By Charles Layton, Editor @Blogfinger
Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn’s recent victory in the Democratic primary has made one thing clear. The Township is more likely now than ever before to try to restrict the building of condos at the North End.
Although Neptune Township previously approved a plan that would allow for between 70 and 80 new condos along Wesley Lake near the boardwalk, Jahn told the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association on Saturday that the plan might now be scaled back dramatically.
Many of the members seemed elated when Jahn spoke of “the condos [the developers] think they’re going to build,” and then added, “I think they are going to build 12 single-family homes.”
Ever since the Township Committee formally approved a redevelopment plan in 2008, many Ocean Grovers have regretted and feared its implementation, an opinion Jahn has shared. At the time, she called the plan “a travesty” and a detriment to the quality of life of OG residents. Now that she is all but assured of reelection in November, Jahn is predicting that the plan could be changed during negotiations between the developers and the Township Committee. Jahn and Mayor Randy Bishop are the Township Committee’s designated negotiators in those talks.
Jahn’s opponent in the primary election, Nick Williams, never took a public position on the North End Project. However, Williams’ supporter and campaign manager, James Manning Jr., is a long-time proponent of heavy condo development as part of the North End project. Had Williams unseated Jahn on the Township Committee, he could have altered the balance of power in the government and undone efforts by Jahn and Bishop to prevent an overly-massive development.
The North End redevelopment plan, as presently written, would allow for up to 85 residential units, most of them condos, plus a hotel with a maximum of 80 rooms. The developers are the Camp Meeting Association, which owns the 5.6-acre site, and a company run by Ocean Grove developer William Gannon.
But before construction can begin, the developers and the Township must sign a contract spelling out the details much more specifically. Jahn told the Home Owners that the Township holds considerable power over the final shape of that deal. “Plans change,” she said. “We’re going to go through probably ten or twelve versions of this redevelopment [plan].” Financing, feasibility and other considerations may force the plan to change, she said.
One crucial issue is whether it will be possible to build the large underground parking garage called for in the plan. Because the site is beside the ocean and a lake, there is serious doubt as to how deep it will be possible for the developers to excavate. Without the off-street parking for the condos, the Township might be in a position to force the developers to scale back or even entirely give up their condo plans. Or so it seemed from Jahn’s remarks.
She also predicted that the financing of a luxury hotel at the site might be difficult in today’s market, especially given that the hotel would not have a liquor license. She said she had heard that the hotel portion of the project alone could cost between $30 million and $50 million.
Another “sticking point” in the upcoming negotiations will be a traffic study, Jahn said. Before any construction begins, she and Bishop want the developers to conduct a study of the impact on traffic in Ocean Grove during peak periods, such as the 4th of July weekend.
She also cautioned that the developers would have to find acceptable ways to bring in supplies to the construction site and to situate heavy equipment within the confines of that area. She also said the developers would be required to rebuild the portion of the Wesley Lake retaining wall along the northern edge of the site.
These are all issues the Home Owners Association’s own north end committee has raised in the recent past.
Although negotiations between the developers and the Township have been stalled since an initial meeting in February of 2011, Jahn said the developers are now saying they want to resume those talks.
For a refresher course on the North End project, go here and here.
Reblogged this on Blogfinger and commented:
This article by Charles Layton tackles the North End question as of June, 2012. In it you will find some interesting comments by Mary Beth Jahn who is currently still a Neptune Committeewoman, so someone ought to go to the mike and ask her how those comments worked out since she put them forth. –Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger. March 25, 2015. Charles also placed some background links in his piece.
For those who are not aware of how information discussed in executive session is handled, allow me to arm you with that knowledge. When the Township Committee or a subcommittee of the Township Committee are in contract negotiations with an individual or corporation, that information is discussed primarily in executive session and/or in private meetings. It may not be discussed outside a particular circle of Township officials. Once an agreement is reached, the agreement becomes public knowledge via ordinance.
However, with a project like North End, there has been much public discussion at open public meetings, the Planning Board, the Historic Preservation Commission, and at Township Committee meetings themselves when the redevelopment agreement and designation as an area in need of redevelopment were being debated. Anything I have said publicly comes from those public meetings, where I have the same access to information as every interested resident, and from the state Department of Environmental Protection and local tax assessor, from whom any citizen can make an OPRA request. Believe me, I have not broken the seal of negotiating confidentiality, as residents who have followed this project since 2006 know. I follow the guidelines which Township Attorney Gene Anthony has set. Those who are sucking sour lemons and trying to run a smear campaign wouldn’t know or care, because they have no respect for the Grove’s historic designation and would have no problem turning the Grove into Condo City.
A couple of facts that should be common knowledge about the area in Ocean Grove refered to as The North End. TheTownship Committee passed a Resolution that “deemed the area…in need of redevelopment.” Many public meetings and “sessions” later the Redevelopment Plan Ocean Grove North End” was adopted. The first element of the land use plan is a proposed hotel, max 80 rooms.
The second element allows for residential multifamily units and also for 7 single family residences. A maximum of 85 residential units are permitted in all.
A traffic impact study is required also.
Them’s the facts.
ken
Unless the CMA have been granted riparian rights by the state, which is incredibly rare, the state would own the lands below the high water mark.
However, the CMA would still own everything above that line which includes access to the beach from OG property.
If there was a free beach Entry in say, AP, and you stayed below the high water mark at low tide, you could walk into OG and be ok
However, few cops or CMA employees understand the intricacies of riparian law, so you would still probably get hassled
Catulu Fhatagn: If anything is being discussed about the North End Development by the Township Committee in private sessions (EX Session) and it is not voted on in public, then it is still in the stages of negotiations and falls under the OPHA law. Although the project may be public information, any discussions in EX.Session must be kept confidential.
Does the public actually know that the developers are going to build single family homes as opposed to condos and has that been approved or just still in discussion by the developers and Township? I understand that one of the Township officials was very upset that this information was put out there in public when in fact it was not approved or voted on but only discussed. Only the facts of what was recently said by one of the elected officials. Isn’t there a statement read before the Township Committee goes into Executive Session and it gives the reasons why they must not reveal what is discussed until it becomes public knowledge or voted in public? I hear this announced at every Township meeting. Any questions contact the Township Clerk or Attorney and they will explain what can and cannot be bought out. This seems to be her problem.
Bullets – I wish you were right. Then maybe we could use the beach on Sunday mornings without a fishing pole, heaven forbid. My understanding, which I am attempting to verify, is that the beach is privately owned by the OGCMA, and was granted in their charter. The water comes with it, and if memory serves it includes 1500 feet out into the ocean.
@Just Keep Talkin – One in the name of good and holy are you talking about? Everything that’s discussed up here has been public knowledge for years. It’s been discussed at openly at planning, township and HPC meetings.
A land area can be “redeveloped” without actually going through the formal redevelopment that occurred in Long Branch’s pier village.
The builders just need to comply with local ordinances if they can’t get variances, which I am sure they could get if this went down.
I’d like to see OG work with AP and rehab the whole area, fix the crumbling facade of the power station, fix DJ JONES and make that look a little better, but AP has trouble getting out of bed, so I’m not holding my breath.
Charles: Her recent victory in the primary has made one thing very clear, that she is still talking about things that are discussed in non-public conversations concerning contractual matters. This is a violation of the OPRA and it is giving out information that may or may not hinder the project. Being against something and voiceng your opinion is one tit can get you in “hot water.” But then again, this has been done before by the same individual and the result has always been the same. I hope that the developers who she seems to speak so freely about do not read or find out that she is giving out the project movement to the public. Just my thoughts on OPRA and what can not be said until it does not interfere with the negotiations of the project. The Township Attorney must also be asleep at the switch to keep her quiet as well.
I have to say for the last time, the approval of the redevelopment of the North End was never legal.
The state requires that there be a legal less-than-a-year survey showing how the buildings and homes will be laid out, and to scale. There is none, go check.
There were to be certified letters to all homeowners within 200 feet. Never happened.
The land has to be a negative criterion to the neighborhood that causes homes to sell below their value. Not happening. Homes sold for over a million on the block.
This answers the fact that the neighborhood is NOT a blighted area in need of redevelopment.
Best of all, “in need of redevelopment” does not mean that the builders do whatever they wish and do not have to conform to local ordinances and codes. They still have to comply with sub-divisions and codes just like we all have to do.
I understand why the CMA trustees would find a project of this size beneficial: of the many strictly religious camp meetings that flourished at the time and before Ocean Grove was being built, there are only two of this size and status left (the other is in Wisconsin). This project, when completed, would, hopefully, keep the Camp Meeting well in the black.
However, it can’t be all about one side. There are quality of life issues that have to be addressed. Virtually no one wants to see the CMA go under, but no one wants to see a small city go up in the most inaccessible corner of the Grove. I’m not passing the buck, but I inherited this mess in 2007, and believe me, if it was up to me and most people on the Committee, the votes for area in need of rehab might be different. Things are what they are. But project plans, they can change a lot. Stand tough with me.
In the interest of accuracy, the CMA does not have “members.” It does have trustees and donors.
To answer the question of “Why a hotel?” A few years ago, I had a conversation with a CMA official about the hotel. If I recall correctly, the purpose of the hotel is to allow more rooms for conferences and the like. Apparently, the limited space in Grove Hall limits the activities the CMA can attract or sponsor. Those who are more knowledgeable about the CMA and its mission, please weigh in.
To answer the question of “Why the CMA would be interested in 80 condos,” here’s a theory: there are members of the CMA with deep pockets, including those who are involved in development and construction (and I’m not just talking about those whose names are on construction signs). Would it surprise anyone if some of these folks are investors in the WAVE organization?
Aggravated Curmudgeon: You are incorrect. It is important to understanding that every drop of water in New Jersey is regulated by the State and through various acts. Everything below the mean high water line belongs to the State of NJ. So OGCMA only owns down to the high water mark.
Devo – Community pool would be great! There are still remnants of the huge North End pool behind the chain link fence. I hate to be pessimistic, but when it comes to the OGCMA and WAVE I have to be. They want to maximize their profit. They will make a lot more of the almighty dollar building houses and condos than a community pool.
A community pool is a great idea!!! Or a pavilion with restaurants. Or a park. Or anything that serves the community and does not disrupt or damage it.
If CMA owns the land, and they are simply leasing it to someone willing to build there, why would they want a hotel and 80 condos?? After their disastrous motor lodge experience, why would they want to repeat the mistakes of the past? Are they a profit maximizing entity or do they serve the community? What are their motives, as I really do not understand.
Just asking.
A community pool with membership!
Could this development be designed such that the only road access is from the AP side (aside from emergency vehicle access). This would go a long way towards making this thing less stinky. There is already a large parking lot by the Power Plant and maybe the developer could buy that and use it for the North End development parking. This would eliminate the traffic problem in the narrow streets of the North section of OG.
Just trying to be creative here.
That’s interesting from a historical point of view. If you look at the new book about the GA. you can see huge throngs on the beach for prayer services, but also the map shows that the current Ocean Pavilion was actually a central location for prayer at that time.
if the CMA scuttled its plan to build on the north end land, the space could be turned into one big open air “prayer park.” Hey, it could even be like “back in the day,” when the predecessor to the Great Auditorium allowed for outdoor worship. Would be in keeping with the CMA’s mission.
A parking lot out on a pier in the Ocean. Now that would really look great!!!
Here’s an idea if the developers refuse to pay for a waterproof underground garage: build a parking pier out in the ocean. The Camp Meeting supposedly owns the ocean off shore (I am not sure of the distance, but it is substantial). Really, it’s true. They made a deal to get control of the ocean with the federal government in the 19th century, check it out. There would probably be a lot of environmental studies and permits required, but better to park in the ocean than on the streets.
I agree with the above from Devo. The interests of the State of New Jersey, who helps fund redevelopment zones, are almost always at odds to the best interests of the town in which the development occurs (they are more interested in social engineering, expanding housing availability, etc.). Here we have the additional burden of the near-term interests of Neptune also not being aligned with OG’s (they want tax dollars).
Developing the North End under a State sanctioned redevelopment designation is a terrible idea. I can tell you right now that, based on what has happened most other places in NJ, OG will lose all control and hate the outcome. OG should seek to bring about the collapse of this redevelopment plan. The land and location is valuable/desirable enough that the CMA should be able to manage its own redevelopment.
Despite MBJ’s best intent and all of our wishful thinking, redevelopment areas take on a life of their own and they always gravitate to higher than expected density and insensitivity to quality of life concerns of the town they are occurring in (e.g., traffic impact, parking, etc.).
Wesley Lake has never flooded has it … ahem! So, underground sea side parking is engineerable, but the developers are unwilling to ‘foot the bill’ to make it waterproof. 200 or so more vehicles parking on the streets because they are afraid to use the facility, makes perfect sense. Oh yes, by all means lets use Asbury Park as a model for a major development, they’ve never made any mis-steps.
A couple of the questions raised above were also raised at the Home Owners meeting on Saturday. According to Committeewoman Jahn, the developers have said that they are not willing to pay the cost of the kind of waterproofing (so-called “bathtubbing”) used at the World Trade Center site.
A member of the audience also asked whether the hotel could become or be converted to a tax-exempt conference center. Jahn said the Township would not allow that. “This would be a regular tax-paying hotel, just like the Marriott or any other such hotel,” she said.
She also said the Township would not allow the owners to convert any part of the project into time shares.
I would only add that all of the hoped-for controls she has promised on this project will only be possible if the people of Ocean Grove keep their eyes wide open at every step, and if a majority of the Township Committee remains committed to preventing a high-density disaster. At present, those on the Committee who favor the Home Owners Association’s point of view are in the majority by only a single vote. Therefore, every Township Committee election from here on out holds the possibility that the governing majority could change in favor of full-scale, high-density, maximum-revenue overdevelopment.
@Ogrover
Remember the concrete basin that was built for the World Trade Center, to hold back water that might infiltrate from the Hudson River? It went down far deeper than two stories and did indeed have a garage. You can indeed build a formidable, water proof underground garage. But of course, at what cost.
Here is the low-down on redevelopment projects such as the one being proposed at the North End: they are bad news if you value your community.
When not at my OG house, I live in West Windsor, NJ, where we have been facing a redevelopment project turned disaster in the making around the Princeton Junction train station for the last few years. As a result of what went on in West Windsor vis-a-vis the developers and land speculators, we studied many other redevelopment projects in NJ (e.g., the Robbinsville town center).
What we found is that redevelopment projects are almost always bad for the community if they are done in parts of town surrounded by nicer areas (such as the North End). This is because, once you have the basic redevelopment plan approved by the State, the developers use every trick in the book, including, frequently, lawsuits, to build at the highest possible density, bringing traffic and all the other untoward effects that high density brings. The lawsuits begin at the point in the process when the community realizes that they are facing a high density development and try to scale it back. The one place redevelopment zones sometimes work is when the surrounding area to the redevelopment zone is worse than what is being proposed in the zone (e.g., the baseball stadium on the Delaware River in Trenton, the Aquarium in Camden).
If you all work hard now, you can probably still scuttle the redevelopment in the North End. If you don’t — but instead try to modify it to be something more acceptable (e.g., less condos) — you will ultimately loose, as the landowner will want the project to go forward and the developers will sue to keep the plan true to its initial form (or even reach for a higher density than the original plan called for). In West Windsor, we have been unsuccessful in trying to modify the redevelopment, we have been sued and the town agreed to much higher densities, and it will severely damage the town once it is built.
Scuttle the redevelopment plan now, or forever be sorry you did not.
Not to be paranoid, how can we be sure that a hotel in the North End would not be converted to condos at a latter date? That is the usual path developers in the past have used to circumvent zoning laws in Ocean Grove. So 80 condos could easily become twice that number if ten years from now the developers make the case that the hotel (with a $50 million mortgage) is not economically feasible.
I hope that Ms. Jahn says what she means and means what she says about this appalling project. Parking will be a major issue without an adequate underground garage, and even with it. Don’t forget that staff will need to park, along with residents and guests. How deep can they go for the garage? First establish the current depth of the water table using several boring tests and seasonal water level charts. This should be done by an independent engineer hired by the town and paid for by the developers, and the results and plan should be made public.
Could a waterproof “bathtub” be built? Perhaps, but at what cost?
Financial feasibility should be a priority. What if the project fails? What happens to the property then? And who are the investors, and what is their connection to the Camp Meeting? How does the hotel fit in with the Camp Meeting’s broader outreach strategy? If they want to have religious conferences to fill rooms, does it make economic sense and what happens to this alcohol-free facility if occupancy is not adequate?
The whole project just seems impractical and foolish. Keep the space open with a park and a few houses. We deserve a park, not a nightmare.
Is the planned hotel going to be a tax-exempt religious retreat like Grove Hall?
OGrover, it was mentioned at the Home Owners meeting that the condos that were build on Asbury Park’s north end of Ocean Ave have an underground garage. Apparently there is a way to do it, but it is very expensive to waterproof. I believe it was called “bathtubbing.”
There will never be a natural or park area there because the land is owned by the Camp Meeting and the $$$ money potential for them is talking loud and clear. Also the anonymous WAVE developers want to maximize their profit, so the more condos/houses they can pack in, the better for them. They won’t make a dime off any park.
One of the biggest mistakes New Jersey has made is letting the local governments get talked into stuffing every last foot of area into residences by developers. Look how they are trying to stuff Asbury Park’s north end with high-profit condos. What is really happening is inland houses get less valuable and enjoyable because there is little open park place where people can comfortably have some peace by the water. No vistas, choked-off inland breezes, tailpipes, cooking smells, and the exact opposite of what Ocean Grove needs: more inner-city stuffed up, packed in urban living.
I’m confused; if buildings in that area can have basements, why couldn’t new structures include parking underground?
The entire project sounds like it has not really been thought through. The analysis of the traffics patterns during a busy weekend will result in what people already know — the developers’ intended design has major faults in it and must be severely downgraded. You don’t need to be a civil engineer to know this.
I think it’s really sad that it’s even being considered to have development there. Why not just make/keep it as a park? What will happen to the trees and other plants that are planted along Spray Ave in that little section? This could be turned into beautiful gardens that can be enjoyed by the public. Ocean Grove has plenty of people that would probably volunteer their time. Nope, we just have to bulldoze, put down more pavement and sidewalks, prop up some condos just for a little extra tax money. All about the money.
It’s also nice to have one area of Ocean Grove where you can walk and there aren’t people around. It’s kind of private and it feels kind of “natural”, although it obviously needs improvement. I can picture the area covered in low maintenance wildflowers, butterfly bushes, native coastal trees and shrubs. Does anyone really want to have to stare up at more condos?
Why do people have to have their residences on that small, hard-to-reach site? 85 residences? Really? Why can’t they make it a mixed-use site. A park area to the south next to the lake and the stately power station, with a promenade as it was in days of old, a parking area west of that, and then a North End style building west of that with some condos, a restaurant and shops, parking, and an open-space feel?
I never could understand how anyone thought a few levels of underground parking was feasible next to a lake AND the ocean. Have they never heard of Nor’Easters or hurricanes?
(Well deserved high praise lavished on Blogfinger in the Tri City, by the way. Kudos!!!!)