16A — October 24 - November 13, 2014 — M id A tlantic
Real Estate Journal
www.marejournal.com
M id A tlantic R eal E state J ournal
Gabriel & Schmidt of Cushman &Wakefield rep. seller Bergman Real Estate Group acquires office bldg. for $6.4m
Danzig, Nissim & Elman secure lease C&W Brokers 150,000 s/f renewal in Jersey City
AST HANOVER, NJ — Bergman Rea l Estate Group , a full- service real estate company of 25 years that owns and man- ages office properties through- out New Jersey, announced the acquisition of 100 Eagle Rock Ave., a 90,000 s/f office property located in East Ha- nover, in a joint venture with a vehicle managed by Rialto Capital Management, LLC , a wholly owned subsidiary of Lennar Corporation . It was purchased for $71 per s/f (or $6.4 million. Bergman Real Estate Group was represented by Michael DiFede , director of acquisi- tions, along with Michael Brody , principal of Garden E PISCATAWAY, NJ — Bus se l Rea l ty Corp . (BRC) , a leading industrial real estate services firm in New Jersey, announced its completely leased 240 Randolphville Rd. in Pis- cataway, a 22,500 s/f indus- trial facility. Executive vice president Gregory Irving and vice president Anthony Mirco- vich of BRC leased 12,500 s/f to Palmieri Moving Inc. and 10,000 s/f to All Jersey Moving Inc. “Both of these firms found 240 Randolphville Road to be ideal for their moving and storage operations,” proximity of sensitive recep- tors.) 3. Indoor air exceedance of Indoor Air Screening Levels within a building 4. Soil gas exceedance of Soil Gas Screening Levels below/ near a building 5. Wet basement (or sump) with free product or ground water containing a volatile contaminant 6. Indigenous methanogenic conditions (i.e., conditions that could produce methane in situ) that may cause either an explo- sion or oxygen deficiency 7. Other indications of hu- man impact from vapor intru- sion. Let’s discuss a fairly common soil vapor situation. Imagine gasoline impacts from a leak-
100 Eagle Rock Ave.
107-151 West Side Ave.
Estate Group and Michael J. Brody. This is an ideal ex- ample of GSOP’s strategy in acquiring New Jersey office and other select commercial properties that offer signifi- cant upside and leveraging our expertise to maximize value for the asset,” said Michael Bergman , president of Berg- man Real Estate Group. n
“This building continues to meet our client’s needs per- fectly,” Danzig said. “It of- fers proximity to Manhattan, where CitiStorage maintains a significant client base. Ad- ditionally, the space includes custom built-out records stor- age infrastructure and high security for the company’s specialized needs.” n
State Office Properties in the acquisition. Gary Ga- briel and Kyle Schmidt of Cushman and Wakefield represented the seller, TA As- sociates, in the transaction. “This represents the first ac- quisition of our newly formed affiliate, Garden State Office Properties (GSOP), a partner- ship between Bergman Real
JERSEY CITY, NJ — Cit- iStorage, LLC has renewed its 150,000 s/f warehouse lease at 107-151 West Side Ave. in Jersey City. Cushman & Wakefield ’s Stan Danzig , Jules Nissim and Stephen Elman , brokered the long-term transaction. Eden Wood Realty owns the West Side Ave. property.
Bussel Realty completes two lease transactions at 240 Randolphville Road in Piscataway, NJ
Novadebt moves HQs to $6.85m building MANALAPAN, NJ — No- vadebt announced a deal to relocate its headquarters to Manalapan after a three-year search that will facilitate the company’s expansion plans. Novadebt will receive nearly 100% financing for its $6.85 million purchase of the 60,000 s/f office building at 200 U.S. Rte. 9, according to Jeremy Garlock , the attorney repre- senting Novadebt on behalf of the law firm of Schenck Price, Smith & King, LLP , which arranged for all of the financing. n 200 U.S Rte. 9 continued from page 15A “Key Cases And Private Letter Rulings”
240 Randolphville Rd.
said Irving. “The property’s location near I-287 was best suited to reach their commercial and residential base of customers in the area.” 240 Randolphville Rd. is a ing underground storage tank. Now imagine that a school and several private residences ex- ist in close proximity to the property’s perimeter. If you own this property, you are required to conduct a rigor- ous investigation of soil vapor that may impact neighboring properties. If neighboring properties are impacted, then one or more additional steps may need to be taken. In general, here is what you need to know. If you are the responsible party from whose property the vapor prob- lem is emanating, you need to speak with an environmental attorney. And because these appear to be “third party” damages, you may have cover- age via your general liability insurance policy. Important:
22,500 s/f facility, with 400 amps of electrical power, two loading dock doors and two drive-in docks. The proper- ty’s location is in close prox- imity to I-287 and Exit 10 of the New Jersey Turnpike. n ESA strongly suggests that an attorney file your environmen- tal insurance claim. If you own or occupy an im- pacted adjacent property, you too may also want to retain an environmental attorney. Unfortunately, litigation often results from these situations. Remediation Remedial measures may be needed. These measures can be active (such as fans or blow- ers) or passive (such as vapor barriers). The point is that if a building (residential or com- mercial) is impacted by vapors, is it probable that people can safely continue living or work- ing there after remediation has been properly conducted. Call ESA any time at 732- 469-8888 for answers to your vapor intrusion questions. n
seller increased mortgage on replacement property acquired by taxpayer in the exchange); PLR 8248039 (permitted the netting of a new mortgage on the replacement property against the existing debt on the relinquished property); PLR 9853028, (taxpayer’s mortgage paid off by buyer netted against liability incurred by the tax- payer in acquiring replacement property). In short, a taxpayer’s reason for refinancing shortly before an exchange should include significant non-tax objectives independent of the anticipated exchange transaction. The tim- ing of the transaction in rela- tion to the exchange is another important consideration as discussed in Fredericks. Refinancing the replacement property is less risky. Refinanc- ing the replacement property will be discussed in Part 2 of this article. Pamela A. Michaels is an attorney and vice president of Asset Preservation, Inc., a nationwide Qualified Inter- mediary and wholly owned subsidiary of Stewart Title. n
exchange. Arguably, if one or more of these requirements is not met, the IRS may suc- cessfully argue that the pro- ceeds of pre-exchange financing constitute taxable boot. The Fredericks court found it sig- nificant that the taxpayer had been trying to refinance the property during the two year period prior to the sale. See also PLR 8434015 in which the IRS ruled that the proceeds of a taxpayer’s proposed refinanc- ing shortly before an exchange would constitute taxable boot in the exchange. In each case, the independence of the refinanc- ing was the critical factor. For another analysis of this issue, see Behrens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1985-195. In several cases and rulings, taxpayers have successfully defended pre-exchange financ- ings where the purpose of the financing was to even-up the debt on the relinquished prop- erty with debt to be assumed by the taxpayer on the replace- ment property. See Garcia v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 491 (1983) (replacement property
Vapor Intrusion, An Introduction . . . continued from page 2A
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker