From the legal notice:
- HEARING TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE CHARGES AND PENALTIES PREFERRED AGAINST THE PLENARY RETAIL CONSUMPTION LICENSE IDENTIFIED AS MAHAMATIE BENI T/A LATINO HEAT SPORTS BAR & GRILL LICENSE NO. 2012-33-029-008.
- HEARING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSE PLACE-TO-PLACE TRANSFER OF THE PLENARY RETAIL CONSUMPTION LICENSE IDENTIFIED AS 301 LUIS PENALOZA LLC. T/A EXPRESS NIGHT CLUB LICENSE NO. 2012-033-23-004 SEEKING TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AT 301 RICHMOND ST. PLAINFIELD, WHICH HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS & SAFETY.
The Latino Heat Sports Bar & Grill is on Watchung Avenue, near the police station. I don't know where Express Night Club is and nothing comes up on Google for it. In past years, the license has not been connected with a location.
The bar at 301 Richmond Street has been closed for some time. It was the Richmond Beer Garden in past years and more recently was a Latino go-go bar. The shuttered bar is across the street from the site of a large, proposed apartment complex that is under review by the Planning Board.
Many feel the city has too many liquor licenses. The number of liquor licenses has dwindled a bit, but at the same time developer Frank Cretella needs one or two for his downtown development plans. Maybe he will get lucky!
--Bernice
HELL NO AT SOME POINT THE POLITICANS HAVE TO SAFE GUARD THE PEACE AND QUIET OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOT BUSINESS INTERESTS. MR. X
ReplyDeleteWhat are Frank Cretella's plans for 117-125 North Avenue, the property whose burned out building was sloppily demolished on March 21st, destroying the adjacent Mi Buenaventura restaurant in the process? Cretella is relocating the eatery down the block to a building he owns in partnership with Mapp Chief of Staff John Stewart.
ReplyDeleteOn April 24, 2014, Cretella's Landmark Developers bought the first lien on the derelict property from US Bank, which had originally purchased the certificate in a tax sale in June 2011. The very next day, the 25th, an anonymous complaint filed with the Inspections Division noted many external violations. Then the City issued a Notice of Violations on May 6th, requiring the structure to be fixed or demolished within 60-days.
The property's owner ignored two summonses and an order to appear in municipal court on July 9th. Cretella's group then began foreclosure proceedings, filing suit in Union County Court on August 21, 2014 against Dexter Humphrey and three subordinate creditors.
Jump ahead to 2015. Though the City could have taken down the building in July, it waited quietly until a Notice of Imminent Hazard was issued with an order to demolish the building, this time by January 13th. The building sat untouched once again, but when Cretella's group, 117-125 North Avenue LLC, filed a motion for default on March 3rd, the City jumped to action and began contacting demolition companies, finally choosing the one company contacted that had no prior demolition experience.
More here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-51dYlart-_NGlRT1hLeUxfamM/view?usp=sharing
Councilman Storch poo-poos the damage and thinks redevelopment and liquor licenses will spur outside interest in Painfield. But I think political shenanigans, underhanded deals, and questionable contracting with unscrupulous vendors may win the day instead.
Good investigative reporting. If Cretella is now owner of property by default judgment for strict foreclosure entered March 27, 2015, then he may be on the hook for the costs of demolition under Plainfield Property Maintenance Code sec. 4.12 which says that the lien for city abatement costs become a lien on the property AFTER the City Council approves the costs. What a tangled web...
Delete4.12 COST OF VIOLATION ABATEMENT
Where the abatement of any nuisance.... requires expending City monies
therefore, the Public Officer shall present a report of work done to accomplish the
foregoing to the City Council along with a summary of the proceedings undertaken by
the Public Officer to secure compliance. After review of the same, the City Council may
approve the said premises and costs whereupon the same shall become a lien against the said premises collectible as provided by law.
Alan made some good points.Why is the City allowing Cretella to build apartments with not enough parking and not paying his property taxes? Is John Stewart working in City Hall to help promote Cretella's projects? Was this all a pay back for working on Mapps campaign and campaign donations? Was the North Ave building taken down the way it was so Cretella's could save money when he foreclosed on the property and not have to pay for the demolition himself ?
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether it was a pay back, but the sequence of events suggests a "coordination" between the parties.
DeleteLet's go one further, could it be that permitting B & B Demolition to wantonly pound the building with a drop weight, rather than demolishing it by hand, while under the watchful and experienced eyes of two demolition experts, Mr. Yates and Mr. Watson, that the inevitable destruction of the adjacent building was anticipated. Now Mr. Cretella has the opportunity to enlarge the 3,000 square foot footprint of the demolished building by another 2 or 3 thousand square feet by purchasing the adjacent distressed property at a give away price? Maybe B&B was suckered in, and was contracted not only because of their demolition skills, but as importantly, and perhaps more importantly, because B&B had insurance to cover property damage which Yates could not produce.
An examination of the Yates/City contract shows that it was signed by Yates and Mr. Watson, representing the City, on 3/19. The demo occurred on 3/21. The contract was not signed by the City Attorney until 3/23 and the Mayor on 3/25. Curious.
The good news is it is a tough contract. Yates has agreed to indemnify the City. Yates has agreed to provide General Liability coverage with reasonable limits.( The subcontractor's insurance can not be a substitute for the insurance Yates has agreed to provide. The subs insurance is in addition ). In examining Yates submissions it appears that B&B has appropriate insurance. Yates does not. The Yates /B&B contract specifically states that the contract excludes any contractual nexus between B&B and the City. Since B&B performed the work he bears a heavy responsibly and will undoubtedly be named in any suite. However, I anticipate that B&B's defense will be that he performed the work in a manner consented to by the City and Yates, and while under their supervision. This is reinforced by the fact that both Yates and the City had authorized representatives present. The representatives voiced no objection to the procedure B&B was employing; silence constituting consent. Another complication is that if I am correct and Yates does not have the appropriate insurance, then how does Yates satisfy the obligation to indemnify the City???
Indemnification requires that Yates pay any damages assessed against the City, AND, pay for the legal defense of the City resulting from action brought against the City arising from this work. Absent insurance Yates must pay out of the company's funds. Another potent aspect of the contract is that it provides that NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR THE WORK until any claims brought against the Contractor are SETTLED. The Administration can go in one of two directions. Close their eyes , stick their fingers in their ears, put a close pin on their nose and spread around some bucks. Or, dig in and hold Yates to the unambiguous provisions of his contract, while concurrently investigating these bizarre events. The Council of course has authority to control the course of future events. Bill Kruse
What about the liquor store on watching that sells liquor after hours. Why aren't they on the list of places that need to be closed?
ReplyDeleteStill...amazed at the Victorian attitude toward alcohol and liquor... Use every license and make some money...
ReplyDeleteThis is a quality of life issue regarding the police department.. a responsible business owner will do what they need to do to ensure they make plenty of money and protect their license. The ones that don't, you know the ones that seem to take 5,000 complaints, 10yrs and an act of God to remove said license are the ultimate responsibility of the police department and the city council. Get the licenses out there for public use, utilize them, make some money and spur some development... a bar doesn't need to equal bar fights, automatic weapons, and drama... It does in Plainfield because that's what's ALLOWED. I've been to many bars in Jersey City that were within one block of my apartment and you'd never know they were there.
Crap exists in Plainfeild because it's ALLOWED.
People drink in PUBLIC because it's ALLOWED.
People sells drugs out in the open because it's ALLOWED.
Bars ruin a neighborhood because it's ALLOWED.
All these things happen in Plainfield because it's ALLOWED.
You hold people to a standard and hold them accountable for it..this is the only place I've ever seen where the City Council/ Alcohol Board would actually have "HEART ACHE" over pulling the license of someone selling drugs out of their establishment...seriously...how messed up in the head are half the people in this city ??
Boy does this comment hit the nail on the head - Sell some licenses, put some money in the city coffers and start coming down on those license holders that have troubled establishments - then resell those licenses for more money in the city coffers. This council is really worthless at best - and I am counting all members in that comment - some just more worthless than others.
Delete