| Author |
Message |
    
Ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 364
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 6:57 pm: |     |
RESOLUTION NO. 83-02 As ordered by the entire Township Committee on June 18, 2002
WHEREAS, a bed and breakfast known as Les Saisons is being operated in the Township of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 3, 2002, a municipal court judge in Maplewood ruled that Les Saisons was operating illegally; and
WHEREAS, the Township of Maplewood desires that a hearing on the merits of Les Saisons petition that it is a prior non-conforming use be heard as quickly as possible; etc.
REQUEST GRANTED.
Township of Maplewood, Plaintiff vs. Arthur J. Christensen d/b/a Les Saisons, Defendant
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Essex County Docket No: C-215-02 Civil Action ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINTS
For the Plaintiff, Bruce S. Edington, St.John & Wayne, L.L.C. and present for Maplewood Roger Desiderio. For the Defendant, Aldan O. Markson, Schwartz, Barkin & Mitchell and Arthur J. Christensen, before the Honorable R. Benjamin Cohen, P.J.Ch.
This afternoon at 1:30PM, the judge ruled for the Defendant on all matters, including denying ordering the cessition immediately of all activities at Les Saisons beyond those of a single family dwelling; and in the alternative, ording the cessation of all activities at Les Saisons beyond those originally authorized by Mr. Mittermaier; etc.
In addition, the judge ruled to dismiss the entire Order To Show Cause case against the Defendant.
My wife Libby and I want to thank the many residents who have lent us their support and good wishes during this very difficult time.
Anyone interested in seeing the complete transcript of this case, or would be interested in any additional information on this matter, please feel free to e-mail me at LesSaisons@comcast.net Thank you. Art Christensen
|
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 871
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 7:13 pm: | |
Art:
Congratulations. |
Stefano
Real Name
Username: Stefano
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 9:24 pm: | |
Dearest Ajc,
A supremo congratulations to you. Sbenois and I look forward to the biggee pancake celebration. |
Melidere
Citizen
Username: Melidere
Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 11:01 pm: | |
super congrats art, and to all who made it happen.
love,
meli |
Edmay
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 539
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 1:35 am: | |
Art
Great News!
Ed |
Barleyrooty
Citizen
Username: Barleyrooty
Post Number: 391
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 1:35 am: | |
Congrats Art. |
Athos
Citizen
Username: Athos
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 8:05 am: | |
AJC,
Congratulations! Perhaps your victory yesterday will be the first step on the road to restoring sanity to the political process in our community.
Good luck in November........... |
Ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 1:23 pm: | |
Thank you all for the congratulations, and so very much e-mail, but it's not over, far from it!
Unfortunately, this fight has a few more rounds to go. Yes, I knocked them down in the last round, but it was no KO! Going forward there is my appeal of the Maplewood Municipal Court conviction, which by the way looks very good, and will most likely be coming back. And, then there is the August 5th spectacle before the Board of Adjustment at 7:00 PM. In my opinion the Township Committee’s strong negative stance on this matter is unnecessary and inappropriate. It's unfortunate that they have taken sides, rather than stand neutral. Yesterday, all parties pretty much agreed, that who ever loses next Monday will appeal. So on, and on it goes!
I would rather not argue the merits of the pending matters on line, but I will comment on News Record Editorials and Letters to the Editor this week. “A costly loophole” speaks to a problem that calls for wide community attention. I support the Editor, Ken Pettis, and the rest of the Planning Board who oppose this “Drastic Action” suggested by Roger Desiderio, and supported by DeLuca and Ryan.
The CALM group to deal with leafblowers and other landscaping equipment is not the best answer. The lawnmowers, and snowblowers, garbage trucks, street sweepers, DPW workers cutting down or trimming trees, etc., etc., create much more noise. The list of equipment that makes noise is only equal to all the other human and animal noises we must learn to live with. We can’t go back to doing everything by hand. One of the best responses to any and many issues we all face comes from Jay Tall of South Orange. “Complaining people not newsworthy.”
I’ve seen to many neighbor complaints blown out of proportion. My neighbor’s two articles in this weeks Letters to the Editor is a good example of why negotiation is better than litigation. They are at a point where they will say anything to win. Truth is, all this conflict would have gone away two years ago had the TC and them sat down with me and settled on a solution we all could live with.
Negotiation is at the heart of fairness in dealing. Please stay tuned. |
Timmeh
Citizen
Username: Timmeh
Post Number: 433
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 2:06 pm: | |
Timmeh! |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 917
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 5:58 pm: | |
TWO DOWN, ONE TO GO!!!
It has been 7 months to the day, and as promised,
in an effort to keep residents informed,
this afternoon at 1:30PM at the Essex County
Superior Court of New Jersey,in the matter of
The State of New Jersey v. Arthur J. Christensen
Municipal Appeal Case # M.A. 02-066
Whereas, the Township of Maplewood, NJ and,
The Maplewood Municipal Prosecutor,
J. Patrick Roche, Esq., Attorney for the State
Vs.
Arthur J. Christensen, Pro Se Defendant, and
Whereas, both parties came before the
Honorable Sebastian J. Lombardi, J.S.C.,
regarding the appeal of a guilty conviction,
and $500.00 fine for operating a Bed and Breakfast
in violation of the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance 271-70A,
the Defendant, Arthur J. Christensen was found to be NOT GUILTY.
More details will be released to the News Record upon receipt of the court transcript sometime within the next 30 days. The next matter to be heard will be the Superior Court of New Jersey Appeal on the ruling by the Maplewood Board of Adjustment.
As the song goes, two out of three ain’t bad! 
|
stomptap
Citizen
Username: Stomptap
Post Number: 272
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 7:27 pm: | |
Congrats, Art! |
Chris Dickson
Citizen
Username: Ironman
Post Number: 433
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
Party at Art's!! You need a band? |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 1, 2003 - 12:43 am: | |
Art
What is the immediate impact of the decision?
What still has to happen for the other one to go down?
Ed May |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 2647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 1, 2003 - 5:00 am: | |
Just don't park on Elmwood.  |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 920
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 1, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
Ed,
Thanks for asking. If you are wondering if the ruling means I can open my bed and breakfast business back up, the answer is NO. All that really happened was the Superior Court of New Jersey overturned the lower Maplewood Court ruling and found me NOT GUILTY of the charges that I was operating a B&B illegally.
What other benefits you may ask? Well, besides not having to pay a $500.00 fine, I must admit there will be a certain level of satisfaction every time I look across my property at Phil Davis’s house.
I'm sure some people will still remember last June after I was found guilty, and immediately after I had addressed the township committee, Phil came up to the microphone and publicly stated before the whole town that at least he didn’t come before them as a common criminal. I wonder now if he’s willing to offer me an apology, or will his Maplewood Preservation organization just keep harassing the TC to have them appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court?
In the event anyone ever has a need to go before the town court in the future, there is a certain irony in this whole matter that is worth sharing.
When the Superior Court Judge ruled yesterday in my favor, it really wasn’t so much about whether I was guilty or not guilty. It all just came down to the way the town and the court handled themselves. I like to refer to it as “Fairness in Dealing.”
Simply put, the town prosecutor, and the judge failed to allow me to properly enter my defenses. I had contended all along that I had already proven to the town that there was a prior legal non-conforming use of my home as a guesthouse. The operation of my B&B was legal in that the town had authorized it in writing years earlier.
Just because they all didn’t understand the law and had made an error in judgment, it was no reason to blame me and bring me to court. The real issue behind this whole matter was the claim of the expansion of the use for weddings, etc. However, the expansion of, or even illegal expansion of a use does not take away the prior existing use.
It was also known to all present in the courtroom that this matter was to be brought before the Board of Adjustment, the proper authority to hear such matters that very same evening. However, the court refused to accept my plea to stay the matter. They also refused my requests for the proper and prior clarification of the charges against me. And in the end, the judge at the insistence of all the neighbors present with their attorney, the town prosecutor, the town attorney and two building officials, all demanding immediate relief and justice from their pain and suffering, and with their faulty interpretation of the law, found me guilty as charged!
Going forward, I have even a higher hurdle to get over. This time my attorney has to prove the Board of Adjustment misunderstood the law when they ruled against me on the abandonment phase of the hearing. Again, I contend that I had a prior legal non-conforming use of my home as a guesthouse. Another words, if only once a year, or for that matter once every few years, my home was used for the purpose of guesthouse, the use would be considered grandfathered. The Maplewood Board of Adjustment agreed that I had proven a prior legal non-conforming use. The reason I lost my case was I was unable to convince them that the use was not abandoned at one point, and that there was never any intention to abandon the use. They found against me 4 to 3, only one vote more in favor and today I would still be operating as a B&B. Anyone wanting more information may feel free to call or e-mail me.
Bobk, et al…. Come on over, the parking ban in front of my home is about to be lifted.
You know you’re living in a good town when the mayor and the township committee keep their word. This is exactly what happened on the parking issue on Elmwood Avenue, and I couldn’t be happier then if I won the lottery.
Last Monday, Mayor Vic, as promised called a special meeting at town hall for all the parties interested in revisiting the parking ban on Elmwood Avenue. It was decided that those who want the parking in front of their property may have it, and those that don’t can keep the no parking restriction. A new ordinance needs to be drafted, discussed with the TC, and voted on. Vic believes by April the signs can be removed.
As for those still wanting the ban, well, given the tickets issued thus far, and the tickets to be issued in the future; the loss of a valuable parking right when they go to sell their homes, IMHO, I’d say those that decided to keep the ban, shot themselves in the foot?
More power to the people! |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 498
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Congratulations Art!
Who was the fourth vote against you by the BOA? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 958
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Thank you Marie, I appreciate that...
I really don't know which BOA vote was the deciding vote against me. Was it the first, or was it the last? I guess it really doesn't matter.
The only thing for sure is that after more than a year, untold hours spent by neighbors, town officials, and myself, costing many thousands of dollars for all, only one single vote stood between winning and losing.
In a way it’s now only appropriate that a Superior Judge will soon make the next decision. If you think about it, there was only a total of 14 votes cast to decide this matter. The first 7 votes favored my position 4 to 3, and the second seven votes opposed 4 to 3. Unfortunately, the total of 7 votes for me, vs. the 7 votes against me doesn’t make it a tie!
As for my position, and how long will this continue? Well as long as it takes until Les Saisons opens its doors again as Maplewood's second finest, bed and breakfast.
It doesn't matter how long it takes, because I’m determined to succeed.
I've always believed the man who wants to do something
finds a way.
The other kind finds an excuse! |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 512
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:40 pm: | |
Congratulations again Art - keep up the fight!!!! |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 3:06 am: | |
Thanks Marie...
Unfortunately, I believe the perception has been that I’m engaged in an offensive and persistent fight with my neighbors and the township committee. The exact opposite is true. From the beginning this conflict has been a defensive battle to preserve my rights, and to continue to use by property to its best advantage. A negotiated settlement could have been worked out years ago if my opponents had been interested.
In the mean time, the decision of the Board of Adjustment is also under appeal, and I’m hopeful this matter can soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties concerned. Much to my disappointment, Municipal Prosecutor Patrick Roach’s comment in today’s News Record to review the municipal court decision by the Superior Court to the Appellate Court of Appeals, would not only be expensive and malicious, but in my opinion counter-productive for all concerned.
I know from experience that a bed and breakfast can make a good neighbor anywhere in our community. A B&B doesn’t have to represent a nuisance to its neighbors. Weddings, receptions, and the like are the exception to the rule. The majority of B&B properties do not have the space or accommodations to provide these expanded kinds of services. By in large, activity and noise is in most part less than a normal family would create living at the same property.
It has been proven that Innkeepers not only make good neighbors, they increase ratables, add considerable value to their homes, and to other homes in the area. A bed and breakfast also brings a substantial amount income to the business community, the town, and provides an invaluable service to local residents needing accommodations for their visiting families and friends.
There are many other positive reasons to encourage the expansion of B&B’s in our community, too numerous to mention in this thread. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page