Hoboken developer says board rejected project due to ‘role as a perceived antagonist’

Hany Ahmed, a Hoboken developer critical of Mayor Ravi Bhalla’s administration, is suing the city again, this time claiming the Historic Preservation Commission rejected a proposal of his purely for political reasons.

By John Heinis/Hudson County View

“The treatment of Mr. Ahmed’s application has been particularly egregious given that he is a frequent public critic of the Hoboken political administration and already an adverse litigant against Hoboken and its Mayor,” the nine-count lawsuit filed in Hudson County Superior Court on Friday said.

“The HPC knew of Mr. Ahmed’s contentious public disputes with Hoboken, and was advised that their treatment of Mr. Ahmed’s application was clearly contrary to provisions of applicable law, but proceeded to treat the application with unusual hostility … The HPC’s treatment of Mr. Ahmed’s application has been both unprecedented and contrary to the legally required procedures of the HPC.”

926 Castle Point Terrace is already a two-family, 11-bedroom mansion next to Elysian Park and the renovations sought to add amenities such as a roof deck and an elevator, which the volunteer governing body rejected.

Through his attorneys, Charles Korschun and Yolanda Bromfield, both of Newark-based Gibbons P.C., Ahmed says that the board went against their own rules and regulations to reject his proposal.

“The conduct of the HPC’s review of the Application differs markedly from very similar applications, both nearby in the same historic district and throughout Hoboken,” the court filing alleges.

“There is no reasonable justification for the many failures of procedure and actions taken against the Application other than to frustrate the personal plans for an intended home for Mr. Ahmed and his family, based on his role as a perceived antagonist of Hoboken.”

A memorandum of denial was issued on June 4th, despite an April 1st deadline for the report, which the suit alleges offers no possibility to remedy or appeal the decision.

“The Memorandum further implies that a final decision on the HPC’s findings will not need to be confirmed or denied by the Hoboken Zoning Officer or Zoning Board of Adjustment in the manner required by the lawful procedures governing the HPC,” the court filing contends.

“In other words, Mr. Ahmed’s application has been left intentionally stuck in limbo, without any appropriate remedy of administrative appeal. In the meantime, the HPC has requested that the Council consider yet another attempt to persuade the City Council to revise the Hoboken Code, post hoc, to justify its ruling regarding the Property.  All of these actions are a comprehensive denial of due process, which continues a pattern of unlawfully using municipal power against Mr. Ahmed …”

The lawsuit also points out that Ahmed has recently sued the city twice.

The first case being over the Western Edge project, which was approved by the planning baord after a judge remanded it back to them last spring, and the second being an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) case where an LLC co-owned by Ahmed won $45,517 in expenses after a judge ruled a request for police stations appraisals was improperly denied.

As far as the current suit goes, Ahmed, through the suit, recalls that the commission first heard his application on August 7th, 2023, and “abrasively questioned” his business partner Mark Villamar after he made public remarks in favor of the project.

“Based on the HPC’s apparent incorrect assessment of the definition of “public right- of-way” and the tone of the August 7, 2023 meeting, counsel for Mr. Ahmed wrote to the HPC on August 24, 2023 to note the issues of the HPC applying the wrong definition and of singling out Mr. Villamar’s commentary for unequal scrutiny,” the lawsuit also says.

“The August 24, 2023 letter noted the ongoing Redevelopment Litigation with Hoboken and concerns over its apparent effects on the HPC’s treatment of the Application, which otherwise required only historic preservation details presented by Mr. Ahmed’s architect. The August 24, 2023 letter also requested that the commissioner who questioned Mr. Villamar’s intentions in testifying recuse herself from the remainder of the consideration of the Application.”

John Nastasi, the architect for the project, testified about the inconsistencies at the August 28th, 2023, as did members of the public, eventually carrying the application until October 2nd, and then again until November 6th.

In September, the city council considered an ordinance to change the definition of the public right-of-way, something that was a main point of contention for this application, but it ended up being voted down.

Before the end of the year, the commission allegedly informed Ahmed that the application had been dismissed at their December 4th, 2023 meeting without any public notice or further explanation.

The application, listed as a new proposal, eventually ended up on the March 4th agenda, something that the commission appeared to take umbrage with.

“The status of the Application as ‘new’ was therefore used as a means to criticize the Application, despite the newness being an administrative technicality at most, and Mr. Ahmed, his architect, and his counsel having been provided no notice that the previous materials would need to be presented from scratch,” the court filing contends.

“Counsel advised that no notice was ever provided regarding the dismissal, and that statement was uncontroverted by either counsel for the HPC or the Zoning Officer.”

The application was again carried until April 1st, where it was voted down, “based largely on applying the improper legal standards and rhetorical statements by Commissioner Smolyn, along with applying the incorrect definition of public right-of-way, which had just been rejected by the City Council.”

Ultimately, Ahmed asserts that both the commission and their subsequent memorandum did not follow their own procedures and protocols.

As a result, he is suing the city and the commission for being arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, claiming the decision was “ad hoc” and made for an improper purpose, a declaratory judgement, a default approval, and an improper review, all of which was a violation of constitutional due process and retaliatory.

Furthermore, the property owner says this action violated state and federal fair housing acts, the Equal Protection Act under New Jersey law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the plaintiff’s mother is disabled and the elevator is needed for her to use the full scope of the property.

Ahmed is seeking the Memorandum and decision of the HPC to be declared invalid, illegal, null, void and of no force or effects, an order compelling the HPC to grant the application, attorneys fees and costs of suit, as well as any relief the court deems just and equitable.

A city spokeswoman declined to comment, though the city typically doesn’t comment on pending litigation.