By Charles Layton
For the past two weeks, people on this blog have been discussing the interrelated topics of parking, New Jersey land use law, and the conversion of old hotels into condominiums (a trend many of you deplore).
I think I speak for everyone when I say that this stuff is too thorny for amateurs. Most of us haven’t followed the history of zoning, and we don’t know the jargon — RSIS regulations, special area standards — yikes!
Yet, when Kevin Chambers claims, as he did in a posting on January 31, that what Neptune has been doing – letting condos be built with no provision for parking — violates the law, it is our burden as citizens to try to understand what he means.
So I’ve spent the past two days poring over the scores of comments published here, and I’ve also read most of the key documents people have referred to.
If you’ll bear with me, I’ll try to lay out, as simply as possible, what I think it adds up to. Please excuse some of the bureaucratic gobbledygook. And please, also, understand that I’m no expert; take this with a grain of salt.
-0-
Here is the history:
On June 3, 1997, New Jersey gave birth to a body of land use law called Residential Site Improvement Standards. That mouthful is usually shortened to RSIS. These standards deal with sewers, storm water, streets and the like. And they establish rules for how much parking a builder must provide for condos, townhouses, single-family homes — all kinds of residences.
Neptune Township happens to have an ordinance especially for the Historic District of Ocean Grove that conflicts with these state rules. Our ordinance prohibits off-street parking requirements and driveways for new residences. The justification is mainly that driveways, curb cuts and garages erode the historic character of Ocean Grove. There were no cars when this town was founded, so its architecture and town plan made no provision for off-street parking. And if we monkey too much with the town plan, we might lose our Historic District status. It is also argued that Ocean Grove is unusually compact (at least 24 units per acre in most parts of town) and its lots are unusually small (30 feet in width). The argument is that a driveway curb cut severely limits the amount of on-street parking, with the net effect of giving us less parking space overall. (While that argument works for single-family houses, it’s less persuasive when applied to a multi-unit condo development.)
On January 25, 2005, Neptune received a letter from the state Division of Codes and Standards pointing out the obvious — that our local ordinance violates the RSIS and is therefore legally invalid. However, the letter said Neptune could apply for special permission, in the form of what’s called a “special area standard.”
On October 26, 2007, Neptune did apply. It asked the New Jersey Site Improvement Advisory Board, which enforces RSIS, to let it retain its own separate regulations. Its application laid out all the arguments mentioned above.
On February 21, 2008 and again on September 18, 2008 the board held hearings on Neptune’s request.
On September 29, 2009, Neptune received a letter from the chairman of the board stating that there was insufficient evidence to justify a special standard for Ocean Grove. This letter reiterated that the Neptune ordinance was inconsistent with the RSIS and therefore invalid. However, the letter said the board was “willing to work with the Township” if it decided to submit a new or different request.
During all these years of negotiation, of course, quite a number of residences have been built in Ocean Grove, on Ocean Pathway and elsewhere. According to the RSIS law, those residences should have included off-street parking. But, because the buildings followed Neptune’s law rather than state law, no such parking was provided. In fact, by local law, the builders were forbidden to have off-street parking even if they’d wanted it.
How much off-street parking are we talking about? Well, under the RSIS standards, new condo developments must provide room for 1.8 off-street parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit, 2.0 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and 2.1 spaces for each three-bedroom unit. Obviously, the kind of density we’ve seen lately in Ocean Grove condos wouldn’t be possible had the condo builders been required to follow this legal standard. But because Ocean Grove builders continued to follow the local standard, they provided no parking at all, except for parking on the street.
A few Ocean Grovers, most notably Kevin Chambers, have been arguing for years that Neptune was in defiance of the law, and that the practice of allowing new condos without parking should be stopped. Chambers has made some enemies in the course of pressing this case.
But without judging whether all this condoization is good or bad, the historical record does seem to support Chambers’ claim that it’s illegal. And although nobody can now undo what’s already built, surely as citizens we could insist that all future condos provide off-street parking for their residents — unless the state changes its mind and gives Neptune some sort of exemption.
In conclusion, allow me to say that if Township officials, developers or others have a different perspective, or see errors in what’s written here, please give us the benefit of your knowledge. We are trying to feel our way forward on this issue. We are hungry for sound, detailed information. We will gladly correct anything that needs correcting.
Also, since the mother of all Ocean Grove condo projects is the proposed North End Redevelopment, we should point out in closing that the Township has provided, by law, that RSIS standards for off-street parking be followed in that case. That is to say, approximately two off-street parking spaces are required for each residential unit. In addition, the North End plan requires one off-street parking space for each hotel room. The North End is a special case because sites deemed to be “in need of redevelopment” fall outside the normal zoning process. It is the only such special case in Ocean Grove.
As a long time resident when I first bought here in OG, the Sunday parking rules were in effect. I did not mind taking my car out and parking in Bradley. The cost to park was $30 in someone’s private land. As time went on, they gave all rights to Neptune, and that (1980) was the start of bad times. But the OGHOA was strong at that time. One day I was waking my dog on the boardwalk and I started to talk to a nice lady walking her dog.
I started to bring up the problem of parking with her and she pointedly told me that when I moved to OG I knew what the parking problem was & if I did not like it I should move.
Longtimer,
That ALPR looks wonderful, if Neptune implemented your idea the revenue stream could be substantial. You might want to present it to the Township Committee at its next meeting.
ken
Ken
Understand the enforcement issue, but let’s be real – Every Neptune officer knows which cars are on the street, day after day, week after week, throughout the year.
Further, with PlateScan technology, a scanner in a police vehicle can provide the officer with the car’s owner and address, without the officer having to enter any data at all (see link below). All it’s going to take is one $35 ticket for each vehicle parked in the street instead of a driveway (assuming the driveway isn’t already occupied) and I guarantee we’ll have scores more parking spaces in the Grove.
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20100809/NEWS/8090347/Plainfield-police-using-license-plate-scanners
Laura…..After reading some of the previous blogs here it seems that as long as you have the property the RSIS that the Sites committee told Neptune to enforce and Neptune hasn’t would be the answer. How can Neptune tell you NO when they’re not conforming.
Laura. I am amazed with what transpires in Neptune. I had no idea that the HPC overrides the planning board for parking issues, and driveways, and garages.
Longtimer,
I agree with your idea that those with driveways &/or garages legally use them before using street parking. How to enforce? That problem might require “Resident Parking Stickers” to identify those complying from those not. Enforcement is always the key.
ken
The logic escapes me. A Victorian style house with a garage is not historic, but a condo is.
There’s an idea for the north end, a heliport!
Hi, just wanted to say that we currently have a curb cut and a driveway. Our house was burned to the ground by the Manchester Fire last March. While designing the replacement home, we tried to have a garage at the far-interior of the driveway, but the HPC would not allow it. We will park in our driveway, but lost one space for parking by not being allowed to have a garage. Go figure. I was told that if the HPC allowed us to have a garage, they would then have to allow helipads in town. (No joke!)
Ken
I believe I did say how one problem could be resolved. Have Neptune pass an ordinance (which is within their power, and would not be in violation of any State laws) that would “make those with driveways park in the driveway before using street parking.”
I’ve said it before but construction during the summer season eats parking spaces during the day. The accompanying dumpsters take up space around the clock. If dumpsters were not permitted on the streets during July and August, it would make a difference.
Commercial vehicle parking ban outside of the business district.
Time limited parking along the beach front.
Perhaps the Inns, B & B’s and Hotels can band together to shuttle guests to and from the remote parking after check-in and check-out.
Maybe the Home Owners Association can champion the garage and driveway issues as well as off season vehicle storage.
Charles indicated this blog thread was to be about parking. One suggestion to help is for those with driveways and garages to use them; previously the problem of 4 and 5 cars for a single household was mentioned. Another pointed out SUVs stay parked at the beach just to hold gear, and Asbury and Bradley beachgoers park in Ocean Grove for free and walk. All are contributing factors to the parking problem. But nobody has said how these might be resolved.
I believe now it is time to have some solutions suggested. Sending as many ideas to solve as we have had complaints may generate a consensus solution. Start thinking!
I will start it off with: “Resident Parking Stickers”
Janice, I am a member of the HPC.
A brief explanation of the process I gave to Mary (above): the Zoning officer rules on whether an application legally qualifies as a 2 1/2 story, after which the application is presented at an HPC agenda meeting. The HPC reviews the application only to ensure the exterior (not the interior) complies with Design Guidelines. Approved plans then go to Construction.
(Parking is not part of an application.)
ken
Ken What is the footage of the property on the 3 story building, maybe 30 x 60 not much more …So great maybe they will have 2 or 3 cars at the least….and no parking
Are you on any of these boards ken?
Oh ken! appears to be 3 stories well they have attic space above the 3rd story. The home is TOO BIG but again more rateables.
To Frank, from Wow Ken
I gave Mary my understanding of how the building which appears to be a 3-story was approved to be built. If you are unhappy with that you should question the approvals not my factual presentation of them.
Your statements: “the half story is attic space for storage ONLY”, “the township has allowed three stories illegally”, and “With four bedrooms they are supposed to allow for three spaces” are opinion more than fact and do not answer Mary’s “WHY”.
Hi Sal
I know Kevin Chambers has sued ONLY for the betterment of the Grove and he used his own money.
Kevin has been one of a few to fight the wrong doings in town and has nothing to gain except to preserve the town from condos.
He is not a builder; just trying to keep the town a single family community. Give the guy a break.
If we had more like him we wouldn’t be having these problems.
Charles: One last thing …The Sites Comm. told Neptune to conduct a legitimate parking study done by a professional, and to include the North End. The township never submitted one. The only way to show how to correct our parking is by submitting one.
Previously the Neptune Township planner had submitted a parking study which stated that we are NOT in need of more parking and if parking is needed at the south end of town, we can park in Bradley Beach; and if needed at the north end, we can park in Asbury Park.
I also have the letter if you would like to see it.
Charles: I must say you are a very good writer, I enjoyed your column.
Wow Ken: The limit for single family homes is two and a half stories AND the half story is attic space for storage ONLY.
The township has allowed three stories illegally without parking AGAIN.
With 4 bedrooms they are supposed to allow for three spaces.
Mary, re 2 1/2 vs 3 storey residences…the Zoning Officer and Code & Construction decide that. What many may consider to obviously be a 3 storey must follow certain rules of the “livable space area” on the “uppermost” floor within height restrictions to qualify as 2 1/2. The key element seems to be the ability of the architect to follow the rules and satisfy the client.
ken
It would be nice if the Township removed curbcuts for properties that have converted the garages to other uses (bedroom, sunroom, basement) or have driveways that are no longer big enough to hold a vehicle.
How often does Neptune check to see if handicapped parking spaces are still needed by the people who requested them?
Another topic on this blog shows one of the new homes being built on Ocean Pathway. I thought single family homes are supposed to be limited to 2.5 stories. It seems the norm now is 3 full stories. WHY? The larger the house, the more parking spaces are needed. It seems as though there now is a competition in OG as to who can build the biggest building.
Ken
Yes…I include all of the Grove. It’s just that I only counted the 1st 2 beach blocks.
There IS a solution for new condos: The ground floor underneath the condo building can be designated condo parking. Many condos in Florida provide ground floor condo parking. Parking can be beautifully screened with lattice that allows air to flow while hiding cars. The only expense — Builders would have to reduce their profits to allow for parking space.
Longtimer,
Hopefully you are in favor of an Ordinance that includes all Ocean Grove’s many driveways and curbcuts from Main St (Rte 71) eastward to Central Ave; because there are many, many more than 22.
ken
Wonderful reporting Charles. It’s a lot of information and it’s all much clearer now.
Longtimer’s post brings up an interesting issue that probably only some of us long time Ocean Grovers think about. I’ve seen residents in my neighborhood use driveways to manipulate parking on the street. The driveway/garage owner’s car will be parked on either side of the driveway, just close enough so that no other car will fit without overlapping the apron. Then when company comes on a beach/flea market/concert day, the owner’s car is whisked into the garage and two spaces are created on the street, of course including the driveway entrance. Then there is the neighbor who’d like to park in her garage but she actually has a piano in there and an armoire and basically, it would be hard to squeeze in even a twenty six inch bicycle. Again, she never, ever parks in the driveway but instead on one side of it to save a place for frequent company, winter and summer alike. Longtimer is right. A lot of our neighbors don’t use their garages or driveways for parking.
How much has Neptune spent on legal fees either fighting with or against Kevin Chambers? It’s a matter of record but I’m sure Ms. Jahn may know it off the top of her head. I know it’s not a small number.
There currently exists a solution that would add approx. 50 parking spaces in town, at no additional cost.
Within the first 2 blocks in the Grove there are a number of residences (I count 22) that have driveways and driveway cutouts. Some of these also have garages. Yet the owners of these homes elect to park their cars in the street, using their driveways as patios. What’s more, since these residents have a driveway cutout, they (and only they) can park there. If someone else parks there, they call the Police who issue the driver a ticket. So in effect these residents have “reserved parking”. (A great example is the beach block on Embury).
Each of these driveways can fit 2 cars – 3 if there’s a garage. That works out to about 50 parking spaces. To put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of almost 2 blocks worth of parking.
Yeah, I know the HPC argument, but if Neptune passes an ordinance that makes those with driveways park in the driveway before using street parking, we can gain 50 spots overnight. This will help with snowplowing during the winter, and tourists during the summer. At no cost!!
Daniel — If you’re feeling wonkish, you can find the RSIS standards online. Just Google “njac 5:21” — it’s a 138-page document. Go to page 55 to find standards for every kind of house, mobile home, you name it. NOTE: a condominium comes under the category “Garden Apartment” — don’t ask me why.
It seems like there needs to be a double standard: one for buildings with ? two or more condo/apartment units and one for single family houses. Can a double standard be legal? PG
Thank you and wow! One point jumps to mind, at least to me: shouldn’t there be a restriction on new permits until everything is resolved?
If you are saying RSIS requires off street parking for condos, what does the RSIS say about off street parking for new houses? And if Neptune believes it is justified to ban off street parking for single family houses because it preserves parking on the street, then how can they justify banning off street parking for condos when condos, due to their density, take away more parking then a single curb cutout for underground parking would. If Neptune required parking for condos, it would help preserve on street parking while also deterring condo conversion due to the increased costs.
Thanks Charles. Still processing, but getting a better grasp.