by Steve Mandeville

We want Grovers to tell us their observations and ideas about the March 11 fire. You can post them here or under any of the individual postings. You can click on “comments” below or send an email to pg1425@verizon.net .     PG

• Email
• Print

Posted in Ocean Grove fire 3/11/11, Ocean Grove photographs, Opinion on Blogfinger | Tagged Grovers share their feelings, ideas and thoughts about the fire | 71 Comments

71 Responses

1. on March 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm Janice

   I have to say if every B&B that’s been abused and neglected were to be sited as in “Need of Redevelopment” against Mary Beth’s thoughts these building have to supply parking, and the structures would be less intrusive.
   If an area is to be in “Need of redevelopment> it has to be blighted which means a negative criteria for the area which the Parkview would fall under. So WHY NOT DO IT ?
   I find it very simple if a structure is billed in “Need Of redevelopment ” then parking is supplied, smaller structure and LESS revenue to Neptune. Instead of lets do what’s better for the community, it’s let’s do what will bring in higher density and more revenue.

   
   
2. on March 22, 2011 at 12:28 pm Mary

   Nancy,

   Charles wrote an excellent description about RSIS on February 14. See the article:
   “Is Kevin Chambers Right? Are Ocean Grove’s Latest Condo Developments Illegal? Let’s Figure It Out.”

   Maybe he needs to do a reprint based on what Mary Beth wrote.

   Mary

   
   
3. on March 21, 2011 at 10:57 am Nancy McManus

   Mary, Interesting.

   
   
4. on March 20, 2011 at 10:32 pm Mary

   To Mary Beth Jahn,

   When did the State RSIS board approve “Special Area Standards” for parking for Ocean Grove? If it hasn’t, then parking is required for new construction and condo conversions in Ocean Grove, including the Park View.

   The State informed the Township of this in a letter dated Sept 29, 2009 and several times before this date.

   Can you please update me.

   Thank you,
   Mary

   
   
5. on March 20, 2011 at 3:23 pm Nancy McManus

   OGrover, I remember the Sampler Inn well. That held a lot of childhood memories for me, and it was so sad that it was left to rot and be torn down.
   Charles, I think Blogfinger is shining a bright light on some of these places, and they can’t hide anymore.

   
   
6. on March 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm Charles Layton

   Yes, we’ll see what happens at that hearing on the 24th. But the owners, the Koplitz brothers, are notorious scofflaws, and if they choose to use all their tricks — court appeals, declaring bankruptcy, etc. — they could still drag it out for a good while longer, I imagine. At least it appears that the Township is now pressing the case, which it didn’t do for quite a few years.

   
   
7. on March 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm Ogrover

   The Park View is obviously still classified as an Inn since it hasn’t escaped inspection through that loophole. (Why it wasn’t inspected and brought up to code long before is beyond my ken.) It has been unoccupied (except for transients and squatters it seems) and left to deteriorate for years, just like the Sampler Inn, remember that historic building? (Same owners I think?) After all these years of neglect, court proceedings, continued code violations etc., no one has any earthly idea what the owners have planned for the place? How does that happen? I guess we just wait for the rulings on the 24th and hope there are no more delays in resolving this ‘mystery’.

   
   
8. on March 20, 2011 at 11:18 am Nancy McManus

   “Area in Need of Redevelopment” sounds a bit like Eminent Domain lite.

   
   
9. on March 20, 2011 at 10:37 am Mary Beth Jahn

   Regarding the Parkview, we don’t know at this point what the owner’s endgame is for the building. Right now, we’re more concerned with repairs being made to the building as per Code and those repairs passing Code inspection, that the building is secured from transients or others entering it, and getting a hardwire fire alarm installed.

   Remember, too, that the current zoning for this building does not require parking and that the only way parking could be required of the owner in this zoning would be for the Township Committee to declare it an Area in Need of Redevelopment. This Committeewoman does not advocate that route.

   
   
10. on March 17, 2011 at 9:26 pm Ogrover

    Something like 20 condo units without providing the 40 parking spaces required. It is basically on a street that dead ends at Founder’s Park.

    
    
11. on March 17, 2011 at 7:53 pm ken

    What does “parking exemptions” involve or mean?

    
    
12. on March 17, 2011 at 3:13 pm Michael

    I live on the block where 24 McClintock sits. After reading the comments in this thread, I went down and checked all the doors. I can report that on this St. Patrick’s Day afternoon at least, each and every one is locked and secure.

    
    
13. on March 17, 2011 at 2:55 pm Ogrover

    I was just wondering if it’s to be condos since the La Pierre is already nearby and 80+ more are to be built in the North End a short distance away.

    
    
14. on March 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm Charles Layton

    Ogrover — Regarding the Park View Inn, there was a court date for that property on March 10. At that time Judge Wernik met briefly in chambers with the township’s attorney and the attorney for the Park View’s owners. The judge then sent the lawyers to a conference room with instructions to see if they could reach a settlement. The attorneys soon returned to the courtroom and requested a new court date, which was set for March 24.
    So far as I know, assuming the lawyers don’t reach a settlement before then, that March 24 court date still stands. But, as we know, these dates can change.

    
    
15. on March 17, 2011 at 1:10 pm Ogrover

    I went past the Park View again today. It appears as though some effort has been made to ‘secure’ the building. Plywood and particleboard has been placed over windows and doors and some attempts at bolstering to the northern and southern porches have been made. Does anyone know what the future plans are for the place (it is quite large)? Is it to be yet another condo conversion? Will/Are they asking for parking exemptions? Is this to be a ‘better than what was there’ thing, again?

    
    
16. on March 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm Ogrover

    Hi Nancy. The front door was closed, but I have no idea if it was secured in any way. I didn’t investigate, just looked it over from the street and sidewalk and took some pics.

    
    
17. on March 16, 2011 at 9:30 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    FYI, it is my understanding that a fire official was indeed inside the Parkview and that a central station (or hardwire) fire alarm installation permit has been issued.

    Now, we wait to see if the equipment materializes, is installed, and passes inspection.

    
    
18. on March 16, 2011 at 9:22 pm Nancy McManus

    Wow. Lots … and lots … to read through.
    MaryBeth, Thanks for the list.
    OGrover, When you went past 24 McClintock, did you notice if the door was open. Fire isn’t the only hazard that scares me. I shudder to think what might be going on in there.

    
    
19. on March 16, 2011 at 8:28 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    Did you know that many towns with historic designations won’t even consider demolition by neglect ordinances because they are so incredibly difficult to prosecute?

    HPC is an advisory board to the Township Committee. They have no enforcement power. They make recommendations. They take applications. If people don’t like the decisions on their applications, they can take it to Zoning. If people don’t like Zoning’s decisions on their appeal of the HPC decisions, they can take it to court.

    When the Township Committee made the decision that yes, we were going to do the demolition by neglect ordinance, we had Bill Doolittle and Code Enforcement draw up the “heavy hitter” list (it’s in one of the posts I made above). These are buildings that somehow, through years of either deliberate neglect or lack of funds or family feuds or other circumstances have become an immediate danger to the health and welfare of the immediate neighbors and the entire neighborhood of Ocean Grove. We check the tax and sewer payment records. We check mortgages and other liens. We have Code compile every document ever issued on that building. There may be outstanding violations and court dates for Code Enforcement. We go to the Fire Bureau. We get police and fire dispatch records of all calls to that address. We consult HPC. And then, all that paperwork gets dropped on the Township attorney’s desk. He creates a file and a timeline of the building’s history. In the end, it is the Township Committee that calls the shots on demo by neglect, not HPC.

    The Township attorney files the charges, and the owner of record is notified. There’s a preliminary hearing, and then the judge will order trial briefs and a discovery phase. All of this takes several months. Then it has to get on the court docket. At any time, the owner of record may request more time to prepare a defense, the judge may order both sides into mediation.

    Because very, very few towns in New Jersey have decided to actually pass demolition by neglect ordinances, we have no template to follow. We are actually forging new paths (I was going to say blazing new paths, but that just seemed wrong right now), and we’re going to have some bumps in the road. This isn’t your everyday procedure.

    So, when I said we were going to aggressively go after blighted buildings, that is the truth. However, it’s an aggression that is set at the pace of the Municipal Court. We’re all on this journey together.

    
    
20. on March 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm Cthulu Fhatgn

    Why would it be fruitless? Why not ask them why THEY allowed these buildings to get to this state in the first place? Oh right, you don’t have easy access to them on a blog. Right, so go after someone who’s actually doing something about the problem instead of going after those who ignored it (or if rumor be true encouraged it). I’m not saying be grateful, but why be antagonistic? Why not stop and listen to the situation straight from the horse’s mouth instead of town rumors? Do you really think anyone likes how long this is taking?

    
    
21. on March 16, 2011 at 6:10 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    Hi Janet –

    I’ll call Bill Doolittle re 122 Cookman in the morning. I got a tip and called in 35 Embury today. May I please ask that no one smoke within a foot of these two properties tonight?

    
    
22. on March 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    Ms. Arlits –

    The terms of the 80 Main agreement say the repairs have to *made,* not just filed for. Filing for and receiving approval for repairs but not actually making them is how 14 Spray ended up like it is.

    And if you’re going to let the people who turned their backs on a massive problem off the hook for their inaction, then you have undermined your own argument. I’m not sure what you thought “aggressive enforcement” meant when we talked about it last year, but this is as aggressive as state statute allows.

    
    
23. on March 16, 2011 at 5:46 pm Kathy Arlt

    First of all, Cthulu Fhatgn, it would be completely fruitless to ask prior administrations about enforcement of a demolition by neglect ordinance. There wasn’t one prior to 2007. Second, it was Ms. Jahn herself who promised, on this blog, that aggressive action would be taken on derelict properties—and she still contributes to this blog—so yes, I do challenge her about the progress (or lack) of enforcement. If my question about why the owner of 91 Cookman hadn’t been cited for code violations for eleven years seems unfair (and you’re right, it was), I’m certainly willing to modify it to cover only the four years since the passage of the demolition by neglect ordinance until last July. Third, I do understand that the township committee and municipal court are separate entities, and I definitely don’t believe that anyone is “in cahoots” to let buildings deteriorate.

    Re: 80 Main Avenue. The owners have already met the terms of the agreement. Their application to demolish the building, and their application to rehabilitate the building, were both filed with the HPC before their meeting last week.

    
    
24. on March 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm Janet

    Mary Beth:

    122 Cookman Avenue, Ocean Grove, looks like another candidate for the list of derelict properties.

    The bungalow style house has been vacant for years (my best guess is around 10 years). A few years ago, when it was for sale, overgrown ivy was pulled from the front porch and work was done underground to remove an oil tank and treat the ground for oil contamination.

    As of now, the house remains empty; the ivy continues to grow over the porch windows; a side door appears to be propped open; and a rusted oil tank sits on the property.

    
    
25. on March 16, 2011 at 2:48 pm Township Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn

    Ms. Arlt, Judge Wernik asked the attorney for 80 Main and the Township to come to a mediated agreement about the condition of that building. I suggest that should they end up back in court again for not meeting the terms of the arbitrated agreement, you ask the Judge yourself why she did that. I am not allowed to interfere with or even ask the judge why she did that.

    The owner of 14 Spray *twice* came to Code and Construction with purchase orders and receipts for building materials needed to remediate the violations on her property. Twice, she was granted an extension. When that went nowhere, we began the long road to court, and we’re still on that road. Going to court for land use violations isn’t like going for a speeding ticket — like I’ve mentioned before, there’s discovery processes and attorneys involved, and attorneys can ask for and be granted adjournments, and sometimes judges adjourn cases to become more knowledgeable about the issues involved in these cases. Right now, we have a lot more land use issues in municipal court than just about any other municipality in the state, and most of them are Ocean Grove, and more are in the pipeline. No one’s sitting on their patooties regarding demolition by neglect.

    I spoke with Bill Doolittle this morning about the condition of 27 Surf both before and after it was sold, and there was nothing particularly dilapidated or dangerous about it. It was not a dangerous construction site. Yes, there were construction materials on site after it was sold, but they were kept in a fashion that met the mandate of STATE construction statutes.

    I can’t speak and won’t speak for the administration before me; it wouldn’t be fair. Every administration has different priorities; clearly, this is one of ours. Now, if you want to have a temper tantrum because this Township Committee isn’t breaking multiple state laws and trampling all over peoples’ property rights, you go right ahead — you should have done that in 2004 and 2005, when we could have saved the Sampler. I can tell you this: we have spent a lot of time, money, tears, and stress on getting the mess with demolition by neglect rolling in the Grove and getting dangerous buildings in general either demolished or remediated in Neptune — all at a time when we don’t even know if we can continue picking up your garbage twice a week in the offseason.

    I don’t mind coming out here and discussing hard issues and realities with folks, but just be warned — I’m a hard woman. I am your public servant, but I’m not your public punching bag. If you want answers from prior administrations, you’ll have to get them yourself. I’m just concentrating on cleaning up the mess and making sure we have a workable process going forward. If you consider that “excuses,” then, by all means, continue being misinformed.

    
    
26. on March 16, 2011 at 1:51 pm Cthulu Fhatgn

    Kathy, why are you asking Ms. Jahn? Why aren’t you asking Tom Catley, Michael Golub, Jim Manning, Richie Iadanza, Pat Munro, and every other person who has sat on the Township Committee before 2007? Are you going to hold her responsible for the actions of the Committee before she was even on it? Also, don’t confuse the judicial and municipal arms of the township. Believe it or not, they aren’t in cahoots, especially not in cahoots to keep falling down buildings in that condition.

    Michael – Complain all you like about an “absense of enforcement procedures.” There is little the township can do if the JUDGE kicks the case back to the “remediate the situation” stage. Also, the HPC is about the only thing keeping Ocean Grove from looking like Celebration, Florida. Cape May is potentially losing their historic designation over vinyl railings. What do you think “simply knocking down” historic hotels and homes is going to result in?

    
    
27. on March 16, 2011 at 11:14 am Michael Grover

    Kathy’s Arit’s post provides a great summary of the questions surrounding execution of demolition by neglect requests, and absence of effective enforcement procedures. It demonstrates why the process has not been successful, and needs to be improved.

    My post does not attribute the demolition by neglect process to the two fires. Instead, it suggests that it is one of the factors that may contribute to additional fire hazards. And I don’t think it is passing along bad information to suggest that current preservation standards and the application process needs to be modified to reduce fire hazards and make building replacements easier to accomplish.

    
    
28. on March 16, 2011 at 2:20 am Daniel Beaman

    Some people have mentioned sirens. On the morning of the fire, I woke up around 5:15 and heard nothing. I left for work at 5:45 and could see the sky full of light from the fire. I saw fire trucks driving around Central and Main heading to the fire with their sirens off. By the time I got to the gates, the first set of firetrucks were heading into Ocean Grove with their sirens on. I am guessing about 15 minutes after the first firetruck arrived silently, the first siren was heard in Ocean Grove. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. I wonder how many times firetrucks go out on false alarms in the middle of the night. Besides, the roads are bare except for a few crazy people like myself. Once it was obvious that the fire was real and people should be alerted, sirens were turned on.

    
    
29. on March 15, 2011 at 11:37 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    Hi Jamie –

    We do now have Code officials that go looking for them, and we also have several Committee members that go looking for them. Feel free to email me at the address below – no name required – with the property about which you’re concerned and I’ll check out its status for you, and if the ball is not rolling on getting the property remediated, then I’ll get the process started. It’s that easy, and I never need to know who you are.

    Listen, I’m not deaf to complaints that sometimes Township or Code employees drive right past flagrant violations – it’s something that we are working to address, and the budget crunch doesn’t make it easier. I will tell you this – if you don’t get satisfaction from Code, call me at 732-272-7888 or email at MCDLancer@aol.com and I’ll investigate. (I work in the city and sometimes I can’t check things out until after dark, so don’t shoot at the crazy blonde with the flashlight). I am your public servant, and if there is something untoward going on off-hours, I have ZERO issue pulling in every official necessary and even the township attorney if we must to stop ilegal work.

    I lived in a rickety old apartment building in the Grove, where my landlord was more interested in feeding his substance abuse habit than paying the bill for our fire alarm. I remember when someone left an iron on in a guest room at the beautiful Polonnaise Hotel before they left for a dinner out, and how that gorgeous building burnt to the ground and damaged the Imperial Hotel beyond repair, but led the Hotel Chopin to be renovated, on the corner of Beach and Main into something more befitting of its grand past. We always wondered how the horrible Main Avenue House and the even worse Grand Atlantic didn’t burn, after they were shut down for, amongst other things, allowing cockroaches to be mixed in with the food that was served their mentally ill patients. But with the right owners, they have been restored to grandeur as a religious retreat and the aptly-named Majestic Hotel, where, on New Year’s Eve, I performed my final wedding during my first (and maybe only) term as mayor, and marveled at how a building once so reviled as a bastion of filth and disrepair could, with the right care and loving hands, become such an amazing representation of the gilded age in which it was built.

    While we go through this investigatory process – and believe me, there is not an agency in Monmouth County that is not on the edge of its seat over what happened Friday and eager to find a cause and prevent it from happening again – there are a few things you can do to make yourself feel a little more at ease. First of all, when we sprung ahead, you should have put fresh batteries in your smoke detectors. If you only have one per floor, you may want to increase the number to one per room. (The kitchen is tricky – my hardwire detector was right above my stove, and it had a heat detector. I always had to have a small fan on the counter.) Before I moved to the ground floor two-bedroom apartment, I was on the second floor with a rotting wooden porch between my unit and the fire escape. If you are in a single-family home without a fire escape, you can invest, for a modest sum, in escape ladders for your second and third floor that you can store under your windows to find easily in an emergency. Hopefully, you will never need the ladders or detectors, but they may give you peace of mind in these troubled times.

    Right now, these are the worst of the worst in Ocean Grove:
    – 96 Lawrence Ave
    – 78 S. Main St
    – 24 mc clintock st
    – 23 Seaview Ave (Parkview Inn)
    – 91 Cookman Avenue
    – 80 Main Avenue

    If there are others that people feel should be included, let us know so we can inspect and assess.

    (Sorry for not being brief!)

    (EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is a member of the Neptune Township Committee.)

    
    
30. on March 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm Kathy Arlt

    First of all, Ms. Jahn, 91 Cookman and 80 Main have exited the court system, at least for the time being; 14 Spray Avenue has received at least two adjournments; 24 McClintock has yet to appear on the municipal court docket. None of these properties has ever been cited for demolition by neglect, despite the HPC’s explicit request to the township committee while you were the mayor.

    Although I agree that both the US and NJ constitutions give property owners the right to do with their property as they please, including the right to let that property deteriorate beyond reclamation, municipalities have also been given the right to fine those owners for deterioration, as well as the ability to repair those properties and assess municipal liens for the work required. These actions, it seems to me, should have been part of the “get tough” policy you touted last year.

    No one really knows how much the dilapidated condition of 27 Surf Avenue might have contributed to the fire last Friday. But clearly residents complained about the condition of that property before it was sold for development to condos, and their complaints seem to have been ignored. The fact that the condo development was stalled by a lawsuit should not excuse Code Enforcement from issuing violations, taking the owner to court or pursuing the imposition of a municipal lien to correct the conditions that surrounding residents complained of, specifically the fact that window glass was falling into neighboring yards. Were those windows even boarded over during the conversion?

    Finally, Ms. Jahn, if you can ask the readers of Blogfinger how many recalcitrant property owners were hauled into court prior to 2007, then I can ask you why it took the township eleven years to cite the owner of 91 Cookman for any violations, or why the owners of 24 McClintock have yet to appear in court, or how the HPC’s request for a determination of demolition by neglect for 80 Main last year resulted in the owners applying for a demolition permit this year. It is answers to those questions that Ocean Grove residents want; not excuses for why the township is powerless to ensure our safety and property values.

    
    
31. on March 15, 2011 at 7:45 pm JamieOG

    Mary Beth,

    When a structure is in an obvious state of disrepair, has been vacant for over 10 years, perhaps for almost as many as 20 years, and looks like a safety hazard by just glancing at it for a second or two, (and which may still have utilities running to it, despite prolonged vacancy) must residents dime out a neighboring property owner (owner, not resident) before anything happens? (causing the sure-to-follow battle of the property owners) Personal interest here – just curious. (and wondering if I’m going to have to be the bad guy who finally does something). Does the township have anybody in code enforcement or public safety who does regular drive-bys – say, once every 5 years – to find locations like this which may have slipped through the cracks?

    
    
32. on March 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    The Park View is working its way through the court system, as is 91 Cookman, as is 80 Main. Tell me — how many went to court before 2007? Anyone?

    If a building has no utilities running into it, has been boarded up to prevent entry by persons illegally entering, and has no work permits, there is no need for a fire inspection. If it does have work permits, Code will do an inspection to see what types of tools they are using and what pole they are hooking up to. As the work progresses, plumbing, electrical, and fire inspections will also be done.

    The township elected officials, professionals, attorneys, and judges are sworn to uphold the constitution of the state of NJ and the United States, and both those constitutions contains some pretty inalienable rights for property owners. We have to balance those pretty stiff rights out against the inalienable rights of safety for the neighbors. This takes a long time, because there’s a discovery process involved and also, because it’s a historic district, if these buildings can get enough basic repairs done to sell them to someone who can really do the work, that’s what we really want to see. Anywhere else in Neptune, we’d simply order a demolition and put something else up. We can’t regrow history. We are in early days of the full investigation. It’s very difficult, when the building of origin is completely destroyed, to find exact causes, but it’s not impossible.

    To correct a misapprehension held by some posters on this board, demolition by neglect and the fires at the Surf House and the Manchester Inn are not related. If demolition by neglect had anything to do with fires, you would, God forbid, see 24 McClintock, 91 Cookman, 80 Main, or the Parkview burning down. That’s not what happened. Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion and then declare it fact. This is how rumors get started. We’re stopping them here. If you want to claim they’re connected, feel free to pass along bad info and look like a fool.

    Everyone is shaken to their core. What happened Friday was absolutely terrifying. How we got out of this one with two minor injuries and no loss of life is solely by the grace of God. But there was simply no reason to expect that 27 Surf was going to have a fire. Plenty of other buildings started out in the same conditioned and were converted to condos in the same manner and didn’t cause a conflagration all over Ocean Grove. For some reason, this one exploded into flames. This didn’t happen to the two hotels that were converted on Ocean Pathway. The Manchester wasn’t in the process of conversion. The former Darling Arms at the gates of Ocean Grove (once apartments, now condos) didn’t have this problem.

    I believe in miracles, but not coincidence. The second fire happened too close to the anniversary of the Manchester fire for me to squelch my skepticism. But there’s one thing this fire is not, and it’s not a result of demolition by neglect, especially when someone fought a two-year court battle to get the permits to convert to condos. What it *is* remains to be seen.

    
    
33. on March 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm Ogrover

    I went by 24 McClintock today. You can see why people are very concerned. The FSBO sign is worn and neglected. It looks like the foundation is compromised in places and the wood on the porch is rotting. There are broken windows and doors, peeling paint off asbestos siding and a garden with small trees has sprung up in the gutters that remain. If not a fire hazard it must be structurally compromised at the very least in the second floor overhang. I just can’t understand why someone would let a large investment like a house that is one block from the beach get so run down.

    
    
34. on March 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm Nancy McManus

    Does anyone know if there is an “official” list of buildings that are at risk, kept by the Township, Mayor’s office, OGHOA, *anywhere* ??

    
    
35. on March 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm Anonymous

    Park View Inn at 23 Seaview is another that needs to be considered and inspected. Somehow they continually avoid the municipality in court.

    
    
36. on March 15, 2011 at 12:22 pm Michael Grover

    Former mayor Jahn says demolition by neglect is working. Perhaps she could point to an example or two of derelict properties that have completed the process, and have been either torn down or renovated.

    As for the current situation, it’s a shame her last post is more focussed on what can’t be done than what might be done to address the current risk. I have written previously about preservation requirements that prevent these large structures from being torn down. If 27 Surf had been demolished, there would be no old frame to burn.

    Single and two family homes present similar risks, such as 91 Cookman, 24 McClintock and 80 Main Ave. Also 122 Cookman, which has been unoccupied and dilapidated for years. I’m surprised this property has not been mentioned. It’s obviously neglected, and its small size probably makes it uneconomical to restore.

    We need to address all the factors contributing to the risk of fire, with clear objectivity instead of a predisposed attitude. And not pretend demolition by neglect is a success, when there have been two fires and maybe more to come.

    
    
37. on March 15, 2011 at 11:39 am John

    Thanks Charles. Included among those properties is 14 Spray, which for various reasons has had their court appearance rescheduled numerous times over the past couple of years. The property has broken windows, plywood shoved into cracked windows garbage strewn about the property. Yet, this property, definitely a fire hazard, has had no recourse whatsoever. Authorities keep asking citizens to get involved and report properties that could be hazardous, but when they do nothing gets done about it or there are excuses about why they can’t do anything about it. I have reported this property to the mayor, president of the OGHOA, Director of Code Compliance and nothing has been done. I give up.

    
    
38. on March 15, 2011 at 9:13 am Charles Layton

    Well, but Mary Beth I’m not suggesting that every place in town be fire inspected. I am suggesting that a place should be, though, when there’s probable cause — as was so with 27 Surf, where the neighbors were terrified and had been complaining. It’s also the case now with 91 Cookman, 24 McClintock and 80 Main Ave. I don’t think fire inspectors have been inside any of those places lately.

    
    
39. on March 15, 2011 at 8:41 am Iris

    Could I ask for an explanation of Ms. Jahn’s statement that the “demolition by neglect ordinance *is* working”? In my experience, ordinances only work when they’re used, and not a single structure in Ocean Grove has been cited under the ordinance.

    
    
40. on March 15, 2011 at 7:55 am Mary Beth Jahn

    Charles, we’d be inspecting so many private residences simply for fire in Neptune that it would be near impossible to keep up with the pace. That’s why Code and Construction do basic fire safety checks during the construction process. If someone leaves a space heater on overnight or doesn’t properly extinguish smoking materials, that’s not something the Fire Bureau is going to pick up on in an inspection.

    
    
41. on March 15, 2011 at 2:24 am Charles Layton

    It just doesn’t seem right, though, that an obviously run-down structure of any kind should be exempt from an inside fire inspection. The authorities should be able to inspect such a place regardless of its use or zoning category. They should be able to inspect 91 Cookman, for instance, or 24 McClintock or 80 Main. If the law won’t allow that, couldn’t the law be changed?

    
    
42. on March 15, 2011 at 1:29 am Mary Beth Jahn

    I certainly hear sirens over here in Bradley Park while still inside the house, with the TV on, and even more while I was on the road to the Grove.

    And when a hotel or multi-family is converted to a single family residence and drops its mercantile registration for commercial use and is used as a private residence, it is only subject to inspection when it is sold, just like any other private resident. Getting a zoning board approval to convert to condominiums after the sale does not change that.

    
    
43. on March 15, 2011 at 12:35 am Charles Layton

    Re the sirens/no sirens issue: I know some people who did hear sirens from vehicles coming into town early that morning.

    
    
44. on March 15, 2011 at 12:12 am ken

    Paul Goldfinger, editor.
    Your comment leaves me speechless. But I must type. Your question reminds me of the man who asked a friend: “Can I afford to buy a yacht?”
    “If you have to ask….”

    
    
45. on March 15, 2011 at 12:11 am Ogrover

    I’m confused. The Surf was at one time a hotel that for various reasons was closed down. The owner was permitted to classify it as a single family which couldn’t be inspected and it became an eyesore and a danger to the community. Then it was sold and recently got reclassified as multi family so it could be converted to condos. How can it keep changing? Am I the only one who thinks that something isn’t quite right?

    
    
46. on March 14, 2011 at 11:11 pm Mary Beth Jahn

    A few points . . .

    While the fire marshal came to an initial “undetermined” conclusion, the investigation by the NTPD and Neptune Fire Bureau continues. The fire marshal mainly looks for things like accelerant. The investigation is not over by any means.

    Hardiplank would have burned just like the wood and vinyl siding did in this fire. When a fire starts in a building and has fuel to smolder and then reach such temperatures that it blows the windows out, if that fire cannot be fought from the inside, as wooden frame balloon-construction buildings generally cannot be, that fire will burn through the interior and then exterior walls, no matter what the exterior covering is, including Hardi and asbestos.

    For anyone who thinks the former owner is to blame for this tragedy, you are dead wrong and shame on you for spreading such vicious rumors at a time when that person lost all they own at their new residence. The Surf House was under construction and torn apart for conversion to condos. There are plenty of houses in Ocean Grove that look nice on the outside and are completely dilapidated fire hazards on the inside. That is the nature of historic buildings.

    The demolition by neglect orrdinance *is* working, though not as fast as many would like. I’m going into my fifth year on the Committee, and we are going after buildings that have been eyesores for years. Why was there no action from Code in the years before? That’s a question for the ages. Maybe we wouldn’t be dealing with some of the problems that have come to a head now.

    As for sprinkler systems for construction sites, that’s a pretty tough one to implement. Even sprinkler systems in new, non-commercial buildings are extremely expensive. But we do need to find a way to somehow fire alarm these construction sites that don’t have regular electrical power but are hooking into the pole for their power needs. This can’t happen again.

    
    
47. on March 14, 2011 at 9:34 pm Iris

    Oh, where to begin…. Let’s start with the fact that it was the residents of Ocean Grove who pressed to have the town declared a National Historic District back in the seventies. Let’s continue with the fact that every historic district in the United States has some version of a Historic Preservation Commission to safeguard that designation. Why preserve the footprints and structures of the remaining Ocean Grove hotels? Because not only are they part of Ocean Grove’s history, but also because there are so few of them left. This used to be a town that was chock full of hotels: the North End Hotel, the Arlington, the Alaska, the Waverly, the Sheldon, the Queen, the Main Avenue House, the Hotel Clarendon, the Lake Villa, the Beachfront, the Carson Villa, the Inskip, the United States Hotel, the Osborne House (just for starters)…and let’s not forget the Manchester and the Sampler.

    
    
48. on March 14, 2011 at 9:32 pm Charles Layton

    Regarding the above comments on Hardie board siding, it appears likely that Neptune will soon change the rules to allow such composite wood substitute products on “key structures” in Ocean Grove, at least under some circumstances.
    At present, local ordinance requires the use of real wood on key structures. (A key structure is a building that’s considered historically significant in Ocean Grove.) However, Committeeman Randy Bishop has now come out in favor of extending the use of Hardie board to key structures. At Monday night’s Township Committee meeting, Bishop said he understands that the material, used as siding, can delay a fire’s spread from one house to the next by five minutes. He said if it could slow a fire’s spread for any time at all, then it should be used “in the protection of the life safety of residents and emergency responders.” He wants this issue addressed at the next Committee meeting.
    Although the Committee members are not unanimously in favor of this change — Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn has strongly opposed it — my guess is that Bishop will have his way, given the present public mood. He argues that Hardie board is almost indistinguishable from real wood siding, that preventing a building from burning down is a better form of historic preservation than authenticity of materials, and that if the Victorians had had a material like Hardie board, they would have used it.

    
    
49. on March 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm Lauren

    Demolition by neglect needs to be implemented immediately. How can we get this moving? What can we the owners of homes in danger in ocean grove do?

    
    
50. on March 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm ken

    David, Contrary to popular belief cement board siding is not the answer to preventing fire spreading structure to structure or allowing enough time for life saving evacuation. Building codes require wall construction to be fire resistance rated (one hour or two hour) when the wall has a fire separation distance of less than five feet. It is the wall construction itself not the exterior covering, be it cement board or wood, that provides protection. Heat transmission through walls and broken glass windows quickly allows internal temps of 400+ degrees which sets materials, curtains, sofas, furniture, etc…to combust. ( Also embers flying roof to roof are another danger.)
    ken

    
    
51. on March 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm MaryLou

    I’m one of those citizens that didn’t hear sirens on Friday morning and for days I wondered why. How screwed up is it that the firetrucks were not allowed to sound their sirens during a major fire…when people SHOULD have been alerted to such danger (example…flying embers, etc.). However, the sirens were blasting a day or two later when a basketball team won a game. Two years in a row now I’ve been horrified by those sirens when it turned out to be a celebration. Not everybody read the blog’s warning in advance about the celebration. The police dept. should do a reverse 911 if they are going to do such a thing again in the future. Let’s hope we don’t have a repeat of the whole thing next March.

    
    
52. on March 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm Michael Grover

    Paul,

    I’m as interested as you are in getting the HPC view on the current situation. In my opinion, their main priority is to maintain complete and total authority over all preservation matters. The attitude is that any concession will weaken their position, and lead to encroachment on their mission.

    Regardless of what you might think of condos, increased density, and parking issues, I think we really need to question why the frame of the Ocean Pathway condos needed to be preserved in that renovation. Why couldn’t the buildings simply be demolished? And why is the present execution of HPC control over historic preservation accepted and treated like a sacred cow? Why is a building that looks like the Whitfield Hotel treated like an architectural treasure?

    We need to create a more balanced approach that accounts for economy and public safety. If anyone has any suggestions for introducing this into the master plan revision, I hope you will use this blog to bring them forward.

    
    
53. on March 14, 2011 at 3:01 pm History Maven

    “Hi Paul – There is some crazy misinformation out there. I have no idea who David is, or where he gets his info, but Colonial Williamsburg does not allow cement fiber board at all. In fact, they only allow historically-appropriate types of wood, whether on original Colonial structures as well as recreated structures. I’m now going to go try to lower my blood pressure.”

    
    
54. on March 14, 2011 at 11:23 am Paul Goldfinger, editor.

    Regarding Michael Grover’s comments above: I could never figure out what was so important about saving those big ugly box hotels. The owners are forced to jump through hoops to retain the “footprint” and some crummy wood studs and beams. After all, these are not Mayan ruins or Roman aquaducts. I agree that they should simply be torn down and replaced with decent structures, preferably single family homes, that retain the “look” of Ocean Grove.

    No one has argued that our remodeling of buildings here is a true historic reclamation. Perhaps someone from the HPC or the Historical Society will explain to us why these structures are so darn important, especially if the fire prevention issue is added to the mix.

    
    
55. on March 14, 2011 at 11:15 am Paul @Blogfinger

    When we redid our historic house, we were permitted by the HPC to use Hardie Plank siding and some other synthetic materials as well.

    
    
56. on March 14, 2011 at 11:11 am Paul @Blogfinger

    We spoke to Steve Mandeville who was one of the first citizens on the scene and who provided us with the earliest photos. Steve had been awakened after a dream. He noticed some light peaking around the edges of his blackout shades. Going to the window, he saw an orange glow in the sky and he immediately realized that we had another major fire in the Grove.

    Steve said that the quiet was “eerie.” It turns out that despite all the fire equipment rolling into town, none were sounding their sirens.

    We had heard that procedures would be reviewed after last year’s fire. It looks like the silent treatment was intended; perhaps to avoid alarming the citizens and to keep the crowds down. Steve said that some locals didn’t even know about the fire for one or two days.

    
    
57. on March 14, 2011 at 9:44 am David

    This is just another reason why the Historic Commission should permit modern, safe products like Hardi Board on Key Structures. These materials have a historic look and have a much greater chance of saving our Historic Distric than wood, wood, wood. This town will not have a Historic District soon unless these unreasonable regulations are changed.
    Historic Williamsburg permits these safe materials – why not Neptune????

    
    
58. on March 13, 2011 at 10:35 pm Michael Grover

    Two major fires in a year is unacceptable. It should be obvious to everyone that we have a public safety issue.

    These two events and recent court rulings demonstrate that neither the town nor the courts will protect us from another major fire. And the Demolition by Neglect ordinance seems designed to protect historic structures from demolition, not protect us from health and safety hazards.

    Tighter controls (sprinklers, security systems) over construction sites and properties occupied by more than one family would help, as suggested JamieOG. It’s a start. I’d also like to suggest something a little more radical – restrict HPC jurisdiction over demolition of multifamily structures. It would be a lot safer if owners of these large, old, risky structures were permitted to demolish them and build an economically viable structure without a long process subject to the whims of the HPC.

    I realize this idea might be unpopular with some, but these old buildings present the biggest risks and the most difficult development problems, due to the current preservation practices. I’m not suggesting that a developer be exempted from the HPC Guidelines for exterior cosmetics. Just that it would be easier to take down these white elephants.

    Also, what impact will these fires have on the cost and availability of insurance here in the Grove? How long do you think insurance companies will wait before changing their view of the local risk?

    
    
59. on March 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm Nancy McManus

    Ray, The next one could be 24 McClintock. That place scares me for a lot of reasons. Fire, of course, but the front door is often open. I wonder about who/what is in there.

    
    
60. on March 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm Michael

    I walked up to look earlier this afternoon. Devastating. I’ve lived in the Beach to Central block, just south of the Pathway for years. This could have easily been my block. I got into a conversation with a couple of women who live on the north side of Atlantic Avenue across from the fire. A lot of the victims lost everything but the clothes they were wearing. Luckily, through the two women I talked with, I was able to find a homeless male about my size that I could send some clothes to. I’ve seen so many fires in town over the forty plus years I’ve been coming here but this one, I think, is the worst.

    
    
61. on March 12, 2011 at 10:49 pm Mike

    Does the zoning on this property now revert to single-family?

    
    
62. on March 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm Nancy McManus

    Off topic, I know, but what was the conclusion to the Manchester?

    
    
63. on March 12, 2011 at 8:13 pm Ray

    Where will the next fire be that will destroy more of our key historic structures? Could it be 91 Cookman or 80 Main? It is time to make the Demolition by Neglect Ordinance work, once and for all. This ordinance needs to be executed on neglected homes in our historic town to insure they are maintained and do not in the future affect the health and safety of their neighbors. It should not allow local government bureaucrats to make decisions to avoid following the ordinance and try and solve the problems in alternate ways. If the ordinance has flaws, the only way to fix it is to try and make it work and then course correct the ordinance with changes as needed. If this ordinance had existed and worked in 2005-2006, the 27 Surf building would have been repaired and maintained. There is a good chance that it would not have been under conversion to a condo. There is even a better chance that there would have been no fire.

    
    
64. on March 12, 2011 at 7:48 pm JamieOG

    I think mandatory sprinkler systems in new/renovated buildings is a good idea but that could only apply to commerical or multi-unit establishments. This structure would have fallen under that umbrella but it was in a state of renovation – i.e., too early – where installation of a sprinkler system was not possible. As for the Manchester, it wasn’t renovated or new. Again, good idea but I don’t think it would have applied and/or helped in our recent fire tragedies. (nNt sure if the Manchester had a sprinkler system or not but even without renovations, it should have – any hotel should have one.)

    In a later post I suggested that owners of vacant/derelict properties – including properties under renovation – be required to install smoke/fire alert systems connected to a security company/call center that could contact the police department if the alarm was activated. I would extend this to any commercial property – business, hotel, etc – because either due to business hours or seasonal conditions, these premises might be vacant overnight, over the weekend, or for weeks/months at a time. Had such a system been installed in the Manchester and/or this vacant hotel, the damages may have been contained to a single property – i.e., the source of the fire. (Don’t know if either property has such a system in place.) The problem with vacant properties is that once the fire is detected it’s too late – it’s out of control and in a town like OG, that means it’s likely going to spread to other properties.

    My own home has a security system that includes two smoke detectors that, much like the break-in detectors, are connected to the security firm’s call center. It costs just over $1,000 a year. I’m sure the costs would be more for a larger structure but probably not by much. It’s probably a cost that business owners should bake into their expenses anyway. And if you own a long vacant/derelict property, well, that’s the price (albeit a small one) you gotta pay.

    
    
65. on March 12, 2011 at 7:15 pm Blogfinger

    This is ridiculous. Time is required to do a proper investigation. The Manchester result took months before we got a conclusion. Paul @Blogfinger

    
    
66. on March 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm Deb

    You know, Paul, that dilapidated place was finally looking like it was under control in terms of getting “fixed up”. I drove past it almost every day whenever I needed to drive out of town and they were working so dang hard on it! I just feel sorry for them all.

    
    
67. on March 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm Brady

    Mandatory sprinkler systems installed in new and renovated buildings. We spend so much time and money approving the correct historical “look” of our renovations, how about some codes to make sure these pretty buildings are safe.

    
    
68. on March 12, 2011 at 6:09 pm Janet

    As of late this afternoon (Saturday), the Asbury Park Press reports that the prosecutor is saying the fire appears to have been accidental. While the cause may be accidental, was there something about this job site that contributed to the possibility of an accident–and could it have been prevented?

    
    
69. on March 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm Nancy McManus

    I have a knack for the obvious. It’s a gift.

    
    
70. on March 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm ken

    Three large unoccupied structures subject to much controversy catch fire before dawn and burn to the ground. What was your question?

    
    
71. on March 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm Nancy McManus

    Overwhelming sadness. A feeling of “Not again,” followed by “When next?” And anger if there were violations that were ignored.