September 9, 2011
To: Joseph Shafto, Chairman of the Planning Board
& Members of the Planning Board
Municipal Building
25 Neptune Boulevard
Neptune, New Jersey 07753
The Ocean Grove Home Owners Association Master Plan committee has followed with interest the Neptune Planning Board’s deliberations over the drafting of a new Master Plan for Neptune. We appreciate your hard work and the efforts you have made to keep the process accessible to interested residents.
We would like to offer our thoughts about the draft document recently published – specifically, the Land Use Element.
We value the draft’s many statements of intent to protect the character of the Historic District of Ocean Grove. However, we are concerned that some language in the proposed Land Use Element may actually weaken safeguards in the current Master Plan.
Also of concern is what we consider to be a lack of clarity in many important passages. In particular, we note the numerous mandates that rules and standards regarding zoning regulations, density limits, the flared setback and other crucial matters should be “reviewed,” “evaluated,” “redrafted,” “reconstituted” or “updated.” Our fear is that so much broad language in the Master Plan, urging such sweeping changes, would give present and future administrations too much discretion to make whatever changes they might please. In other words, again, we fear that this draft opens the door to a weakening of existing protections.
We can find nothing in the draft itself nor in the record of the Master Plan Subcommittee’s deliberations to explain the need for so many broad, indefinitely-stated reviews and changes. The draft does not make clear who is to be in charge of this extensive reviewing and redrafting. Neither does it guarantee that such important changes would be developed under full public scrutiny or with ample opportunity for the public to absorb the import of these proposals and respond to them prior to their enactment.
In addition to these general concerns, we would respectfully like to comment on a few specific issues within the draft document:
(1) One of the goals of the Land Use Element (Goal #5, at the bottom of Page 11 of that element), is to “Prevent to the maximum extent practicable the intrusion of nonresidential uses in residential neighborhoods.” The old Master Plan says unequivocally that such intrusion should not be permitted. We suggest keeping that stronger prohibition, at least as it pertains to Ocean Grove.
(2) Goal #16 (page 13) We suggest shortening to read: “Develop a separate zoning ordinance for the Nationally Registered Historic District area.”
(3) Goal #27 (page 14) We suggest shortening to read: “Work to reduce sign pollution.”
(4) Page 41 of the Land Use Element recommends that the Township review and evaluate the boundaries and requirements of the “Hotel Overlay District.” We would observe that the old Hotel Overlay District no longer exists on the current zoning maps. That issue aside, we are unclear as to why such a review is needed. One of our fears is that relaxing these requirements could lead to the return of the flophouses in Ocean Grove, which the Home Owners Association has worked so long and hard to eradicate.
(5) We strongly oppose the proposal (Page 41) to create a new Township Land Use Advisory Committee. Such a body would usurp the authority of the existing citizens boards, replacing their judgments with the judgments of various executives of the Township. This would potentially allow for more decisions to be made outside the public’s view, and would be an invitation to more political influence and insider dealing.
(6) We do not oppose the proposal (Page 42) to update definitions in the Township’s Land Development Ordinance; however, we hope that this review – and other such reviews proposed in this draft – will be done in full public view and with opportunity for public input.
(7) Regarding the regulations on height and/or number of stories (page 42), our committee urges that the existing height and story limits be maintained. We, like many Ocean Grovers, are concerned about recent trends toward greater height and greater density.
One final note: Our committee members attended the September 6, 2011 HPC work shop to Review the Proposed Historic Preservation Element Section of the Master Plan. We agree with the thoughts expressed by the HPC, especially regarding the need to preserve within the Master Plan a clearer, more extensive explanation of Ocean Grove’s unique historical importance. We urge the Planning Board to take the HPC’s concerns to heart.
We thank the members of the Planning Board and its subcommittee and staff for their attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
The Master Plan Committee of the Ocean Grove Home Owners Assn.
Joan Venezia, co-chair
Francis Paladino, co-chair
Denis McCarthy, president, OGHOA
Kennedy Buckley
Charles Layton