Blogfinger

To: Joseph Shafto, Chairman of the Planning Board

From: The Ocean Grove Home Owners Association

On September 9, 2011, the Master Plan Committee of the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association (“OGHOA”) sent a letter to the Planning Board detailing the Committee’s concerns about the draft Master Plan. The letter was presented to the membership of the Association at the September membership meeting for discussion. At the October membership meeting, our membership voted to address its concerns to the Planning Board in a letter not only from the Committee, but on behalf of the entire membership of the OGHOA.

The OGHOA members agree with the expressed concerns of the Historic Preservation Commission about the Proposed Historic Preservation Element Section of the Master Plan, especially regarding the need to preserve within the Master Plan a clearer, more extensive explanation of Ocean Grove’s unique historical importance.

The members of OGHOA would like to reiterate their concerns about the Land Use Element.

We value the draft’s many statements of intent to protect the character of the Historic District of Ocean Grove. However, we are concerned that some language in the proposed Land Use Element may actually weaken safeguards in the current Master Plan. For this reason, we strongly recommend that the language in the land use of the draft Master Plan remain as it is in the 2000 Master Plan.

In addition, we are concerned about the lack of clarity in important passages regarding zoning regulations, density limits, the flared setback and other crucial matters. Our fear is that, coupled with the recommendation for a Land Use Advisory Committee, ambiguous language, such as “reviewed,” “evaluated,” “redrafted,” “reconstituted” or “updated” in the draft Master Plan, would give present and future administrations too much discretion making changes to the zoning regulations. We fear that this draft opens the door to a weakening of existing protections.

We can find nothing in the draft itself nor in the record of the Master Plan Subcommittee’s deliberations to explain the need for so many broad and indefinite statements of intent. The draft does not make clear what is to be the mandate of the proposed advisory committee, or who will be in charge of this extensive reviewing and redrafting. Neither does it guarantee that such important changes would be developed under full public scrutiny, or with ample opportunity for the public to absorb the import of these proposals and respond to them prior to their enactment.

In addition to these general concerns, we respectfully comment on a few specific issues within the draft document:

(1)  One of the goals of the Land Use Element (Goal #5, at the bottom of Page 11 of that element), is to “Prevent to the maximum extent practicable the intrusion of nonresidential uses in residential neighborhoods.” The 2000 Master Plan says unequivocally that such intrusion should not be permitted. We suggest keeping that stronger prohibition, at least as it pertains to Ocean Grove.

(2)  We suggest shortening Goal #16 (page 13) to read: “Develop a separate zoning ordinance for the Nationally Registered Historic District area.”

(3)  We suggest shortening Goal #27 (page 14) to read: “Work to reduce sign pollution.”

(4)  Page 41 of the Land Use Element recommends that the Township review and evaluate the boundaries and requirements of the “Hotel Overlay District.” The Hotel Overlay District no longer exists on the current zoning maps. That issue aside, we are unclear as to why such a review is needed. One of our fears is that relaxing these requirements could lead to the return of the flophouses in Ocean Grove, which the Home Owners Association has worked so long and hard to eradicate.

(5)  We strongly oppose the proposal (Page 41) to create a new Township Land Use Advisory Committee. Such a body would usurp the authority of the existing citizens boards, replacing their judgments with the judgments of various executives of the Township. This would potentially allow for more decisions to be made outside the public’s view, and would be an invitation to more political influence and insider dealing.

(6)  We do not oppose the proposal (Page 42) to update definitions in the Township’s Land Development Ordinance; however, we hope that this review – and other such reviews proposed in this draft – will be done in full public view and with opportunity for public input.

(7)  Regarding the regulations on height and/or number of stories (page 42), our committee urges that the existing height and story limits be maintained. We, like many Ocean Grovers, are concerned about recent trends toward greater height and greater density.

We thank the members of the Planning Board and its subcommittee and staff for their attention to our concerns.

Sincerely,

The members of Ocean Grove Home Owners Assn.

Denis McCarthy, president, OGHOA