
Home Owners pledge allegiance to the flag. Photos by Mary Walton
By Charles Layton
The Ocean Grove Home Owners Association pressed its case against the Neptune Planning Board’s proposed new Master Plan on Saturday, dropping hints of legal action over one section of the plan relating to building decisions.
Although the Association has complaints about several aspects of the Planning Board’s new plan, the part that drew nearly all the attention at Saturday’s meeting was a proposal to create a Land Use Advisory Committee within the Township bureaucracy. The Association fears that this new entity could usurp the authority of the Zoning Board, potentially to the detriment of Ocean Grove.
The Planning Board, an 11-member body appointed by the Township Committee, has been working for many months on a complete rewrite of the Master Plan, which guides decisions on land use and zoning throughout Neptune Township.
The purpose of the proposed new Land Use Advisory Committee would be to review certain building applications. Critics say this body could end up making decisions in private that should be made in public by the Zoning Board or Planning Board, both of which are composed mainly of private citizens.
The Historical Society of Ocean Grove and the Historic Preservation Commission have raised similar objections to the advisory committee idea.
At least two Home Owners trustees, Barbara Burns and Francis Paladino, have argued that such a committee may be illegal. In October, the organization’s membership approved a letter stating that the proposal “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.”

Edna Dierk makes a point about the Master Plan
“We could in theory sue to stop that provision of the plan,” Burns told the members. Ann Horan, the group’s treasurer, noted in her financial report that the Association has $29,450 in its legal fund and remarked that some of that money “might be needed sooner rather than later.”
Burns and other trustees told the members that the Planning Board had dismissed their concerns when they voiced them at its most recent meeting, on November 9. She said the board was “very disrespectful.” Donald Hooper, speaking from the audience, said he had attended that meeting and “It was a classic example of don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
The audience at the Home Owners meeting, consisting of about 45 people, seemed in agreement with the above criticisms. No one spoke in defense of the Planning Board or its proposals.
When a discussion arose about the best way for individual Ocean Grovers to voice their disapproval to the Planning Board, Horan suggested that people complain to Randy Bishop, who is a township committeeman, a resident of Ocean Grove and also a member of the Planning Board.
“One of the reasons to focus on Randy,” Burns observed, “is that he is an elected official. He’s the only one who’s subject to the approval or disapproval of the voters.”
Bishop was among those who defended the creation of the new advisory committee at the November meeting, contending that it was only meant to formalize a process that already takes place when matters of small significance need to be decided, such as whether to move something a few inches to avoid having to seek a zoning variance.
The Planning Board will hold a meeting in December — not open to the public — to discuss what revisions to make to its Master Plan draft based on the public comments it received on November 9. It will then publish an updated draft on the Township’s website.
On January 25, the Board is scheduled to meet in public session, although members of the public will not be allowed to comment. At that time, the Board may vote on final adoption of the Master Plan. However, the proposals in the new plan still would not become law until acted on by the Township Committee.
To read the Home Owners Association’s letter to the Planning Board, go here.
To read about the November 9 confrontation between the Planning Board and Ocean Grove organizations, including the Home Owners, go here.
To read the Planning Board’s proposed new Master Plan on the Neptune Township website, go here. Then scroll down to “Draft Elements of the Master Plan.” The elements of most concern to Ocean Grovers are those on “land use” and “historic preservation.” You can click on each of those separately.

Trustee Joan Caputo and Home Owners President Denis McCarthy took a moment to promote the new Home Owners hats, which cost $10. "They make a great holiday gift," Caputo said. At left is Ann Horan, the treasurer.
I can understand the apprehension about the Land Use Advisory Committee. It’s role and scope is ambiguous, and even the number of members is undefined. A letter opposing this body has been sent, and another one is coming.
Yet I wonder if this is really the main problem with the Master Plan, and maybe it’s the wrong target. If “de minimus” is making everyone uncomfortable and needs to be defined, why not chose a dollar value of construction costs, and set it small? If the Township is sincere about limiting the scope of this group, why not try this approach as a compromise?
I just don’t think that the Advisory Committee will be used to address the type of projects that would place historic preservation and density at risk. The larger issue is that the Township may intend to ease restrictions, promote approval of more condos, reduce protection of setbacks, and set the table for projects that will make this place less special and livable.
Unfortunately, we have seen approval for a couple of very large structures on the Pathway. It’s only two lots, but add up these variances over the course of 10 years and Ocean Grove could look very different. And there is an equity issue also. As homeowners, we have to tolerate building restrictions imposed by the HPC. They are not always sensible, but as homeowners fighting them is expensive and time-consuming. You can win, but come with a lawyer and be willing to threaten litigation. For a developer, fighting the authorities is a business. Why should they be able to change the character of the District because they have money and resources unavailable to the typical homeowner?
In my opinion, we could win the battle over this Advisory Committee and lose the war. The Planning Board says ordinances will protect the historic district. Will we have to fight over 100 ordinances before this process is complete? I really think we need to focus on how to get limits into the plan that prevents overdevelopment, rather than just single out the Advisory Committee.