By Charles Layton
In a previous story, we reported comments by Mayor Kevin McMillan and Committeeman Randy Bishop to the effect that a plan for a pedal boat business on Fletcher Lake had been ruled on and approved by Township zoning officials. Those comments were mistaken.
The Township’s land use administrator, Bernard Haney, said in an interview with Blogfinger on Tuesday that the two men who proposed to operate the pedal boat business have never even applied to the zoning office for permission to do so.
“We’ve never said they can’t have boats, we’ve never said they can have boats,” Haney said. “The land use department and specifically the zoning officer cannot comment to public questions relative to a boat operation on Fletcher Lake [because] we do not have an application.”
When a group of Ocean Grove residents showed up at Monday night’s Township Committee meeting to voice concerns about the proposed boat concession, Bishop told them, “The land use officials made a ruling. The ruling says it can be done.” Mayor McMillan made a similar statement. (The opponents point out that both the lake and the adjacent land are zoned for non-commercial use.)
At that same meeting, one of the promoters of the fledgling business, Robert Hilton of Bradley Beach, said he and his partner, Clark Cate of Ocean Grove, had approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for a ticket booth on the bank of the lake next to the proposed boat dock.
Haney said on Tuesday that this was also wrong; not only has the HPC not approved such a ticket booth, it has not even received an application. Haney said Hilton had apparently planned to use an existing nearby shed, which had previously received HPC approval in one spot near the lake, by moving it to another spot. Haney said an HPC approval is not portable in this way and that therefore the promoters “are going to have to go through a zoning application and an HPC application” for the ticket booth.
Furthermore, Haney said, before the operators can start a business on the water they would need approvals from the state Department of Environmental Protection. That’s because, although the land beside the lake belongs to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, the water belongs to the state. Haney said “there are a multitude” of necessary DEP approvals. “They need to get all that.”
Opponents of the project in Ocean Grove say they have spoken numerous times with various people at DEP and cannot find any record of applications to or approvals by that agency. Neither, apparently, can the Township. The only state record of any kind that has surfaced so far is a May 19 letter from an administrator of the state’s “Green Acres” program to a Camp Meeting lawyer stating that the Camp Meeting would not jeopardize its tax exemption on the land if it granted a concessionaire the right to rent boats there.
Hilton had told me last week, in an interview, that he and Cate had received all the permissions they needed to proceed with the boat enterprise. “Everybody in the world is on board,” he said, including the DEP, the federal EPA and the state Division of Fish and Wildlife. And Cate, in a separate interview that same day, said, “From what I understand, we have the approvals that we need from everybody.” Those statements were false.
Over the past few days, Haney himself had told various concerned citizens that the issue of the pedal boat concession had been settled so far as the Township was concerned. Tuesday’s statements amounted to a substantial revision of his earlier, more lenient posture.
The Township’s position now, Haney said on Tuesday, is that Hilton and Cate “have to have every one of their i’s dotted, every one of their t’s crossed, and if they do not, we will shut them down.”
I left a message on Robert Hilton’s phone on Tuesday but have not received a response. I have also sent emails to McMillan and Bishop asking for comment, but have not received a response. However, I did receive an email response from Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn, who was smoking hot about what she considers Hilton’s unscrupulous behavior in trying to promote his project to the Camp Meeting and the Township.
“He lied to [Camp Meeting Administrative Officer] Nancy Hoffman about having DEP permits. He lied to Land Use about having a ticket booth. He lied to the Township Committee on the record about zoning and HPC approval,” Jahn wrote.
She said the only things the Township Committee members knew about Hilton’s plans, as of the Monday night meeting, were that Hilton wanted to have a floating dock, that he claimed to have a permit, and that the neighbors were angry. “He was trying to insinuate last night that Randy knew all about it; all Randy knew was what he [Hilton] had told Camp Meeting and Land Use: temporary floating dock, DEP permit approved. That’s it.”
Jahn and other officials became suspicious of all Hilton’s claims when they heard him say at the meeting that he had obtained HPC approval. The officials — and many in the audience — knew that to be untrue.
Jahn said that Hilton called her on Tuesday. “He’s freaking out now,” she said, “because he and Clark ordered $30K worth of swan boats yesterday. I told him he had almost zero chance of getting a DEP permit this year, a slight chance at a zoning variance, but he has lost the good will of the community and the Township, and in talking to Nancy, of the Camp Meeting. He said he and Clark were going to make a decision about what to do.”
It should be noted that the Hilton/Cate proposal for pedal boats on Fletcher Lake has nothing to do with a similar business that opened this past weekend on the Asbury Park side of Wesley Lake. The owners of that business say that their governmental approvals are all in order.
Update: On Wednesday, we are told, Robert Hilton began lobbying officials in Bradley Beach for permission to locate his swan boat business on that side of the lake.
-0-
“”we got a verbal rundown of the proposed business and required structures at the Township Committee meeting.”” MBJ
Mary Beth and fellow Ocean Grovers——–thanks for your attention in this matter of the paddle boats.
MBJ: Your statement above taken from a previous post has me wondering how often a proposal is brought forth in public at a township committee meeting in such an informal way without even a workshop discussion?
We have both seen preliminary presentations made to citizen boards including the planning, zoning, and township committee. The manner in which this was revealed strikes me as very odd.
Hey Anonymous, if I were you, I’d keep on eye on what happens with the floating dock. You know the one with no DEP permits.
Wasn’t Bradley Beach going to build a mini-amusement park on that parcel of land next to Fletcher Lake? I’m afraid these swans would fit right in.
Since this paddle boat project has been a nightmare for Neptune and Ocean Grove, I hope Bradley Beach is wise to this company’s request to now move it to the Bradley Beach side of the lake. We will be watching the whole process from the Ocean Grove and Neptune side (checking over everything that the town and the company does) because we were almost scammed by this outfit.
Iris, I think Monica sums it up — if they had made an application (which they didn’t), they would have needed to produce the DEP permit. The Camp Meeting asked them for the DEP permit, and they did not produce it. Instead of following the proper procedure (and the two individuals who are the prospective business owners are familiar with running businesses in Neptune/Ocean Grove and the proper procedures), we got a verbal rundown of the proposed business and required structures at the Township Committee meeting. If someone does not file paperwork to start a process, they can talk about what they’d like to do as wishful thinking. Of course, the moment they acted on anything without permits, we would have Code, the police, and probably our land use and business administrators there to shut it down, in addition to the angry mob of residents who would no doubt gather once word got out. There are very few secrets in Ocean Grove, as we all know.
I am very grateful to the citizens who came to the meeting who shed more light on this very confusing situation and really enabled us to untangle this web and ensure this went no further than it already had.
PS…in re-reading the above (which is a description of the process for a use variance) there would also be other factors to legally consider or investigate as well such as Green Acres Property, mercantile licenses, temporary structures (where zoning approval is not necessarily required) and land ownership and easements for dockage, which could effect the process….what I am saying is….this is not just a “flat” issue and really would require “homework” and research to be done to see what the actual “approval” process would be for this particular proposal, should the “applicant” choose to move forward. With all due respect to my fellow grovers, depending on all of the above, you may be just as wrong as you may be right….but you certainly have a right to question the process. The flip side is, are you prepared to accept the answers you don’t agree with? Just keep in mind that some of these proposals are so much more complicated than they appear. Once again…hope this helps.
Just a quick two cents here…. If the business owner/operator wanted to put boats (paddles or row boats) on the lake (and the Township does not control the lake b/c it’s a navigable waterway so it comes under DEP jurisdiction), they would have to have dockage and ingress and egress, either on the Bradley side or the OG side. Unless they expected people to jump into the boats, there has to be access. So, there is either a zoning approval or a zoning denial ONCE AN APPLICATION has been made to either Township. If it’s approved, it does not come before the BOA. If it is denied, the BOA would have authority to grant a variance and approve the “site plan” for the proposed use. In this case, I don’t know if an application was ever made for approval or denial. Based on what I see here (and only upon what I see here), it looks like there were some preliminary discussions on the project (totally normal), but no paperwork was ever filled out and there was a HUGE miscommunication (not normal but not unheard of either). In any event, Talk does not equal action. However, I can say that if an application is made now to the Land Use Department, and it is denied by the Zoning Officer for a use variance, it can come before the BOA for a final determination. So, this issue may not be dead in the water. It depends upon the applicants and how they intend to proceed (if they intend to proceed). Also, the applicants would actually have to PROVE they have DEP approval for the use by a grant or permission letter to the BOA. Just sayin’ “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch; trust many, trust few, learn to paddle your own canoe” and don’t forget, Neptune may not own both sides of the lake (I don’t know that for sure…..) Hope this helps…
Given all the examples you’ve posted about people previously misrepresenting their actions to the township, I’d like to think that township officials would’ve learned this lesson a long time ago. The citizens seem to understand that proper paperwork and permits can’t just be alleged to exist. Why doesn’t the township?
It’s unfortunate that: 1) no one from the Township asked the vendor to produce proof of DEP and other permits when they first had the opportunity; and 2) we live in a world with a lot of unscrupulous people/businesses always looking for a chance to get away with something and avoid playing by the rules.
Thank goodness for the group of concerned residents who brought this to light and insisted on accountability from the Township. And special thanks to Mary Beth for hearing the community’s concerns and doing the right thing in the end.
Hopefully, everyone involved learned important lessons from this experience.
Considering that we have had only one meeting regarding North End (and I sat in on that meeting), I think you’ll have excellent representation, especially considering that the owner and their chosen developer have been completely up front about what they want for this project and have made no misrepresentations, even when it was not information that did not make citizens happy. WAVE and the Camp Meeting are not making the rounds of different boards and officials and feeding each one different information; their information has been consistent. (Reminder: This does not mean I necessarily agree with the plan as it was approved, as I was the lone dissenting vote.)
As for your interpretation of Randy’s and Kevin’s comments from the dais, I’ll say again that until the prospective business owner came up and spoke himself, the entire Township Committee was under the impression that this project was a floating dock that had a DEP permit. It was not until the prospective business owner spoke more in depth and made statements that we all knew for a fact were untrue that we realized we were being gamed.
Clearly, there are people here who want to make this political, and, folks, you go right ahead and do that. When people want to game the Township, they will go to great lengths to do it. We’ve seen people produce receipts for supposedly-purchased windows and make promises of installation to get out of summonses, except the windows never appeared; buildings that either have to submit plans for repair or file for a demolition hearing, and the applications are filed but no plans or notices to neighbors are ever sent; and Friday-to-Sunday tank removals done under tarps without DEP permits that are all perpetrated in order to circumvent the systems that are in place in Ocean Grove in order to maintain the historic status and public safety. Sadly, people will sometimes put more effort into getting around the rules to get what they want than they would if they just followed the processes and did it legally. When you think you have seen it all, someone will think of something new. It never ceases to be fascinating and disgusting at the same time.
They could use the swan boats for boat rides on Broadway the next time it rains, as long as the rapids are not too strong.
I agree with Iris. I’m glad that our OG neighbors remained attentive to this “project” or it would have been another slick deal that slipped by. Occasionally they do, even when the township does know all the details.This one was just a little too visible.
I hate to think that if the Township Committee and Mr. Haney can’t even keep track of a few permits and applications to allow boats on a lake, what kind of oversight can we expect for the North End Project?
This project should never have gotten as far as it did with Neptune Township, Fletcher Lake Commission and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The real thanks should go to a group of concerned residents who live around the lake, who researched this project and went to meetings. Also thanks should be given to the members of the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association. This group of concerned residents and OGHOA should be applauded for helping the town and saving this beautiful lake that we love so much from commercialism. This was obviously a very bad plan/project that was never checked out. Also, thanks should be given to Mary Beth Jahn for following up the project and getting it finally thrown out. This demonstrates why residents of our town need to be constantly watchdogging the town government. This is also an example of how residents who care can make a difference.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ogden organized the citizens group that questioned the plan and brought to light its shortcomings.
Iris,
You are right on with your observation.
FROM BLOGFINGER’S PREVIOUS POST:
“Mayor Kevin McMillan and Committeeman Randy Bishop argued that the Township’s land use administrator, Bernard Haney, had already ruled that the non-commercial zoning designation didn’t apply to a pedal boat business if it operated from a floating dock built on pilings and not touching the bank”
THIS SHOWS YOU HOW LITTLE OUR PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON
Clearly, Iris, the prospective business owner is saying whatever he wants to say, regardless of fact, and he was saying whatever was convenient to whomever he needed to say it to, be it our departments at the Township, the Camp Meeting, or to the Township Committee itself. How that ends up being a lack of transparency on *our* part and not on the part of the prospective business owner will have to be explained more fully. It seems to me that the individual who claims to have permits and approvals who, in fact, does not is the individual struggling with transparency.
Oye! What a mess. And a few tarnished reputations to boot. What I didn’t understand from the get-go was…. why open on Fletcher Lake such a similar business as what was is being offered across town (or should I say, across the bridge) on Wesley Lake? Offering a different kind of watercraft (canoes, kayaks, rowboats) would have worked better considering the competition nearby.
Better luck next year. And no fibbing… Karma will bite you in the *ss.
I refer to the previous blogfinger report on this subject, when several mentions were made of the public’s thwarted efforts to obtain details about this plan; the developer’s statement that “We have worked very closely with Randy and with the town…”; and finally the report of your own comment, that “the Township did not know all the details of the proposal….”
Where was there any maneuvering on the part of the Township? We work with the information that we’re given. If we’re given bad info, that’s what we have to work with until we literally drag it out of people.
This whole fiasco is demonstrative of what seems to be a big problem in Neptune Township: too much maneuvering goes on behind the scenes without any amount of public scrutiny.