BY JESSICA SMITH
Staff Writer
JEFF GRANIT staff Louie Agostino, standing in an area of his yard that he said was supposed to be graded with topsoil, is fighting with the builder and township over issues in the Hamptons at Farm View Acres development in Old Bridge. Janet and Louie Agostino’s house, at first glance, represents a dream for many homeowners.
The imposing four-bedroom brick structure looks the part of its $800,000 price tag, both inside and out. But behind the facade, the house as they describe it is a homeowner’s nightmare.
“It’s a total, total disgrace – the whole house,” Janet said. “If I bought a $300,000 tract home, I would expect this. But for three-quarters of a million, I expect more.”
The Agostinos, along with two other homeowners in Hamptons at Farm View Acres, off Disbrow Road, came to the July 16 Old Bridge Township Council meeting to express their displeasure with the council’s decision to release 70 percent of the performance bond to the Eatontown-based Robertson Douglas Group, the builder of the development.
JEFF GRANIT staff Residents complained to the Township Council about issues such as this, a cracked driveway skirt, in their brand new development off Disbrow Road. The bond reduction leaves the township with a total of $249,364 of the original total of more than $830,000.
“Our own expert said that we should release 70 percent,” Township Attorney Jerome Convery said. “I think that the 30 percent is more than sufficient to ensure that they complete the performance bond items.”
The Agostinos and others, however, disagree. Janet said it seems highly unlikely that any of the homeowners’ issues will be resolved now, as she contends the builder did not address most of the issues when the township was holding the full amount of the bond.
“At this point, there is only so much the township can do,” Janet said. “Probably, we’re going to have to go with the class action lawsuit.”
Janet read a letter to the council at Monday’s meeting, announcing that a group of residents was planning to file a class action lawsuit against both the builder and the township. Part of the reason for including the township, she stated, was that the certificates of occupancy should not have been granted for the homes, considering their condition.
Robertson Douglas filed a lawsuit against the township June 15 to force the bond reduction. Though the release of the bond came up on three different occasions with the council without resolution, the threat of a lawsuit pushed them to allow the 70 percent reduction.
“Once the lawsuit was filed, it was difficult for the township to go against the recommendation of its own expert, CME [Engineering],” Convery said.
Council President Pat Gillespie said the council’s backs were to the wall because of the lawsuit.
“We obviously didn’t want to do this,” Gillespie said. “It was pretty clear to me … that if we didn’t approve this, we would lose. I don’t think it would have been fair to the taxpayers … to expose ourselves that way to those extra costs. The law is on the side of the builder, and we pushed as hard as we could.”
Mayor Jim Phillips agreed, saying the builder would likely win in court, as CME stated in a report that Robertson Douglas had completed 94 percent of the required work at the development.
The July 16 meeting was the last before the Aug. 13 court date for the lawsuit from the builder. In addition, municipal land use law states that the town must act within 45 days of receiving the engineer’s report, which was dated June 5, according to Convery. Once the council voted to allow the bond reduction, Robertson Douglas withdrew the lawsuit.
“This has been one of the major things we’ve had to deal with in Old Bridge,” Phillips said of disputes with developers. “It’s a simple question of promises made and promises kept. They get selective amnesia. It’s a battle to have developers keep their word.”
The vice president of construction at Robertson Douglas was unavailable for comment earlier this week, but Tom Neumaier, director of sales and marketing, said he was surprised by the Agostinos’ and others’ claims.
“The only time I’ve witnessed customer service claims in the past was when our procedure for presenting a claim has not been followed properly,” he said.
Neumaier said even in cases where a compromise cannot be struck between Robertson Douglas and the homeowner, there is always arbitration that is fair to both parties to help resolve it. He said the company always goes by the final decision of the Residential Warranty Corp. (RWC).
“I can assure you, we try to please people more than any builder in the state of New Jersey,” Neumaier said.
Convery said some of the issues brought forth by homeowners at the Hamptons at Farm View are not covered by the performance bond. A few of the problems the Agostinos have with their home, however, are bondable, according to Convery.
Their issue with the topsoil in their yard, which was tested by Rutgers with negative results, is covered by the bond. Also covered are the heaving of the driveway apron because of ice in the winter, the settling of land in the rear corner of their property, and the roof leaders discharging too close to the house, Convery said.
During construction, the foundation of the Agostinos’ home was struck by a piece of machinery, causing cracks. Since they moved in, they have had problems with water in their basement, despite the extra waterproofing they paid for, they said. Though the couple said they addressed the issue immediately and the builder promised to amend it, nothing has been done.
The heaving from ice underneath a portion of their driveway is only part of the issue, the Agostinos said. When they first moved in, there was puddling in the driveway from small dips in the asphalt.
That issue was dealt with by putting a patch of asphalt over the area where the puddling occurred, Janet said. The patch was not made to fit with the rest of the asphalt, she said. The grading of the driveway is another problem, according to Louie. Due to its slope, he said, they regularly get water from their neighbor’s yard.
“I don’t think it’s a code violation,” Convery said. “It deals with drainage, but it’s not wrong.”
Both Convery and Phillips said it’s important for home buyers to make sure they are happy with all aspects of the home before going through the closing process.
“What happens sometimes is that people who buy new homes are very anxious to get into them,” Phillips said. “The lesson here is, people should not be closing on their residences until everything is done exactly the way they want it. It’s the golden rule, ‘He who has the gold makes the rules.’”
Before the closing took place, the Agostinos’ attorney, Andrew M. Newman, sent a letter to the builder’s attorney, James Gorman, in an attempt to see some resolution to problems with the house. The Agostinos requested to be credited a total of $13,400 for various issues before the closing process.
In part, they wanted to receive reimbursement for three upgrades they paid for, but were unsatisfied with.
The Agostinos paid $2,600 to have a 9-foot ceiling in their basement, so it could be finished later. They said the ceiling is under 9 feet high, varying several inches in areas, and the ductwork runs past the windows of the basement.
“They told me they’re only liable for that if they finish the basement,” Janet said.
Steve Thomas, another resident, faced a similar problem in his basement. He said there is water in the walls, which an inspector told him he would have to disclose if he were to sell the house. He too, paid extra for the 9-foot ceiling, but said he cannot finish the basement because of the water problem.
“If I don’t sell it, I’m going to have a mold problem,” Thomas said.
Thomas said if the basement was finished, the water in the walls would only destroy the work put into it.
The Agostinos also said they have issues with the plumbing and kitchen upgrades in their new home, paint, etc., and have asked to be reimbursed for some of their costs.
They also had issues with the general cleanliness of their home at the time they moved in, and they say those issues – including problems in the backyard – were never resolved.
Another concern is the maintenance of the common areas, where residents say grass is not mowed regularly and the streets were not cleared promptly during the winter.