A New Jersey court recently ruled in a case involving Joseph Berardo and the City of Jersey City regarding the demolition of a historic building. The court's decision allows Berardo to apply for a demolition permit for his property, which had been deemed significant for preservation by the city's Historic Preservation Officer. This ruling is significant for property owners and municipalities across New Jersey as it clarifies the authority of local officials in historic preservation matters.
The case, Joseph Berardo v. City of Jersey City, was decided by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on July 14, 2023. The court found that the city's process for determining the significance of buildings for preservation was not authorized under state law. This ruling impacts the way municipalities can enforce historic preservation ordinances and gives property owners more rights when it comes to demolition permits.
Background
Joseph Berardo is a property owner in Jersey City who purchased a circa-1900 building in 1987. The building is a two-and-one-half-story, wood-framed, four-unit apartment structure located in an area with several similar buildings built around the same time. In 2019, Berardo sought a determination of significance from the city’s Historic Preservation Officer, Margaret O'Neill, before applying for a demolition permit. O'Neill concluded that the building was likely to be deemed significant due to its historic, architectural, and cultural importance, which would likely prevent the issuance of a demolition permit.
Berardo appealed O'Neill's decision to the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), which upheld her determination. Following this, Berardo filed a complaint in the Law Division, arguing that the actions of the city officials were arbitrary and unreasonable. The Law Division sided with the ZBA, leading Berardo to appeal the decision to the Appellate Division.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division, in its ruling, found that the Historic Preservation Officer's determination of significance was not a legally authorized procedure under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). The court stated, "We conclude the HPO's issuance of a determination of significance — an advisory opinion seemingly intended to prevent plaintiff's submission of an application for a demolition permit — is not a procedure authorized by the Municipal Land Use Law." The court reversed the Law Division's decision and remanded the case, allowing Berardo to apply for a demolition permit in accordance with the MLUL.
The judges on the panel included Judges Geiger, Susswein, and Berdote Byrne. The court also declared that certain sections of Jersey City's Code of Ordinances were inconsistent with the MLUL and therefore invalid. Specifically, it found that the city could not delegate powers reserved for the Historic Preservation Commission to the Historic Preservation Officer.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for property owners and municipalities in New Jersey. It clarifies that the authority to determine the historic significance of a property lies with the Historic Preservation Commission, not with individual officers like the Historic Preservation Officer. This means that property owners have a clearer pathway to apply for demolition permits without being hindered by unilateral decisions from city officials.
The decision also sets a precedent for how municipalities must structure their historic preservation processes. It emphasizes the need for compliance with state law when it comes to designating properties as historic and the procedures that must be followed in such cases. This ruling could encourage more property owners to seek demolition permits, knowing they have the legal backing to challenge arbitrary decisions.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Joseph Berardo can now file for a demolition permit, which will be considered in accordance with the proper procedures outlined in the MLUL. There is no indication that the case will be appealed further, but it does open the door for other property owners in similar situations to seek clarification on their rights regarding demolition permits and historic preservation.