This is a rendering of two homes developer Hans Kretschman proposes on the Manchester Inn site. He says they'll replicate earlier structures predating the Manchester.
By Charles Layton
On Wednesday night the Neptune Zoning Board approved, with only two small changes, Hans Kretschman’s proposal to build two new single-family homes where the Manchester Inn once stood on Ocean Pathway.
Kretschman’s project had been the object of considerable controversy, and a stream of Ocean Grovers came to the microphone to voice their opposition. Nevertheless, the Board members embraced the ambitious plan, which proposes to copy two turn-of-the-century buildings that existed on the site before they were subsumed, in the 1920s, into the larger building that became the Manchester.
The new buildings are to be built on two of three lots that comprised the Manchester — 25 Ocean Pathway and 27 Ocean Pathway. Kretschman also owns the third lot, which faces Bath Avenue, but he has not yet revealed his plans for that.
He went before the board seeking variances to three of Neptune’s zoning rules that apply to the area — a 35-foot limitation on height, a rule limiting single-family homes to two and a half stories, and a rule regarding Ocean Grove’s famous “flared setback” in the first two blocks of Ocean Pathway. At the start of the meeting Kretschman’s attorney, Jennifer Krimko, agreed to lower the height of one of the buildings by a foot, to bring it within the 35-foot limit. She also made a slight concession on the flared setback by agreeing to pull the porch of one of the buildings out of the setback area. But the front stairs of both buildings will continue to protrude into the setback area — one by 1.81 feet and the other by 3.65 feet, according to Kretschman’s architect, Joseph Walker.
The board approved the remaining variances, allowing the encroachment of the stairs, allowing the houses to have three and a half stories, and allowing the house at 25 Ocean Pathway to exceed the height limit by 3 feet and 4 inches.
Kretschman’s witnesses, including two architects and a professional planner, had testified that the reconstruction of the two original buildings would be extraordinarily precise, based on extensive photographic and physical evidence. They argued that the benefits of such a faithful replication far outweighed any detriments due to the departures from the zoning rules; those departures were necessary, they said, for the sake of historical fidelity.
Numerous large photographs of the proposed homes were displayed about the room during the hearing. Kretschman, who obviously takes pride in the quality and beauty of these proposed creations, told me he could not understand why members of the public had been so negative in their reactions.
But after the testimony of Kretschman’s experts, when the floor was opened to public comments, the great preponderance of expressed opinion remained critical.
The fact that the Manchester and five homes surrounding it had been destroyed in a tremendous fire last year lent to the discussion a special poignancy. Martha Derrico told the board that she had “lost everything” in last year’s fire, which destroyed her house at 30 Bath Avenue. She said she had observed all the zoning requirements in rebuilding her home, and although Kretschman’s proposed homes were “very lovely…I just don’t understand why they can’t be cut down to fit the zoning requirements.”
Deb Marini, who also lost her home at 23 Ocean Pathway to the fire, lamented the fact that when she and her husband wanted to rebuild to three stories the Zoning Board turned them down. “My issue I guess is more with consistency,” she said. “We lost our home twice. We lost it once to the fire. We lost it again to this board.”
Several residents decried what they considered to be a trend toward more and more massive structures on Ocean Pathway and elsewhere in the Grove.
However, when it came time for board members to vote, the mood changed completely. Board member James Gilligan said, “I can’t see any way that this application could be turned down.” The board’s chairwoman, Robin Price, said, “I think this will be an added benefit to the street scape.” Joe Sears said Kretschman’s plans were “a great improvement” over the Manchester. “This is so lovely,” he said.
The board approved the plan by a vote of seven to one, Barbara Burns being the lone dissenter.
The Manchester Inn (above) evolved from two older buildings. Now that the Manchester is gone, the plan is to copy, as nearly as possible, those two buildings.
Anonymous has made the issue very clear. The Master Plan would be fine if the zoning board kept to it. Unfortunately, we have seen that when the zoning board overrides the master plan the courts choose to back them up under home rule.. The key also lies in the enforcing of current codes on so-called historic reproduction. The zoning laws have been written based on issues that we have learned from history. Certainly no one questions the increased distance between houses after seeing the destruction caused by the Surf Ave fire. Height too is at issue. Times have changed, tall building on streets (other than a “double wide” like Ocean Pathway) no longer fit. See 27 Surf Ave., which got unneeded variances in height as well as infringing on the flare. Is that size building appropriate as to its relationship to those around it? AND its not even “lovely.”
Addressing the issue of demolition, we can’t control the sale or purchase of our older key and support structures but we can, through immediate attention to dereliction of repairs, get “on the case” in order to save them. (As in Orenstein and Koplitz) Safety to others is a real issue here. Realtors need to search and seek out people who are willing to care for and rebuild these old structures, not investors whose bottom line is profit. Does increased tax revenue trump OG’s character? (See the caring work being done at 8 Pitman and the recently completed 26 Pitman.)
Since the Master Plan is currently under reevaluation, couldn’t we address these issues in the new Master Plan? Specifically, we need to rank into consideration what is important and what is less important. Personally, I believe that preservation of preexisting buildings, especially historically significant buildings, should have the highest priority. The second highest should be the enforcement of current zoning issues, especially the flare setback. Thirdly, should be the reconstruction of preexisting buildings. Lastly, should be buildings which use historical architecture styles. Under these rankings, any new construction, even those replicating lost buildings, would have to meet current zoning needs.
New construction is just that, new construction. Homes such as the ones proposed for Ocean Pathway are using contemporary building materials and building techniques no matter what they are trying to recreate. While the architecture may be influenced by history, the actually buildings are no more historical then the new Dunkin Donuts on Rt. 35. The idea that a building is grandfathered forever, even 75 years after it was lost, creates more problems then the zoning does. Founding fathers tied up horses on Ocean Pathway; should horses be stabled there? Also, by labeling new construction as “historical”, we are de-emphasizing the preservation of truly historical properties and even encouraging their demolition in order to create “new historic” properties (talk about an oxymoron!).
Why can’t the Master Plan be more specific about these issues?
My sympathies go out to any, and only, Ocean Grove homeowners who bought before OG became a National Historic District and now are subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance with all its boards, commissions, zoning regulations, etc… They had no choice in the matter. The rest of us should have been smart enough to find out what our major investment entailed before plunking down that big wad of dough.
There were no zoning regulations at the turn of the century.
Jennifer,
Thanks for the clarification but there was one important point missed. We COULD NOT reconstruct the previous house in size because of the new setback ordinaces. We lost 4 feet off the sides and 3 feet off the back. That took away about 600 square feet of space that we had to make up somewhere in order to get back what we had.
I don’t mean for my objections to what happened to us to be misconstrued as an objection to Hans’ plan that was approved. I think you’ve proved your case very well and am looking forward to living next to single family homes as opposed to an Inn being reconstructed there. It just seems to me that exceptions have been made in the past to applications and structures that were higher than what were there and had a third floor were approved. Again we weren’t asking for height- we had taken care of that. We were just asking for a little more ceiling space on the top floor on the interior. We lowered the rafters so it would not affect the height. It seems this would have been a small exception. I appreciate the offer to call but to be honest this will be my last discussion about it. This past year has been stressful enough and for our family’s sake we are moving on with our lives. I respect you for your input and thanks again for the comment and the kind words you said st the meeting. I’m glad it’s all over 🙂
A question or two … If the basic idea is to recreate a structure that was there, and you have to ask for variances to recreate it, wasn’t the original structure in violation of the flare and zoning rules in the first place? Isn’t that just compounding the errors made during the ‘period of significance’?
Debbie,
Unfortunately, personal hardship, such as a devastating fire in your case, is not a reason under the Municipal Land Use Law, for the grant of the variance. You need to either prove a hardship relative to the property itself, or demonstrate that your application furthers one of the enumerated purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. The fact that you previously had more space in the house prior to the fire and needed the third floor in order to accommodate the same amount of space, while observing all the other zoning requirements, just isn’t a legal reason for the Board to grant the variance. Had they granted the variance, they would have been in violation of their oath to uphold the law (and I am certain that an objector would have appealed and been successful).
Willingness to reconstruct a structure that existed during the Grove’s period of significance IS furthering the purposes of the MLUL, thereby satisfying the required criteria. Had you been willing to reconstruct the house that burned down in size, detail, etc., I am certain the Board would have voted in your favor.
Again, my sympathy goes out to you and your family for what you had to endure. I would be happy to discuss this with you in greater detail at any time. You have my number.
Regards,
Jennifer Krimko, Esq.
I am so sorry I am just now sitting down to read all of these posts…Although I must say as our children went to the teen show (fabulous I hear!) Marc and I enjoyed a date night–a much needed break after all of this :).
Anyway- to get to the point- there was a quote that was made that I have to clarify. Ms. Krimko asked me- after giving my comments- where our “proof” was for our case? It was addressed that we did not present enough “proof” of our need to have a third floor (again- our building was shorter than allowed and did not impact the visual street scape at all-it was just a 7-ft wall instead of a 3-ft wall on the top floor). I asked if the point she was trying to get at was that we were not properly represented and this point frustrates me to no end! It is either right or it is wrong– not all the bells and whistles you bring. I then stated that we had been told by person after person that we had the wrong builder, the wrong Architect, the wrong lawyer, the wrong underwear (not really), etc…I was quoted slightly out of context (although a HUGE fan of Blogfinger and Charles Layton) and I cannot rest easily thinking our builder, Architect or Lawyer would see this quote as any reflection of our thoughts. It was used to make a point.
.
That being said– after they ruled in favor of Hans we were told by someone that the Board WANTED to rule FOR us… they just didn’t have the proof. With all due respect this is B#@!S#@!THey were in a position of power to pass our application and did not! They could have directed the line of questioning to give the answers they wanted and did not…we recieved a call the next day from a Board member apologizing for the ruling and how it played out– this was a nice gesture but of little comfort as we went home to tell our three children we won’t have the home we thought and need to think about leaving Ocean Grove.
Our home did not impact the streetscape at all and was denied- just because we didn’t have (technically) a third floor before. We did however have 4 bedrooms and a family room on our top floor before the fire but it was a 3ft wall around the edge so it didn’t need to be called a 3rd floor…We chose this house in 2004 because of it’s size and it was filled with children all of the time! We only wanted what we had as far as size and we thought we accomplished this. I ask you-do you REALLY think anyone walking down Ocean Pathway would walk by our new home- see it is shorter than every other home on the block but stop in horror to say “Oh my gosh!!! Is that a 7 ft wall on the top floor?!” We spent over 400K on our home to renovate it before the fire and it burned down 3 months later. We thought it was a “no brainer” that we weren’t being outlandish in what we were asking and met every demand and suggestion to let is rest on one variance at a considerable cost and emotional toll.
The Board members are there to determnine if it is a hardhsip to the applicant if they are denied what they are asking for…When you lose everything you own in a fire and try to rebuild the 7 bedroom house you had but still work withing the setback requirements, lose 600 sq ft of space because of those setback requirements, pay another several thousand dollars to redraw a house that is lower than what is allowable to appease the Board and the only thing you ask is for your children to be able to stand on the third floor in their bedrooms…I think that proves a definite hardship.
I’ll end this note with recognition of the 3 people that did vote for us (Robin Price and Cynthia Suarez and I forget your name #3) and I also have to mention my incredible respect for Barbara Burns- you are consistent in your rulings and I am incredibly sincere when I say I truly do respect that! We really do wish Hans the best of luck- his homes are gorgeous and our opposition was less about his project and more about the inconsistencies of some members of the Board and how they reach their decisions. We have had to abandon our attempt at building the home we wanted and are working on a “conforming” plan so we will not have to rely on the Board for any approvals. Even after all of this we still find it hard to leave a place we all love! God knows where we will end up and it’s His plan that matters in the end anyway isn’t it? A heartfelt thanks to all who supported us throughout this process. We are Blessed!!!
Neptune residents who wish to serve on a board should submit a resume expressing their interest and qualifications. Many complain but few, very few, ever bother to volunteer their time and services.
Members of boards are appointed by the Township Committee.
are the members of the board elected or appointed …and if they are appointed by who …if elected when is their term up
Miss Lisa — I’m mystified as well. I’m not a lawyer, but I can google 🙂 and according to NJ Municipal Land Use Law N.J.S.A. 40:55D-110 the HPC is supposed to be provided with a copy of every application submitted to either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The same statute states that the HPC may then provide its advice which shall be conveyed through its delegation of one of its members or staff to testify orally *at the hearing* on the application and to explain any written report that may have been submitted.
Past and present HPC members whom I have asked about this said that the HPC has never, in their experience, been given either ZBA or Planning Board applications, let alone been invited to ZBA or Planning Board meetings.
According to the Neptune Township website, Randy Bishop is the current Township Committee liaison to the HPC. He would seem a logical place to start to follow up on / investigate this issue, as word on the street is that Mr. Bishop was also the only Committee member present at Mr. Kretschman’s application hearing last night.
So the more money you have, the better chance you have at getting what you want?? Don’t we say the same thing when we see a “criminal” get off of serving time, when if that same case was against a commoner they would throw away the keys??? I don’t care how the presentation went, the variance says no “flair” obstructions or impairment, end of story, not my lawyer is better then yours or my pictures/drawings are better.
Re encroaching into the Flare. I believe that moving the porch back satisfied the Ordinance, however the owner (the CMA) of that tax free lot that the stairs will be built into legally should have to give its permission to build on it.
Miss Lisa FYI -The HPC is merely “advisory” to the quasi-judicial Bd. of Adjustment and is subject to the variances granted.
The public’s expressions of disapproval remind of the uproar over the “infamous” BANK BUILDING on Ocean Avenue. The changes made to the Historic Preservation Ordinance after that construction would not allow a similar structure be approved now.
Charles…instead of posting the picture of the rendering of the proposed homes, why didn’t you post the historic photographs that were entered into Exhibits for the Board from 1894 and 1905 in the first hearing and put them NEXT to the renderings? Just a suggestion for a little historical perspective on the context of the application.
Once again Neptune Township bends over for Hans Kretschman. It’s unfair that some people carry more weight in committee meetings that the rest of us commoners.
Wow, somebody’s looking arbitrary and capricious here. Not good, not good at all.
The presentation can only make a difference if the underlying substance of the case is there. One applicant met the statutory criteria for obtaining variance relief. The other did not. There is nothing more to it than that.
The decision was not made on the quality of the presentation, but rather by the Board’s decision as to whether the application met the proofs required by the Municipal Land Use Law. There are specific criteria that must be met. The Board determined that one applicant met those proofs and the other did not. While the two applications sought similar relief, the justification presented for that relief was quite different. In the matter that was approved last night, the Applicant was proposing to reconstruct the street scape from OG’s period of significance, which satisfies a specifically stated goal of the Municipal Land Use Law to “promote the conservation of historic sites and districts…”. Moreover, the application also squarely met the goals of the Township’s Master Plan. Finally, under the Ordinance, the Applicant could have reconstructed a hotel.
On balance, the Board made the correct decision…this was a better zoning alternative, and more importantly, the benefits of this application outweighed the detriments (which were never crystalized by the objectors, other than, “they should have to build according to the zoning.” If “they built according to zoning” they would not have been before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which was statutorily created to grant deviations from zoning when the statutory criteria had been met.
It wasn’t about the presentation. It was about the substance of the application and the fact that in last night’s case, variance relief was warranted under the Municipal Land Use Law.
So now what is important is the presentation and who you have representing you and not the Zoning Laws. I guess the Township should do away with the Planning Board.
Charles wrote that one building will be lowered by 1 foot. Will the ridge height also be lowered? One structure had a ridge height of 44 feet – six feet higher than the new house being built on the Pathway. The ridge height is the height from the ground to the top of the roof ridge.
The application also said it was asking for an RSIS waiver. Was this granted or did the Zoning Board once again ignore state parking laws?
I am so perplexed by this. When does the HPC get involved and can they adjust the approval of voiding the setback flare requirement?
So the HAVEs get what they want and the HAVE NOTs get shafted yet again? The problem is that boards like Adjustment and Planning often make decisions based on “perception” and not reality / facts. The Marinis are spending all that money replacing a home and then have to pay for a top notch lawyer too? These Boards must remember they are representing the residents of Neptune / Ocean Grove and as Eric Houghteling said at the West Neptune debate last year, “Our Boards need to be more compassionate.” THIS is why people skip filing paperwork and do construction in secret!
Re the comment by “confused,” there was considerable discussion at last night’s meeting about the perceived inconsistency in the board’s actions. Deb Marini said she and her husband, Marc, have been told that they lost their case because they didn’t have the right architect or the right builder “or because our presentation was weak.” Joe Krimko of Ocean Grove said, “The Marinis were turned down possibly because of bad representation, and that’s sad.”
The board seemed sensitive about this notion that it might be swayed one way or the other by the strength or weakness of a presentation. Board member Cynthia Suarez said she had great sympathy for the Marinis but that she couldn’t take that into account in judging the present case.
The board’s attorney, Monica Kowalski, told the audience that the evidence and presentations of the two applications — Kretschman’s and the Marinis’ — were different. She said the board has to judge each application according to its own evidence.
Joe Krimko put it more starkly when he remarked that Kretschman’s requests for variances had to be judged on their own merits “even presuming this board made a horrible mistake and the Marinis should have been approved.”
This discussion did seem to acknowledge the blindingly obvious fact that the strength of an applicant’s presentation can make a crucial difference. Which, of course, is why most applicants try to hire the best representation they can find or afford.
A foot here, three feet there … not too much I suppose … until the next time when it get pushed to 4.75′ or 9.9′ or …
It seems as though those of us who started to build as soon as our plans were approved according to the new zoning rules are at a disadvantage now. I don’t understand why the structure can’t be built without compromising the flare at all, not matter how “lovely” it is. I also feel badly for the Marinis who were building a “lovely” home but were denied their variance. I guess “lovely” is in the eye of the beholder. Round two will be in the HPC’s hands.
So the moral of this story is that as long as you are building a “beautiful structure” the rules will not apply to you??!! This is a very sad outcome…
I read this blog often to keep up on the goings on around town. I follow the Township articles especially. How can one home be denied a variance for something & another home be granted a variance for the exact same thing?? As one member on the B.O.A. said. “Because it is lovely.” Something isn’t right with this ruling, maybe I am missing something? Please enlighten me as to how two homes can get the exact opposite rulings???