1.Here, from the Township, is an update on the Broadway street and drainage work. Leanne Hoffmann, director of engineering, reports that during the week of September 24 the contractor will be working on an additional drainage structure on Beach Avenue and also on the northeast and northwest side of the Beach-Broadway intersection. This work will take approximately four to five days, Hoffmann says. After that, the installation of a new culvert at Broadway and Central will commence.
2. The Neptune Mother Ship has authorized two new handicapped parking spots in Ocean Grove — one in front of 83 Broadway and the other on McClintock Street at the rear of the dwelling located at 40 Ocean Pathway.
3. The Historic Preservation Commission is considering an application to demolish this old house at 120 Franklin Avenue. Neighbors have been watching the application carefully, out of concern for what might be built there if the existing place is torn down. On Tuesday the HPC heard testimony from a historic expert. A decision is expected in approximately three months. Whenever a structure is demolished in the Ocean Grove Historic District, the demolition must first be approved by the HPC.
Looks like another “25 year flood”. That would make four such floods in 4 months.
AND back to the eternal drainage situation on Broadway. It is 9:08 on Tuesday night and I came home about 30 minutes ago to find about an 18″ wide stream running along the curb on the south side of Broadway and the water had risen above the curb, flooded the sidewalk and I was in ankle deep water as far as my stairs! Earlier today, the frustrated owners of the Sea Spray sandbagged their ground level door and the part of their yard that is near one of the drains in the roadway. What a mess!
OhGee: The demolition hearing was just held on September 11. A vote to approve or deny will not be for at least 90 days (per ordinance). The Neptune Township website will send notices of all board and committee meetings with agendas attached if requested. Sign in on the NEPTUNETOWNSHIP.ORG website for any you are interested in.
Only demolition will be voted on at that subsequent HPC meeting. Any plans requesting a CofA will be at another agenda meeting at which the public will have the opportunity to: 1. ask questions of anybody who testifies and 2. make public comments on what is proposed to be built. The file with plans is usually available for public inspection well in advance of the meeting so interested parties can come prepared. Hope that helps.
ken
Ken, do you know when that meeting is? Has it already passed?
Those fake Victorians, such as the large Jack Green project on Cookman and Clark Avenues, are pretty and have top-of-the-line everything inside them. They are restricted to the wealthy. To each his own, I guess. But I would have to say I am a bit leery of too many of these fake Victorians popping up. I fear as more of these multiply, the HPC will become more and more lenient in allowing them.
So many premature comments. Residents attending the HPC agenda meeting that hears the application for 120 Franklin will have an opportunity to state opinion during “public comment.”
Of course, I would exclude the Roman Temple from my above comment.
Option #4 The house gets torn town and the property owner charges people to park on the lot!
Let’s get real folks…without exception, the new homes that have been built are beautiful (not plastic) and a huge improvement over what was there previously. We should only be so lucky as to have this town evolve to one were most all the hotels and bland houses are replaced with new Victorians. It would be especially awesome to get rid of all the split-level houses. In so doing, we are moving the town back towards its original form — who can think this to be wrong?
This property is a triple (3x) lot. So a few things could happen:
#1 Existing house could be torn down and a really huge 3 lot wide new fake Victorian could be built there.
#2 Existing house could be torn down and a really big 2 lot wide new fake Victorian could be built there. Remaining 3rd lot could be sold and yet another fake Victorian could be built there.
#3 Existing house could be torn down and a big single lot wide new fake Victorian could be built there. Remaining 2 lots could be sold and 2 more fake Victorians could be built on these 2 lots.
None of the above scenarios is good for the neighborhood or town.
P.S. – A big thank you to blogfinger for bringing matters such as this one to our attention and providing a forum thru which to discuss them.
From reading the above comments it seems to me like the real problem here is not so much whether the existing house is worth preserving as it is a very real fear of what might be built to replace it. The biggest problems with many of Frank’s “fake Victorians” are the utter lack of design (just look at the first generic box that’s going up at the old Manchester Inn site on Ocean Pathway), and the never ending string of variances they seem to receive to make them even larger than existing laws allow. And is this a double or triple lot? Scary.
Have to agree with Frank. Some of the “fake Victorians” in OG are looking pretty plastic. I also think a variety of home styles makes for a more interesting landscape and helps preserve some open air/space.
And while I have had my fair share of disagreement with the HPC, I appreciate the group’s efforts and the guidelines they ask homeowners to follow. One only has to look at a Victorian “renovation” going on in Bradley Beach (I forget the address; believe it’s on Fletcher Lake Avenue). Plastic rails, plastic siding, plastic fish scale detail, etc. An example of a lot of effort for a not-so-hot looking result in MHO.
I don’t think there is a flare on Franklin Ave.
They leased the property and should be allowed to do as they want with that house and that land. If they comply with the HPC there is no issue.
As long as the Motor Lodge exists, I have a hard time taking all these rules seriously anyway.
Aggravated Curmudgeon : While it indeed may be their property it is not their neighborhood or their town. I never said that this home was historic. What I did say was that there was nothing wrong with it. The problem is that a big (maybe twice as big as existing home and neighboring homes) home and loss of a yard would not be in keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood.
If Ocean Grove goes the route of tearing down perfectly good but not historical existing old homes and replacing them with new fake/reproduction Victorian homes then we may end up with a town of half-real-authentic-original-Victorian homes and half-new-fake-reproduction-Victorian homes. That my friends would not be too charming or pretty.
Frank S – Don’t you think the homeowner is entitled to realize their vision for a new home? It’s their property, not yours. The present structure has no historic or architectural value worth preserving as far as I can tell, and an expert supported this view if I am interpreting Listener’s comment correctly. You may not like the idea, but if the homeowner proposes a new home in compliance with the Guidelines and Code, then what is the problem?
This is a great example of the controversy that historic preservation generates around here. I would like to see a thorough review of preservation practices here, so that everyone (including you and those with similar ideas) would have an opportunity to redefine the process and authority vested in the HPC. I believe in preserving certain key structures, while providing homeowners the flexibility to replace other structures if they like. But I know it won’t happen. And it’s too bad.
The house doesn’t appear to be historic in any way. However, replacement should conform to HPC codes. The neighbors have every right to be concerned and object when/if the builder starts asking for the inevitable height variances or flare incursions if that applies.
Although this home is not Victorian there is nothing wrong with it. Is a new fake Victorian really better ? Is new construction really better ? Is bigger(maybe twice the size of existing home) really better ? Is losing a side yard which offers space between homes really better ?
Would a fake/reproduction new very large Victorian home with no side yard really be in keeping with the other surrounding homes and the neighborhood ? Should we embark on a campaign to tear down all non-Victorian old homes and replace them with fake/reproduction Victorians ? My answer to all the above posed questions is a big No.
I was at the hearing. The owner’s expert was super qualified. Demo looked like a sure thing after she testified.
I agree with above comments. Houses like this in the Grove need to go so they can be replaced with new, beautiful victorian homes. Tear it down!!
I would like to know what the expert said about this home. It does not look like an historic property, and is nowhere near being a key structure of any kind. It’s a great example of the kind of property that could and should be replaced if the owner wants to do it. Think of it this way – if every property in town looked like this, would we be an historic district? I doubt it.
Preserving this property is an example of overzealousness and making preservation a matter of authority and control. I hope the owners get what they want. And if they don’t get it right away, take the HPC to court. I promise you they will cave. And if they don’t, they will lose.
This house does not appear to have any notable victorian elements or other irreplacable qualities. It could be a house anywhere. A new house would boost the property values of other houses on the block, providing it was nicely done in the Victorian style (as have been the other new houses built in town recently). A new house sounds good to me.
RE: 120 Franklin. This house is not run down nor in need of demolition. It has a very big lot (double maybe even a triple lot). So I think that the new owners (it just was purchased earlier this year) want to knock it down so they then can build a real big new house on the lot. This I think is the truth of the matter and it should not be allowed.