like $23 a square foot, which is comparable to new construction price of building a building from the
ground up, including the foundation. That goes anywhere from $200 to $220 a square foot. And most construction is based on square footage. I know not all of it is, but most construction is based on square footage. So if one unit, you know, in their previous um their
previous uh applications, you know, one unit was going for um renovations were for 100, I'm sorry, $133,000 for a,58
unit. Um, a much smaller unit was, uh, I'm sorry. Uh, a 350 foot unit went for $74,000. So, basically, o, you know, over twothirds of the price of the unit that was three times bigger. So that's where
I came up with the dollar per square foot for the previous cases and the dollar that we the dollar per square foot that we wound up at is 12842. I applied that to the new unit for the new application and that's where I came
up with the number. Okay. All right. So I don't think they're apples and apples. This building is 100 years old. The unit 207 hadn't been renovated in more than 30 years. So, it needed upgraded electrical. I don't know what
the other one needed necessarily, but they this was a gut renovation of the unit. The other one may not have needed to go down to the subfloors and replace floors. It may not have needed new plumbing and new electrical and all new. I don't know what that was, but again, with a building this old and that has
and a unit that hasn't been renovated in more than 30 years, it it certainly my client spent $72,000 because that's what it cost to renovate it. If you see the before and after pictures, it's a beautiful new apartment. It's not like they did a shoddy job. They did it like
it was a new constru got renovation, new construction apartment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Just one question and and it mainly goes to uh the code. Uh do you have the um authority to make
a reasonable test? We we you know, we appreciate a reasonable test. I I can't cite exactly where it is in the ordinance. Uh but I believe that the office does have the right to determine if if the costs are reasonable. And that's basically what we're saying.
I mean, again, I'm sure we're not contesting whether they spent the 72,000. They you I'm sure you could also find a contractor who would charge you 100,000 and you could also find a contractor that would charge you 60,000. So, where is the reasonable amount in what they're spending is is basically
what my what I was technically hired to do. That's specifically why I was hired. Gotcha. Thank I just have one question about that too. That the process for find figuring out what's reasonable. You said most of it was based on square footage. Most
construction is most con. So, it's solely on that. Yeah. Well, it it also depends. you know, we did we've discounted amounts uh based on when they really strictly line itemized their entire construction budget where uh
again, I'm just giving an instance. They say uh painting an apartment was $8,000. The price per square foot is normally5 to $7. We figure out the square footage of the apartment and base it, you know, on that. It depends on how much of a breakdown the applicant gives us. Some
of them give up very very detailed. Okay. You know, I just didn't know if like quality of materials was taken into account. It No, it it it does. Okay. There is provisions for the bureau to look at reasonleness and hardship applications and the like, but I to the
counselor's point, I don't see in 260-3 paragraph C, which is for vacant space capital improvements, a reasonleness review. I I do think that it says for capital improvements up to $5,000 in
value. And maybe that's where we're getting it is just because I pay $100 for something doesn't mean it's worth $100. Is that an interpretation that people want to work with? I'm not sure. Okay. Um, I have a question that's not
related to what we just spoke of, but in terms of 260, the definition of capital improvement specifically excludes repairs and maintenance and looking at major capital improvement. I'm looking at capital improvement period. The
definition in 260 and I see repair of subfloor and bathroom and kitchen. So 260 you're looking at I'm sorry 260 which provision the definition of capital improvement and definitions
60-1. Yeah 260-1 the definition of capital improvement is referencing the a capital improvement when there's a major capital improvement that's a permanent improvement that adds value or extends a useful life. I I would contend that the
vacancy of vacant space isn't talking. They're talking about all renovations. I've never seen the office or the board limit re replacement of anything for a vacant space capital improvement. If it's a gut renovation, it's the amount
actually spent. Again, definition of capital improvement clearly states a permanent improvement that adds value or substantially extends the useful life of the landlord's property and can be claimed by the landlord for depreciation of his or her federal tax returns. specifically excluded our ordinary repairs, maintenance and conversion of hot water units. So there weren't any
ordinary repairs, maintenance or conversion to heat or hot water. This was a gut renovation of and replacement of the entire apartment. An ordinary repair or replacement is is is very is very different. Repair is repair capital improvement is capital improvement. Correct. You have submitted repair
subfloor and bathroom and kitchen. I don't see any breakout for that cost versus new cabinets for example. It's all lump sum. Can you point me to which um exhibit you know one P3?
It's also on P9. It's also on P5. I think it's just one plan. That's installment pays. So it's the same verbiage for all. I see. Demolish as per plan. Remove old wall and old floor. They demolished it all. So if they're using the word I I
don't see where you're saying repair, but I repair about halfway down all the way down this long skinny thing. I don't know what that Yeah, we're about halfway down. It says repair repair subfloor and bathroom. Anyway, the point is when you give us, you know, lump sum like this is
300,000. This is 30,000. This is 10,000. Well, that's why I submitted the supplemental. If you look at the what I submitted on the on June 3rd, the supplemental application, it breaks everything down. Mhm. Let me see if I can go back. So if you look at the first
number one demo labor and material demo cleaning the the um the invoice and receipt talk about demo walls to studs and ceilings to beams provide and carry out all depre and also bathroom and kitchen cabinets. Price
will include labor and dump fees. demo walls and ceilings, no subflooring, and then attached to that is the cost the the paid receipt for it. So, when my client submitted the initial application and typed all of that in,
it's it's more specifically from the contractor detailed in the supplementals. Yeah, I do have the contractor here if you want to ask if he has repaired the subfloor or if he just demoed it down to the subfloor. No, no,
you hear from the hearing officer again. In That's okay. Um in part of the ordinance it states the board in computing the amount spent for capital improvements which we have always taken to mean all capital improvements both vacancy and capital
improvements may consider reasonable value of construction services provided performed by the owner in the actual capital improvement work where allowed. This shall include professional consultation and other similar services of the owner and is limited to actual
labor materials invested by the owner. That's when I was trained that it was this was part of capital improvement and we are the board is to evaluate it Tom. Well, a question I would have also would be the supplemental documentation
that was submitted by the landlord, right? Is it going to significantly change what your computations were? No. Right. There's no change in the numbers. Right. Got you. All right. Just want to make sure that was clear for the reports the numbers more specifically, but the
number is the 72,000 in the end anyway. Okay. Any more questions? No. All right. Motion to close the public portion of this meeting. Second. Get a second. All in favor? I. All right.
All right. Somebody want to read the recommendation? Okay. Okay, we've had a motion to close the public hearing. It's been second. It's been second. Okay. Anybody? Well, I'd like to make a motion uh that we accept the
um request made by the landlord, by the property owner. Um, given 260-5, it seems like it does meet the u the guidelines and given what we've heard from the hearing officer, I think that they've documented their case and I
think that we should just proceed accordingly. Second. Can I speak to the mic? He can't hear. Can you please repeat that? I didn't hear the motion. Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we accept the um the numbers that were, you know,
submitted by the hearing officer and accept the case that was presented by the landlord, at least by the landlord's attorney. And um that we proceed accordingly that they've met the stipulations attached to 260-5.
And u I'm prepared to vote that we accept the documentation as submitted. Okay. So, are we uh making a motion is are we affirming the Yeah, I guess it's the matter of the language which I might be confused with.
Yes, that I would be affirming the the position taken by the hearing officer by the hearing officer as well as the arguments that were presented by the landlord. But I guess I'm confused because the landlord is saying um a higher increase
than the hearing officer is saying, right? So, well, I got the impression, the point of clarification for me that the numbers that were presented by the hearing officer are not going to change. Okay, I see what you're saying. Then I
make a I need to clarify my motion. Okay. Okay. No, but the point of clarification and I need to correct it. I make a motion that we accept the calculations presented by the hearing
officer and that they appear to be reasonable um and they have met the guidelines established in the capital improvement and service charge up to in statute 260-5. Okay. So, we have a motion to affirm the
hearing officer's determination. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, we're going to put this for a vote. And so, in case uh I'm sorry, in case BCI 20240092, this is 129 Magnolia Avenue, unit 207,
uh the vote is to affirm the hearing officer's determination. Alexander Hamilton, yes. Dana Neil, yes. James Ecock, yes.
Mark Isov, yes. Yes. Michael D. Brown, yes. Solomon C. Johnson, yes. Okay, we have six yeses. No. Uh, zero nos. The motion passes six to zero. There we go.
All right. Next case, capital improvement, 289 Barrel Street. 289 Barrow Street. There's no one here for it. No one here for it. Okay.
You read into the record here from the hearing officer. Yes. Um I actually uh spoke with both the um uh the landlord, the property owner, and the representative, the tenants, um who
uh they both agreed with uh my finding of uh capital improvement increase of $24,933.38. Uh I would only ask that we clarify it with one uh provision. Uh when I made this recommendation, I was under the
impression that every single apartment in the building had the same number of rooms. They do not. Um so I would ask that you affirm the capital improvement in the amount of $24,933.38. However, it would be allotted based on room numbers per apartment, not that
each individual apartment would get a $29.68 per month raise. If the board is able to do that. Yeah, I think the board can do that. Yeah, you're just modifying your decision based on or your recommendation based on what you're telling them. So,
do we need to close it and then do that or just one question? It it I mean it does look like it's based on room count. It I'm sorry. I have uh page 55. Uh that was the calculation.
So it you know it I I understand what you're saying. It's fine. But it already seems to be a portion by room count. Yes. But um I I believe that um that count is not correct. Oh that that and
that was indicated by both the landlord and the um so and the owner. In total is more than 20 rooms. Yes. or yes because yeah this is this comes to 20 or maybe it's just a different reallocation of rooms right among the six apartments
among the apartments correct oh okay but overall proof it well based on the on this on the original uh I'm sorry on the determination it was per unit of $2968 if when it's being based on room number
some apartments might be slightly less and some apartments might be slightly higher and the representative of the tenant organization is aware of that, right? So that's the average basically. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Do I need to do we need to close this or
are we Yeah, you can make a motion to open and close public comment. Okay. Motion to close public comment on second. Okay. Motion has been uh motion has been given and second to close public comments. All right.
Somebody make All in favor? I I opposed or scarce. Motion to adopt the hearing officer's recommendation for capital improvement for 289 Barrel Street based on that. He spoke to the
landlord and the um owner. They came to an agreement on the um the property itself based on the apartments and the amount of rooms that are in. So, we're carrying a motion to uh accept the hearing officer's decision. So, we're pretty much making a motion to we're
modifying uh with we're modifying the original with based on the hearing officer's recommendation. So, we're modifying based on hearing officer's recommendation. I'm sorry about that. Yes. Modify. Okay. So, we have a motion to modify the hearing officer's determination based on his
recommendation that's on the record. Do I have a second? Yes. Second. All right. So, we're going to vote. We're voting now. This is case number CI 2023009 and we're making a motion to modify the hearing off hearing officers uh determination based upon the
recommendation that was given. Alexander Hamilton, yes. Dan Hill, yes. James Eco, yes. Mark Isachov, yes. Michael T. Brown, yes. Sel Johnson, yes. Motion carry six to zero.
Okay. Hardship application H 2024 00003 for 283 Webster Avenue. Hi Ela Weiss.
E L U Z E R. Yes. Yes. Um I'm here to to I gathered the officer's decision which I have a few comments regarding the the expenses that the that we send in.
It wasn't counted. Um one of a few of the expenses wasn't counted. It was missed seen most probably. Mhm. Then we have for the management fee the officer um wrote that we can't he can't calculate that because it's not it's a
owned part we managed by ourself. So we asked us to send in a proposal from a third parties which we did that we want to meant to the officer's decision. Then we have the aspect this on the officer decision it
says clearly that thei the the violations is not abated. We got an email from Thomas from the inspector that the all the all the all the violations are abated and I was speaking
to Eric again um about it and I don't know why it was missed in the decisions. Then on the calculations from the previous rent rolls, it says not filed and we did file that that and I got the
2025 rent roll that we received from the rent leveling from the rent control board office and it's not in the decision correct numbers. So we just we just want like to or amend it or the calculations about the rent
the hardship increase might be the right amount to accept but it definitely has to be updated the rental numbers on file if if we look at the um hearing offic's
revised report and recommendation. So are you saying uh if you have page three page three of three which would be page 352 of 372 just so we can understand correctly are
you saying these you know the unit designation the current rent and after increase are not the right calculations. That was page page 352 of 372. Correct. Three of three of the um hearing
officers. Correct. Uh okay. So I'm sorry if you could Are these incorrect? Correct. Oh, so I so we really can't work with this then. Correct. It has to be revised.
That's one one of the reasons that I'm asking. I was I did send in an email um to update that but most probably was too too like too busy the office and it wasn't updated. So I would like to ask it should be resent to the officer
to look it over again and then then make the again the decision. Uh that's that seems reasonable. And if you've abaded all the um all the compliance you know everything's now in
substantial compliance. If you could submit both of those, the new calculation, your substantial compliance that you've abated all the problems, uh, this may not need to come back to us. This may be able the office may be able
to resolve. Correct. Just just update the numbers and the the leftover expenses and the abatement. We can hear from the inspector if that's okay, like if it's abated or not. I think you would have to hear it again
to see what the numbers were. That's not really relevant. I guess we could remand this back to the office. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't understand you, sir. If if you have submitted new information to the office, correct? You have Okay. I can show the emails if it's No, I I believe
you. I just didn't understand what you were saying. So, if if they're saying that there's more information that wasn't included in this revised report, I I do think that the best course would be to remand it back to the office and let them review all the new information
and issue a a current um recommendation. Yep. Correct. I I will I will accept like the amount is reasonable for the increase. So, if the office wants to just update it and not have to come back, I'm okay with that. But I may have spoken out of
turn on that. Okay. But we'll we'll come back and like Yeah. Uh but obviously we need you know correct figures and right if if you've abated uh any issues the abatement of the violation. We can hear that from here
from the office inspector then it may you know it would lead us to a different conclusion because correct uh we wouldn't have to do this provisionally. Right. Okay. That's all to be determined. All right. Thank you.
Motion to close. Oh, you have no you want to you can speak. Come on. I do. Eric Bwith, assistant director, hearing officer.
You know, right? Um yes. So, um just to um establish for the record um that not only you know uh substant substantial compliance aside um you know we will need uh some sort of proofs uh
for W manage uh LLC again that um whether it's a certificate of formation uh in New Jersey or if it is uh articles of organization from New York uh something to establish that this is a
legitimate uh entity uh in invoices and payments for SNW appliance. Uh however uh that again after review may uh again that might just be a capital improvement. I don't know that that
would fall under maintenance and repair. Uh and then the payments for uh managego.lc LLC. Um, we just need some a little bit more. What What were these payments for? Okay. And I'm I just wanted to put that on the
record. Okay. And thank you again, commissioners, if you have any questions. No. No. I mean, you're right. If you have to review all this materials, that's certainly if you're willing to uh allow um more uh supplemented documents, uh we
Yeah, we'll review them. You can remand it back to us. We'll review it. Um, but I just wanted to put on the record exactly what I'm looking for. Um, just so it's clear. Okay, that's no problem. Thank you.
All right. Motion to close the public portion of the meeting. Second. Second. Second. A motion has been given to close public hearing and it's been second. All in favor? I opposed. The motion
carries. All right. Okay. So, now are we looking to set a motion to remand this back to the bureau? Yes, we will. Okay. So, someone we'll make a motion and make a motion that this is remanded back to rent control. Okay. We have a motion to
remand this back to the bureau. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Okay, we're going to vote uh in uh case number H 2024003. We have a motion to remand this back to the bureau. Alexander Hamilton, yes.
Dannon Hill, yes. James Ecock, yes. Mark Isov, yes. Michael T. Brown, yes. Sullivan C. Johnson, yes. Motion carries six to zero. Are there any other cases or anything else out there? That's it. Just motion
to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. The motion has been proposed to adjurnn. Has been second. All in favor? I I passes. All right. Good night.