CLOSTER — Some homeowners in the borough who have been legally renting out two-family houses have been caught by surprise when they go to renew their Residential Certificates of Continued Occupancy (RCCO).
They are being told their houses are actually one-family structures since a 2006 law has changed how two-family homes are classified.
Those being affected, by the law, bought their homes between October 2004 and September 2006, when a standing law enabled homeowners to be sold legal two-family homes.
That law enabled two-family houses from Piermont Road west to Schraalenburgh Road to be classified based on the tax assessment’s appraising them as such. This law was an attempt to practically address the concerns of some homeowners who were renting their homes as two-family houses but had no proof the use existed prior to 1940, a "burden of proof" the council at the time thought was too demanding.
"The council for a couple of years had an ordinance in place that permitted the construction code official to issue a Continued Certificate of Occupancy (CCO) for certain homes that were utilized as two-family homes but had nothing official on record showing them as two-family other than the fact they paid taxes on it for so many years," Borough Attorney Ed Rogan said.
"The town was giving them the benefit of the doubt rather than forcing them to go to the Zoning Board and prove a continued use before 1940," he said.
However, in 2006, a superior court law said the zoning board of adjustment should be the only entity that can grant such a variance. Therefore the mayor and council nullified the chapter pertaining to special conditions for these homes. Now when these same homeowners go to renew their RCCO’s in order to rent to different tenants or sell, they are being told their houses are one-family. In order to change that the Zoning Board, using a lengthy process that incurs fees, must validate them.
One such homeowner is David Baboo, who lives on Durie Avenue and bought his two-family house in 2005, which has been mortgaged and taxed as a two-family house ever since. However, when his tenants moved out weeks ago, and he went to renew his CO, Baboo said, "the town said I [have a] one-family house."
Baboo said he was told his only recourse lay in going before the Zoning Board, which, considering attorney and escrow fees, he foresaw amounting to $2,000 to $3,000.
Baboo faults the town for not doing enough to help residents such as himself, saying homeowners who were affected by the law should have been notified at the time of its passage.
"I’m trying to go through the proper legal process and getting punished. And other people who don’t even try to get a CO are not getting in trouble," he said.
However, town officials indicated it is the responsibility of residents to know the ordinances and laws of the town. The ordinance, which amends the old law was adopted Sept. 13, 2006 and, records show, was published in the Press Journal.
Mayor Sophie Heymann said she and Rogan are working together with Zoning Official Lenny Sinowitz to address the concerns of homeowners like Baboo.
"It is not easy and we don’t know if it’s feasible. But we are aware there was an injustice brought on these homeowners and we are trying to rectify that," Heymann said.
Rogan said the ordinance committee "will look at options to see what can be done to try to make it more equitable" for affected homeowners.
In the meantime Baboo is waiting to be able to legally rent once more.
"I’m just waiting. I don’t want to take legal action but if it turns out I’m going to lose a tenant because of this I may have to," he said. "I just wish [the town] would give me a time frame."
