Maintenance Code

[Maintenance-7o69]

On November 26th, the Township Committee will vote on a Maintenance Ordinance which will tell property owners how to maintain their property. Although this is currently fairly benign; this is a very slippery slope! You know the old saying, “Give ‘em a finger and they’ll want the whole hand”! Do you really want government to tell you how you have to maintain your property or pay a fine! This slope could easily evolve into:
1. 1. Monitoring the length of your lawn,
2. 2. Requiring you to fix a crack in your sidewalk,
3. 3. Requiring you paint your house,
4. 4. Telling you what can be stored around you house,
5. 5. Requiring you to trim your bushes and trees.
6. OR WORSE

I am 100% against this maintenance proposal! The last thing we need is more Government intrusion in our lives and we sure don't need to pay someone to enforce this!

To some extent public safety regulations are good like fire and police, but others on how people live are not. If abandoned or unoccupied business is an issue, then why not simply have an ordinance to deal with this issue. It is one thing if it is a TRUE safety issue. But it is totally another issue if someone doesn't like the way something looks! In these austere times, when it is an issue just to create a budget, we don't need things that will increase our taxes or require fines on residents who are already paying ever increasing property taxes! I will not give support to anyone running or serving on the Township Committee who is in favor of this!

If you feel the same way…NOW IS THE TIME to let your Township Committee Members know your feelings by send them an email at: Twpclerk@cranbury-nj.com

[anon-s43r]

It also appears we have something on the books referencing building maintenance already...


Chapter 64. BUILDINGS, UNFIT

[HISTORY: Adopted by the Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury 3-28-2005 by Ord. No. 03-05-05. Editor's Note: This ordinance also repealed former Ch. 64, Buildings, Unfit, adopted 5-22-1961, as amended 4-28-1980. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Uniform construction codes — See Ch. 72.
Fire prevention — See Ch. 84.
Land development — See Ch. 150.
Housing standards — See Ch. 157.
§ 64-1. Legislative authority and reasons for regulation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 112 of the Laws of 1942 of the State of New Jersey (N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.3 et seq., as said statute may from time to time be amended or supplemented), and after the adoption of a resolution by the Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury finding that there is or are a building or buildings which exist in the Township of Cranbury which is or are unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use due to dilapidation, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents or other calamities, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities, or due to other conditions rendering such building or buildings, or parts thereof, unsafe or unsanitary or dangerous or detrimental to the health or safety or otherwise inimical to the welfare of the residents of the Township of Cranbury, it is hereby declared that this chapter is in exercise of the police powers of the municipality to repair, close or demolish, or cause or require the repairing, closing or demolition of such building or buildings, or parts thereof, in the manner herein provided.
§ 64-2. Definitions.
The following terms, whenever used or referred to in this chapter, shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
BUILDING
Any building, or structure, or part thereof, whether used for human habitation or otherwise, and includes any accessory buildings and appurtenances belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith.
DWELLING
A building or structure, or part thereof, containing one or more dwelling units or lodging units.
DWELLING UNIT
A building or portion thereof providing living facilities for one or more persons.
GOVERNING BODY
The Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury.
OWNERS
The holder or holders of title in fee simple.
PARTIES IN INTEREST
All individuals, associations and corporations who have interests of record in a building and any who are in actual possession thereof.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Any housing authority or any officer who is in charge of any department or branch of the government of the municipality, county or state relating to health, fire, building regulations or to other activities concerning buildings in the municipality.
PUBLIC OFFICER
The Building Subcode Official of the Township of Cranbury and such other designees as hereinafter provided.
TOWNSHIP
The Township of Cranbury in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
§ 64-3. Designation of public officer.
A. The Building Subcode Official of the Township of Cranbury is hereby designated and appointed to exercise the powers prescribed by this chapter pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.3 et seq., as said statute may from time to time be amended or supplemented.

B. The Building Subcode Official shall have the power to designate such assistants, in writing, as may be needed to exercise the powers prescribed by this chapter, provided such designation is first authorized and approved in writing by the "Township Administrator.

§ 64-4. Criteria for determination of building as unfit.
A. Any building within the Township of Cranbury may be determined and declared to be unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use if the public officer in consultation with the Township Administrator finds that conditions exist in such building which are dangerous or injurious to the health or safety of the occupants of such building, the occupants of neighboring buildings or other residents of the Township, including, but not limited to defects therein increasing the hazards of fire, accident or other calamities; lack of adequate ventilation, light or sanitary facilities; dilapidation; disrepair; structural defects; uncleanliness; or failure to conform to other laws of the State of New Jersey or to ordinances of the Township of Cranbury or of the local Board of Health of the Township of Cranbury regulating the safety and sanitation of buildings.

B. Any building or buildings, or parts thereof, which have come into a state of disrepair through neglect, lack of maintenance or use, fire, accident or other calamities, or through any other act rendering the building or buildings, or parts thereof, in a state of disrepair, to the extent that the building is unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use, shall be deemed inimical to the welfare of the residents of the Township, and the public officer may exercise the public officer's powers to repair, demolish or cause the repairing or demolition of the building or buildings, or parts thereof, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

C. Any building or buildings, or parts thereof, which have been damaged to such an extent that nothing remains but the walls, or parts of the walls and other supports, shall, regardless of the safety and sturdiness of those remaining walls or parts thereof, be deemed inimical to the welfare of the residents of the Township, and the public officer may exercise the public officer's powers to repair, demolish or cause the repairing or demolition of the building or buildings, or parts thereof, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

§ 64-5. Filing of petition; issuance of complaint; notice of hearing.
Whenever a petition is filed with the public officer by a public authority or by at least five residents of the Township charging that any building is unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use, or whenever it appears to the public officer, on the public officer's own motion, that any building is unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use, the public officer, in consultation with the Township Administrator, shall, if preliminary investigation discloses a basis for such charges, issue and cause to be served upon the owner of and parties in interest in such building, a complaint stating the charges in that respect and containing a notice that a hearing will be held before the public officer at a place therein fixed not less than seven days nor more than 30 days after the serving of said complaint, that the owner and parties in interest shall have the right to file an answer to the complaint and appear in person or by counsel and give testimony at the place and time fixed in the complaint, and that the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts shall not be controlling in the hearing before the public officer.
§ 64-6. Service, posting and recording of complaint.
A. Complaints or orders issued by the public officer pursuant to this chapter shall be served upon persons either personally or by registered mail, but if the whereabouts of such persons is unknown and the same cannot be ascertained by the public officer in the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the public officer shall make an affidavit to that effect, then the serving of such complaint or order upon such persons may be made by publishing the same once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper printed and published in the County of Middlesex and circulating in the Township.

B. A copy of such complaint or order shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises affected by the complaint or order.

C. A copy of such complaint or order shall also be duly recorded or lodged for record with the County recording officer of Middlesex County.

§ 64-7. Hearing.
A. The owner and parties in interest shall have the right to file an answer to the complaint and to appear in person or by attorney and give testimony at the place and time fixed in said notice of hearing.

B. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling in hearings before the public officer.

C. At the time and place stated in said notice, or at such time and place to which said hearing shall be adjourned, the public officer shall hold a hearing at which time and place the charges shall be read and the owner and parties in interest and witnesses shall be heard.

D. Within 14 days of such hearing, the public officer shall issue a written report setting forth the public officer's findings of fact, disposition of the charges and reasons thereof. A copy of the report shall be served upon the owner and other parties in interest.

§ 64-8. Abatement procedure.
If, after such notice and hearing, the public officer determines that the building under consideration is unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use, in addition to the written report required under § 64-7D above, the public officer shall issue and cause to be served upon the owners thereof and parties in interest an order:
A. Requiring the repair, alteration or improvement of the said building to be made by the owner, within a reasonable time, which time shall be set forth in the order, or, at the option of the owner, to vacate or have said building vacated and closed within the time set forth in the order; and

B. If the building is in such condition as to make it dangerous to the health and safety of persons on or near the premises and the owner fails to repair, alter or improve said building within the time specified in the order, then the owner shall be required to remove or demolish said building within a reasonable time as specified in said order of removal.

§ 64-9. Actions by public officer upon failure of owner to comply.
A. If the owner fails to comply with an order so issued by the public officer to repair, alter or improve, or at the option of the owner, to vacate and close the building, the public officer may cause such building to be repaired, altered or improved or to be vacated and closed. The public officer may cause to be posted on the main entrance of any building so closed a placard with the following words: "This building is unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use; the use or occupation of this building is prohibited and unlawful."

B. If the owner fails to comply with an order to remove or demolish the building, the public officer may cause such building to be removed or demolished or may contract for the removal or demolition thereof, after advertisement for and receipt of bids therefor.

§ 64-10. Remedy for persons aggrieved.
Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the public officer under this chapter may, within 30 days after the posting and service of such order, bring an action for injunctive relief to restrain the public officer from carrying out the provisions of the order and for any other appropriate relief. The court may proceed in a summary manner or otherwise as provided by statute or rule. The remedy herein provided shall be exclusive, and no person affected by an order of the public officer shall be entitled to recover any damages for action taken pursuant to this chapter or because of noncompliance by any person with any order of the public officer.
§ 64-11. Costs to become lien.
A. The amount of the cost of the filing of legal papers, expert witnesses' fees, search fees and advertising charges incurred in the course of any proceeding taken under this chapter determined in favor of the municipality, and the cost of such repairs, alterations or improvements, of vacating and closing, or removal or demolition, if any, or the amount of the balance thereof remaining after deduction of the sum, if any, realized from the sale of materials derived from such building or from any contract for removal or demolition thereof, shall be a municipal lien against the real property upon which such cost was incurred.

B. A detailed statement of the aforesaid cost shall be filed with the Municipal Tax Assessor or other custodian of the record of tax liens, and a copy of said statement shall be forthwith forwarded to the owner by registered mail. If the building is removed or demolished by the public officer, the public officer shall, if possible, sell or cause to be sold the materials of such building. There shall be credited against the cost of the removal or demolition thereof, including the clearance and, if necessary, leveling of the site, the proceeds of any sale of such materials or any sum derived from any contract for the removal or demolition of the building. If there are no such credits or if the sum total of such costs exceeds the total of such credits, a detailed statement of the aforesaid costs and the amount so due shall be filed with the Municipal Tax Assessor or other custodian of the records of tax liens, and a copy thereof shall be forthwith forwarded to the owner by registered mail. If the total of the credits exceed such costs, the balance remaining shall be deposited in the Superior Court by the public officer, shall be secured in such manner as may be directed by such Court and shall be disbursed according to the order or judgment of the Court to the persons found to be entitled thereto by final order or judgment of such court. Any owner or party in interest may, within 30 days from the date of the filing of the lien certificate, proceed in a summary manner in the Superior Court to contest the reasonableness of the amount or the accuracy of the costs set forth in the municipal lien certificate.

C. If an actual and immediate danger to life is posed by the threatened collapse of any fire-damaged or other structurally unsafe building, the public officer may, after taking such measures as may be necessary to make such building temporarily safe, seek a judgment in summary proceedings for the demolition thereof.

D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or limit in any way the power of the municipality to define and declare nuisances and to cause their removal or abatement by summary proceedings or otherwise.

§ 64-12. Powers and duties of public officer.
In addition to the powers of this chapter granted to the public officer, the public officer shall also have the following powers:
A. To investigate the building conditions in the municipality in order to determine which buildings therein are unfit for human habitation or occupancy or use.

B. To administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence.

C. To enter upon premises for the purpose of making examinations, provided that such entries shall be made in such manner as to cause the least possible inconvenience to persons in possession.

D. To appoint and fix the duties of such officers, agents and employees as he deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, provided such appointments are first approved in writing by the Township Administrator.

E. To delegate any of the functions and powers of the public officer under this chapter to such officers and agents as the public officer may designate, provided such delegation and/or designation is first approved in writing by the Township Administrator.

§ 64-13. Adoption of State Housing Code and Uniform Construction Code by reference.
The provisions of the New Jersey State Uniform Construction Code, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-119 et seq., and the New Jersey State Housing Code, N.J.S.A. 2A:42-76 et seq., are hereby accepted, adopted and established as a standard to be used as a guide in determining the fitness of a building for human habitation or occupancy or use. A copy of the New Jersey State Housing Code and New Jersey Uniform Construction Code is on file in the Township Clerk's office.
§ 64-14. Failure to comply constitutes violation.
The failure, neglect or refusal of any person to comply with any order made by the public officer pursuant to the provisions hereof or the hindrance by any person of the public officer in making any investigation under this chapter shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
§ 64-15. Violations and penalties.
For any violation of this chapter, the violator shall be subject to such fines and other penalties as provided for in Chapter 1, § 1-15 of this Code, entitled "General penalty; continuing violations."

[anon-818s]

Seems to me the above code could be modified to address tge properties in question today.

[concerned 1-q1sq]

This new Property Maintenance Code will be nothing but a royal pain that will pit neighbor against neighbor. The folks who formed this community are rolling in their graves at this absurdity. Whoever drafted this failed to read
#116-1.Purpose which states "the purpose of the Property Maintenance Code is to protect the health,safety and welfare of the residents of the Township of Cranbury". What it really should state is that this is a Witch Hunt created by the geezers in Four Seasons against Mr. Cheney and Mr. Hagerty and the other Hysterical Commission whackos who have nothing better to do than make peoples lives miserable and cost them money with expensive mandates. The poor fellow who owns the Cranbury Service Center has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get approvals for anything at all but the power brokers in town have kept him from doing anything.[and we have not had the rateable taxes] It is most unfortunate that all the newbies want Mayberry to be just picture perfect.
If you look at those three properties they all could be developed properly if they had not been constrained by our local government. They all provided jobs and services to the community and now they have all given up because of their age or disabilities and are trying to sell those properties.
I would suggest that in all fairness this code be sent to every taxpayer in town so they can read this new code. I would bet that I can find a violation at every committee members home. This code covers,grass,windows,fences,shrubs,rock piles,broken glass,building deterioration,storage of almost anything from vehicles to furniture most anything that most folks normally have at their home.
I can assure you that this new code will be selectively enforced and depending on who you are, or who you know, you can be the target of this new code and you will have to negotiate with the Township Administrator who is to be the referee in this mess. As I see it this is just one more intrusion on our rights and freedom as hardworking taxpayers.
One other point is that there is no mention of a farm exemption. Just wait until any one of the farmers gets cited because someone doesn't like the way his irrigation pipes are stacked or where his tractor is parked. Do you really think Roy would comply? Well I would suggest that everyone get a copy of this proposed code[too bad the town has not email it to us] and forward it to your neighbors and friends as they may end up on the violation list for things that they are doing that could be illegal soon!
Remember do not vote for anyone who endorses this new code.

[anon-0n08]

The problem with this topic and the original poster specifically is he says he is against the specific proposal being voted on but then doesn't list any of it's specifics and instead only lists hypothetical examples of some possible future ordinances that could result from this "slippery slope." That's just fear mongering and does absolutely nothing for me but question the posters credibility. I don't personally know anything about this maintenance ordinance revision but if you want me to take your concern seriously, speak to what's actually on the table not some down-the-road possibility. If there are valid reasons to oppose it on its own merits and not just the "slippery slope" please state them.

And BTW the slippery slope argument seems a bit weak when we already have a maintenance ordinance in place -- hasn't that ship already sailed? Now if you can demonstrate the actual new proposal is some radicalization of the current ordinance, perhaps, but if you it undermines what is apparently your only argument against it, whatever "it" is which you haven't actually said.

[anon-s43r-7o69]

The code printed above is not proposed. I have yet to find the proposal yet. The code above is already a part of our township ordianances, and could already be used to correct the problems on the properties this new ordianance is trying to account for.

[anon-0n08]

[have read it-q1sq]

Please get a copy of the proposed ordinance posted. The draft copy is available at the municipal office. It is very specific on trimming your bushes, trimming your lawn,removing trees, removing rock piles, inadequate maintenance of your property, it does exempt barbecue grills!. By the way you also must maintain your fence in an upright manner! You also must have your siding and roofing material securely affixed to your building so as to be weather resistant!
We already have the ability to remedy health and safety concerns by code and the rest should be up to the homeowner. This new code is designed to satisfy some specific properties and anyone who says different is not telling the truth. The "Committee" that was organized to draft this was a group created by Mr. Mulligan. Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Cook--Mr. Taylor and MS. Goetz seem to be more neutral but did not vote no. This all has been prompted by a faction from Four Seasons who will really be unhappy when Hagerty and Cheney are demolished and replaced. Some neighbors of some abandoned/foreclosed houses that the banks have let get into disrepair have also complained with justification. The town just has to do the work on those specific homes and eventually when they get new owners the banks will have to pay off the maintenance liens from the township as they will be in first position ie. clear title.
Its time for the township to deal fairly on specific problems and not blanket legislate every possible rule to cripple us and take away our freedom to reasonable enjoyment of our over assessed properties.

[Attendee-081r]

I'll respond to the above having attended the meeting.

First, there was no vote. The TC said there would be further discussion with a formal vote on nov. 26.

From what I recall this is the discussion.

- windows will be monitored to ensure they are not broken.

- roofs must be intact and weather resistant. This was a big issue as Mr. Taylor stated his view this was too costly a repair for a town to mandate.

- if you build anything then when the project is done you must clear materials. So lumber, paving stones, cannot be kept even in your backyard.

- grass must be mowed at a certain height.

- fences will be monitored to ensure they are upright and have all their parts.

There are more that I forget and the poster above hit some. However, I am concerned over a slippery slope. If we can mandate windows and roofs then why not paint? What is stopping this from expanding?

Mr. Mulligan stated in whole this is for 6 properties and Mr. Johnson stated his view it was to stop future decline and preserve buildings.

My own comments:

I got the impression from Mr. Johnson that this is a first step. He did not say that, but he talked of a goal to preserve structures. This to me is a big concern. They are adding a new ordinance and not changing an existing one as I think a prior poster suggested.

Mr. Mulligan and Mr. Johnson are staunch supporters and we need this now.

Ms. Goetz seemed inclined to listen. She didn't offer any comments that I recall. She seemed neutral.

Mr. Cook seemed supportive. He questioned fences and penalties. He said more comment was needed.

Mr. Taylor questioned a lot of the wording. He stated a desire to address the issue by focusing legislation on unoccupied buildings. He did comment that more public input was needed.

Mr. Mulligan and Johnson were lauded by the audience. Mr. Taylor was actually being attacked by the people in the audience and in public comment twice.

Both Tom and Cindy were there and when given an opportunity to comment with others neither said a word. If they were opposed they had an opportunity to state it and at least show a contrast with Mr. Cook.

I got the impression that this is supported by only one area of town and that the only solution for them is to have everyone live in a town wide HOA.

Two residents spoke up concerned about it.

[anon 25-8694]

There was a person (recenlty died) who was unable to maintain his his property due to ill health. This individual lived in Cranbury most of his life and contributed his time to the community and his church. This ordinance would force the township to take action against him. Maybe neighbors should look to help instead of fine. Fortunately, at least this individual had good neighbors who at least raked his leaves in the fall.

[abc-6srn]

Wow - so now we are going to be told what we can keep in our back yard and how long our grass can grow?? Really?? Sounds like to me that our rights are being taken over. Is there anyway, if this does get passed you can fight it?? We keep our grass cut, bushes trimmed, and house looking good. But what right does the town have to tell US what we can and cant do with our property??? We pay high enough taxes to live in this town that year by year is getting more and more crazy to live in. Everyone fights, there is always someone having a problem with someone. I have lived here my whole life and it used to be a nice town where neighbors helped each other and there was not a lot of arguing and fighting about nonsense. The whole small town feel this town had is not there anymore. As time passes its just going to get worse. It really is a shame that it has to be like this.

[anon-q1sq]

I absolutly agree with the above poster. The Village of Cranbury has been taken over by a bunch of lunatics. We always had good neighbors and if there was something amiss we would help them out or accept things the way they wanted them. If someone let there shrubs grow too long or their grass wasn't manicured to perfection we acceped that and moved on. Now in these days where all the newbies have their landscape service here mowing and blowing [some twice aweek] we have the constant drone of those motor contraptions all the time. We accept that way of life but don't need to keep up with the Jonses. If someone wants the entire yard to be overgrown as habitat for birds and wildlife well so be it. This nit picking of every little thing is absurd.
Cranbury has a bad reputation as it is now for being unwelcoming and business unfriendly so lets just add one more negative to the list. As I am looking back over the past 52 years here I have seen a great loss of good will and a self serving nature has become much more dominant. Unfortunatly that has come with the influx of affluent newcomers.
One thing that really bothers me is that the committee members seem to succumb so easily to this nonsense. There are some members of this committee now who most old timers can't believe have taken such stances on things in the town. Unfortunatly some committee members have slowly become the folks they wanted to replace.
It is very sad for me, but it just may be time to, as they say "Get out of Dodge"

[anon-97on]

[Myview-op0q]

A previous poster is correct in saying that the government can restrict what one does with private property. Think of zoning. Think of health regulations that prohibit having 200 cats in your living room. Think of code provisions that disallow having 2 feet tall grass and refuse heaps in your yard that draw rodents.'

That said, much of what I believe the TC is discussing is likely already on the books in one form or another. I am not sure if any of the proposals are new, or if they are all being repackaged from elsewhere in the township code.

One poster argued that the TC is reactionary, succumbs to nonsense, etc. Another way of seeing this is that they are evidently responding to concerns expressed by someone (one poster suggested 4 Seasons residents concerned about the condition of the vacant properties by them). If there is a larger groundswell of opposition to this ordinance, I'd think they'd respond to that, too. Rather than posting here, write a letter, send an email, attend a meeting, speak to a committee member.

[The Eye of the Behol-6906]

From what I can tell, the way to beat the code is to declare everything "decorative". If you want to say a pile of rocks or a tree stump in your back yard is decorative, or part of your landscaping, you are within the restrictions of the ordinance. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As an extreme and somewhat humorous example...
in Key West, in response to his wife's nagging him about installing a pool, Hemmingway ripped a urinal off the wall of a bar bathroom, carried it home, threw it in the yard and told her to swim to her heart's content. Unable to move it herself, she responded by decorating it with mosaic tiles and turned it into a bird bath.

[Resident 30+-01q2]

Now that we are recovering from the effexts of hurricane Sandy, let's not lose sight of having as many residents come to the TC meeting on 11/26 to voice our objections to this new Property Maintenance code. The township has problems enforcing the EXISTING code referenced in this thread, let alone proposing a new set of rules. Besides, to fairly enforce this proposed maintenance code EVERY property would need to be inspected at least once a year. Sounds like a new full time position which is an extra expense we don't need. Perhaps owners of VACANT properties should be required to file a maintenance plan with the township. As a long term resident(over 30 years) Cranbury has gotten to where we are today just fine without excessive rules. We want to keep this town as a friendly and civil place to live and raise our families. People who need more rules should move to one of the retirement communities.