Blogfinger file photo. July, 2014
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
We wrote about this subject in July, 2014 (see link below) in response to an inquiry about zoning for Mary’s Place. At that time, no applications had come in to George Waterman, the Neptune Township Assistant Land Use Administrator. He is in charge of zoning determinations.
Mary’s Place plans new facility in Ocean Grove
On August 5, the applications came in, and by August 12, the “approved zoning” stamp was issued by Mr. Waterman including permission to merge two lots into one. The plans by Shore Point Architects were then approved by HPC, and construction will begin in early October.
Mary’s Place is a facility without a category. The memo from the Township refers to it as a “Community Shelter”, but it has characteristics of a spa, a quasi-medical facility, a community residence, or “a place for women to heal.”
As reported by Blogfinger in July, the zoning on that beach block is single family residential, B and B’s and historic hotels. But, as we reported, the State statutes supersede the Neptune zoning regulations. The state says that “Community residences, shelters, and adult family care homes are permitted uses in residential districts. (state statute #40:55D-66.1).”
Under that heading comes this definition: “Community residences for the developmentally disabled, community shelters for victims of domestic violence, community residences for the terminally ill, community residences for persons with head injuries, and adult family care homes for elderly persons and physically disabled adults shall be a permitted use in all residential districts of a municipality, and the requirements therefore shall be the same as for single family dwelling units located within such districts. ”
We asked Mr. Waterman to explain which of the above definitions would Mary’s Place satisfy in order to get zoning approval.
He pointed to “community residences and shelters” as the main use categories and then singled out the “terminally ill” part as matching what is done at Mary’s Place. It should be noted that Mary’s Place accepts female clients who have all degrees of cancer. No medical treatments are conducted there at this time, although Mary’s Place officials speak of creating a place where western and eastern medicine will “compliment” each other.* Another high official at Neptune Township said that Mary’s Place was approved because it is a sort of “halfway house” as exist for “battered women.”
*NJ.com. September 13, 2014
At the present time, Sept 15, 2020, Mary’s Place still has no legal Zoning Approval.
Township permission?…..Yes
Zoning Approval…..No!
Reblogged this on Blogfinger and commented:
Lately there has been renewed interest in the subject of zoning for Mary’s Place. In September, 2014 we wrote an article which resulted in a record-breaking 97 comments. The article is reposted now becauses it is timeless as we consider the future of Ocean Grove, and the comments are really interesting including participation by the Township Board of Adjustment attorney.
In Regards to merging lots, if two adjacent lots are owned by the same person, then they can be merged in two ways
In the 1989 case of Bridge v. Neptune, the Court found that if someone were to buy contiguous nonconforming lots delineated as separate tracts, and then were to build a single family structure so that it overlapped both lots, the lots would merge into a single tract and would require subdivision before either could be sold “as long as the structure remains on any part of both lots.”
Now they are claiming that this will be a residential structure turned into a shelter, which is a whole other issue. But the adjoinment of two properties owned by one person requires no action by the Township, only that the land owner notify the government.
I just went back and read all of your posts concerning the Mary’s Place zoning issue. I have already posted my comment about the unfairness of the system that allowed this to be approved with no board hearing. I think the issue that has been neglected here is the HPC approval. How and when did that happen? Was the process that the rest of us must follow adhered to or was this also done behind closed doors without a public hearing? And if so, how can this be allowed to move forward when much smaller home improvements in town are denied by the HPC? I think we need to start demanding some answers.
“Mary’s Place is not a “community residence for the terminally ill”-such a facility would be a hospice or nursing home.
Mary’s Place provides seaside respites for women with cancer, it provides nutritional counseling if desired, and plans to offer yoga, massage therapy and similar exercise and/or spa type treatments. It provides no medical care in the traditional definition.
Some Mary’s Place residents may, indeed, suffer from a terminal condition but their presence at the facility is limited to a few days and it is not their place of final abode where they will be cared for until their death.
While the mission of Mary’s Place is, indeed, an honorable one, the facility is not a community residence for the terminally ill.
Let’s add it up. .
1. Approval was provided by a paid Township employee without initial review by a public governance body at a public “hearing.”
2. Such review should be mandated by Township ordinances. (However, even recently the abandoned properties ordinance was subjected to this archaic way with a single paid employee making the ultimate decisions plus creating rules and regulations without Committee public review and approval.)
3. No doubt, construction firms that operate in Ocean Grove appear to be heavy hitters when it comes to both political and governmental points of interest.
4. Mr. Gannon built his “Bank” on Ocean Avenue with a single, thin piece of comparison that its style was within Ocean Grove historical architecture.
5. Years ago he executed a contract to develop the North End with multi-forms of housing with the Camp Meeting Association. That contract has never been made public.
6. Mrs. Gannon is president of “Mary’s Place by the Sea, Inc.” a 501c3 non-profit organization.
The question for all of us: “Who owns Ocean Grove?”
Thank you for reprinting Charles Layton’s letter.
At a recent Board of Adjustment meeting in which the Board again violated our civil rights, I read a part of a letter addressed to the Township stating, “In the absence of an approved special area standard, Neptune Township must comply with the parking standards in the RSIS. Any local ordinances on parking or any other residential site improvements are “deemed to have been repealed and of no further force or effect, as specified at N.JA.C. 5:21-10(b).”
What has been taking place at the Board of Adjustment since 2009, in which parking has not been required, has been to violate the law. State law requires enforcement of RSIS. The Township has not only knowingly been violating our rights by not enforcing this law, they have been violating our rights as to the benefits of the law that was created to bring about less congestion on our streets.
Remember, the three attorneys, Township, Planning Board, and Board of Adjustment attorneys are officers of the court and are bound by law to follow and enforce the law. They have refused to do this at our expense.
The Township planner is licensed by the state to make sure that the Township’s zoning is in conformity with the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL.) The planner has failed to do this. When the previous Township planner appeared in front of the RSIS Board, he stated that the township was using a lot size that failed to meet RSIS and MLUL standards or requirements. The RSIS Board made it clear to the Township’s planner that neither the Township nor any developer could return to their board seeking an exception to the standards until the Township brought its zoning (with a legal lot size that included parking) into conformity with the MLUL.
The real reason that the Township and its attorney’s refuse to correct our zoning is that it will remove any uses other than single family uses. That is a fact.
Sincerely
Kevin Chambers
I suspect that most of the clients who go to Mary’s Place are ambulatory and are living their lives with the hope of beating their disease. Most patients who are terminally ill are at a stage of their disease where their medical needs and their declining conditions would rule out Mary’s Place for them. If you go to Mary’s Place web site (see quotes* below) it lists their services and makes it clear that they are not a medical facility:
“Mary’s Place has expanded its services to meet the individual needs of its guests and now offers a blend of traditional and complimentary approaches, including oncological massage, Reiki, yoga, nutrition counseling, journal writing.” *
“Mary’s Place By The Sea, Inc. is not a medical facility. We do not diagnose or treat disease. We provide support and guidance and make nutritional recommendations only.” *
I feel it is an insult to the woman fighting cancer who will be using this facility to have gotten approval under the category of
“terminally ill”.
Here is a link to a Blogfinger article from 2011 where Charles Layton did great job of explaining the RSIS standards as they pertain to Ocean Grove:
http://blogfinger.net/2011/02/14/is-kevin-chambers-right-are-ocean-groves-latest-condo-developments-illegal-lets-figure-it-out/
RSIS standards have been in existence since 1997.
rephrasing my questions:
Is Mary’s Place purchasing the land, paying the contractors for construction, and retaining the property in their name, or are they going to pay the property owner who is named on the “Correspondence” to build and then lease the property to Mary’s Place?——similar to a situation that the US Post Office on Main does.
It’s public knowledge that Mary’s Place leased the property on Broadway for which they raised money to purchase, but obviously that’s not happening.
Reading the responses from all the postings I’m still left wondering something. I simply can’t get my head around it. How can anyone justify citing State regulations (community residences and shelter … terminally ill) in permitting construction of such a structure yet ignore other State regulations (RSIS)?
Is Mary’s Place purchasing the building or are they going to lease it? Didn’t they lease the property on Broadway for which they raised money to purchase?
Hi Paul I do happen to know a person that had stayed at Mary’s Place, and she drove there. From what I understand from her she just needed a few days to get away.
I think this can be a positive for women fighting cancer, but why it can’t be good for the town and convert an existing B&B is beyond my belief.
I would like to know if the people working there are on payroll or volunteer,and I would like to know who the builder is.
Concerned. I made the correction. What “misinformation” is “out there?”
Wanted to make a correction. The owner of the two lots was not PH Enterprises, it was Shep Pettibone. Sorry about that. There is already a lot of misinformation out there, I do not want to add to that.
Monica and Gosh: This line of discussion is officially over with the exception of RSIS standards as they pertain to the Mary’s Place project. Thank you for a spirited exchange of views.—–Paul
Bob: With respect to the side issue of parking, the parking rules that I was referring to as not existing back then were the State standards (RSIS) that required new construction such as condos to provide off street parking commensurate to the number of rooms. Those standards were put in place in 1997. Note that Neptune Twp. has ignored these state regulations, so no new construction in town has been forced to provide parking. Perhaps the Mary’s Place application did not even consider parking.
As for parking in general regarding this project, the number of spaces which it would require off street is only part of the issue. The other part, related to the above, is the question of whether Mary’s Place got a State RSIS exemption on the parking requirement—and if they did, on what basis?
As for the taxes which the town would collect from Mary’s Place,they are an IRS recognized non-profit organization, 501 © 3 and thus tax exempt.
As for your comparison to long gone hotels and the number of people who went to them, your assumption regarding parking back then is probably wrong. Years ago people took trains into the Grove, and, although I can’t prove, it, I bet that back in the day of the Chopin and Polonaise Hotels, there were much fewer cars in town than now and more classical music. Anyhow, regardless of how many cars were in town then and now, the fact remains that the Mary’s Place will take up more parking than two single family houses.
And finally, regarding the idea that single family homes were out of the question because no one would pay the price, you don’t know what the real reason(s) are that those two lots are now available for merger. You are making an invalid point, because you don’t know the facts regarding those lots. —-Paul
Hmmm…so if I read Gosh right, I’m bluffing in explaining a zoning process discussion and simply put, am avoiding issues. Let me just say, I’M not the one posting anonymously. Who’s doing the bluffing and avoiding….
To: “Oh My” (regarding some old houses in town including two on Wesley Lake that might be used for this purpose)
Valid question. However the cost to convert these decades old buildings into usuable facilites, much less ones that can be used by people who have difficulty walking, or who need wheel chair accessibility, would be excessive.
To “an Observer”
You ask 2 cogent questions.
One: using the number of rooms to indicate parking needs. Unfortunately, in the case of Mary’s Place, the people in the rooms seldom or ever drive themselves to this place, nor are there many visitors. So while this would be a valid indication of parking in most facilities such as this, it doesn’t apply in this case.
Two: “I believe those lots were listed for sale for multiple years and had failed to find a buyer willing to pay the asking price?” That’s right. so instead of 2 vacant lots generating little if any, tax revenue, we’ll now have a facility that will generate tax revenue.
Paul/Jan:
The Chopin and the Polonnaise were here well into the 90’s (and possibly early 2000’s), as was the Sampler Inn. Since the Sampler Inn served meals (and it was not unusual to see every stripe of OG resident there, from OGCMA Board members to those staying in State homes), it had significantly more people parking on Main then Mary’s Place ever will.
As to the comment “there were no parking rules years ago when those hotels were in business ” is totally false. There were state parking standards in place then – I’ll send you copies of tickets I received for violating those State Motor vehicle statutes (I have the copies because I was found not guilty on a technicality).
I have a question about the builders for the Mary’s Place Project. We know that the architect is Shore Pointe and the lots are owned by Shep Pettibone, but we are all assuming that the builders are going to be the Gannon Construction Co.
Is that not conflict of interest since his wife is the president of Mary’s Place? This would concern me if I were a donor or contributor to Mary’s Place. Can anyone verify that the Gannons are definitely going to be the builders. The actual lots are owned by Shep Pettibone, and they also own PH construction Co. It makes sense that it would be the Gannon Construction Co. but I would like to know for sure since there is PH Enterprise involvement.
Please remember the Neptune Township Committee Meeting is this Monday, Sept. 22-Workshop meeting is at 6 p.m. and actual meeting is at 7 pm. at the Neptune Township Building. Maybe you can get some answers at this meeting and put this subject to rest.
Monica: Unless you have documents from the SITES Comm. saying that the parking standards were delegated to Neptune, I have to call your bluff.
I have letters from SITES Comm. saying Neptune needs to comply with N.J. parking standards and Neptune refuses to abide by their decision.
You should also have a copy.
To make it simple. you’re just avoiding all issues. Curious has it right, and the time will come when the residents of O.G. will not tolerate the misuse and disregard of our parking standards and RSIS standards.
Ahhh Curious..FYI I was not using “shouty capitals” but just using caps to distinguish between the question I was asked and my answer. I’m not sure if Paul can highlight the difference. So, no yelling involved.
Second, the info on providing documents at the hearings was a direct quote from the Land Use Bible quoting rules of evidence. If it doesn’t make sense to you, I don’t know what else I can say, except “I’m sorry I can’t help you any further” in this area.
Lastly, I was asked my opinion of a violation of rights with regard to RSIS, so again, I tried to explain the process. If there is an application BEFORE the BOARD, RSIS is considered but is not always applicable for many reasons, which again, may make no sense to you. Again, you can refer to any public records to listen to the discussions that have taken place.
Again, I am not commenting on any specific application, including this one.
Lastly, I never mind helping people understand the process but if you don’t like it or it doesn’t make sense to you, then there is nothing left for me to help you with. I will not offer legal opinions with regard to specific applications. Sorry.
As to zoning and building, it seems as if almost anyone can get what they want providing they have the contacts and/or tenacity to do so. Cases in point include the bank building, the lakeside cottage turned suburban tract house,or the charmless behemoth on the 60s block of Abbott that ruined its neighbors outside space and acts as a speaker for the Stone Pony. So I am not so sure that single family homes are a panacea to preserving the unique place that Ocean Grove was.
What doesn’t add up for me is why is Mary’s Place is looking to pay $2 million for new construction when there are three bed and breakfasts on the market in Ocean Grove with the same, or more, number of bedrooms and bathrooms as being planned with an asking price of $900,000 to $1,250,000.
In this case, the net impact on parking (at least during the crowded summer months) would be negligible. Better yet might be purchasing one of the derelict buildings and refurbishing – which may still be cheaper than new construction and has a positive impact on the community.
For those who were here back in the 80’s you’ll remember 11 Webb. Back then we were all told to go back home, nothing to see here, it’s all legal, and in the end after a few years, the courts ruled against the Township and the builder which resulted in the house being demolished.
Now this issue has some similarities in the way the Township is treating the residents and the rush to build, as in 11 Webb. I’m curious why Mr. Waterman didn’t show Blogfinger* his decision in writing with the precedent and legal reason to support his decision. He chose to give that answer verbally. There must be something on file publicly available. You would think that after 11 Webb, Neptune would have learned to respect their citizens when questions are raised, instead it’s history repeating.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe: I never said that Mr. Waterman gave me nothing in writing. It is true that most of what he told me was verbal, but he did give me a paper called “Correspondence.” I will post it. The handwritten parts are my notes, taken while we were discussing his decision which he was confident was accurate and proper. I spoke to him on Sept. 15 at his office in the Mother Ship. —- Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
Curious: I asked Mr.Waterman about variances with regard to merging the two lots, and he replied that none were necessary.
As we’ve been told and had it explained here at one time or another is that the reason there is no diagonal parking the length of Main, even though it would add spaces, is that the State won’t allow it. Yet the State RSIS mandate is consistently ignored or variances are frequently given to condo developments.
Even though it is a side issue in the current discussion, it points to a problem in how regulations, ordinances, state mandates, etc are enforced in Ocean Grove This project was approved at what amounts to light speed, apparently with variances, compared to other construction projects which take weeks, even months to be approved. It is the inconsistency that is troublesome, at least to me.
No, Blogfinger, I am not suggesting that Mary’s Place would represent a further decline. Mary’s Place is very much in keeping with the spirit of our town – providing it doesn’t look like the typical monstrosities we have seen blossom here during our alleged “renaissance.”
Ms. Kowalski, You seem to be suggesting that the public is not allowed to remind you and the ZB members of existing law (in this case, RSIS) unless the authors of that law are present for you to question. That doesn’t make any sense.
You also seem to be implying that RSIS is frequently not applicable in Ocean Grove, yet fail to offer any possible reasons (or even similar examples from the past) for its inapplicability in this particular situation.
Most of us understand that you, and the ZB, have not heard this particular application, but if you are going to set yourself up as an authority, you need to expect requests for clarification, and be able to offer real answers without yelling.
I agree with Maybe’s comment about why are we not hearing from the politicians on this subject, when we need them the most to explain this process to us.
I am surprised at Mary Beth*; she always seems to have had a strong accurate opinion in the past on subjects. where is she now?
* Mary Beth Jahn–Committeewoman, Neptune Township Committee.
In response to GOSH;
“You have to know that Neptune has avoided enforcing the parking standards delegated by the SITES Committee.”
THIS DOES NOT RELATE TO A SPECIFIC ZONING MATTER, BUT I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT.
“Don’t you think our rights are being violated?”
NO. PARKING IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE IN OG. RSIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENT AND IS READ AS A WHOLE. AS IT RELATES TO RSIS, THE BOARD PLANNER AND ENGINEER AND I USUALLY DISCUSS RSIS AND ITS APPLICABILITY OR INAPPLICABILITY TO ALL ZONING APPLICATIONS IN OG. RSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY REASONS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPTS OR LISTEN TO THE TAPES FOR ANY PAST APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIFICITY. ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT EVEN IF RSIS DID APPLY, ANY DEVELOPER CAN REQUEST A WAIVER FROM RSIS REQUIREMENTS DIRECTLY FROM DCA. (Dept. of Community Affairs)
“I have been at a few of the ZB meetings and when residents read RSIS and SITES Committee documentation, you have failed to explain to the Board members that these documents are valid.”
UNDER THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW AND CASE DECISIONS REGARDING SAME, THE BOARD IS NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS, LETTERS OF OBJECTION OR PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHERE THE WRITER OR THE SIGNER OF THE DOCUMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY (OR THERE IS NO EXPERT QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY) AND BE SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE BOARD AND CAN ONLY BE PLACED IN ITS FILE. UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT CHANGE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND MUCH LONGER THAN I HAVE.
“In my opinion, the Board, along with attorneys representing their clients, act like the good old boys having a meeting.”
THAT IS YOUR OPINION AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT, HOWEVER, KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL OF US CONTINUALLY WORK TOGETHER, IN MANY TOWNS, NOT JUST NEPTUNE, BUT THROUGHOUT MONMOUTH/OCEAN COUNTY. THIS GOES FOR APPLICANTS AND ADVERSARIES ALIKE. SO, I SUPPOSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY WITH ATTORNEYS/ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/ARCHITECTS. THAT IS JUST THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND THE ZONING COMMUNITY IS RELATIVELY SMALL B/C IT IS SO SPECIALIZED. WHILE WE TRY TO MAINTAN PROFESSIONALISM, SOMETIMES ITS LIKE CALLING YOUR CO-WORKER OF THE LAST 20 YEARS, “SIR”. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MAKE THE PROCESS ANY LESS SERIOUS TO ANY OF US BECAUSE I CAN GUARANTY THAT ALL OF US ARE PROTECTIVE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THAT HAPPEN OR HAVE THE TOWNSHIP SPEND MONEY ON AN UNNECESSARY APPEAL OR TO DEFEND A DECISION ON APPEAL.
“I doubt if the members of the board have been certified from the State of NJ.”
BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MONTHS TO OBTAIN THEIR CERTIFICATIONS FROM THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENT AS THEY HAVE TO ATTEND CERTAIN ACCREDITED CLASSES. YOU MAY CONTACT THE TOWNSHIP TO VERIFY WHETHER ALL CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED OR ARE PENDING. THERE IS A RECORD FOR THIS. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT TWO RECENT ALTERNATE ADDITIONS HAVE CERTIFICATIONS PENDING BUT ALL OTHERS ARE CERTIFIED. YOU ARE WELCOME TO DOUBLE CHECK.
FURTHER, IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE WITHIN THEIR CERTIFICATION PERIOD, THEY ARE STILL ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER THE MLUL. LASTLY, MOST OF OUR REGULAR MEMBERS ARE LONG TERM BOARD MEMBERS AND ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS, AREAS OF NEPTUNE AND THE PLAYERS, SO TO SPEAK. WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE SUCH COMMITTED VOLUNTEERS WHO REVIEW COUNTLESS, LARGE DOCUMENTS AND HAVE IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA AND APPLICATIONS.
“Blogfinger: This subject is relevant because of the lack of parking for Mary’s new facility.”
I CAN’T ADDRESS THIS. I AM NOT AWARE OF THE MARY’S PLACE APPLICATION OR ITS CONTENTS.
Ms. Kowalski concludes: With regard to the Board of Adjustment hearings, I encourage members of the public to come to EVERY meeting, twice a month, just like the Board does. Listen to what is going on, learn and comment. (God Rest Joe Krimko…he was always there with a comment, and after he slapped you down on the record or agreed with the Board, he would meet you at Clancy’s for a beer…sorely missed).
Zoning is process driven and statutorily regulated. You will either love it or it will drive you crazy. Sometimes it does both.
Have a great day…I’m done with commentary on this issue. Regards, M.
Monica C Kowalski, Esq. ZBA Attorney: is quoted as saying…If you have a problem with the decision of the Zoning Officer, then seek appropriate redress according to Statute. That is your right. That is your remedy….”
Maybe Ms Kowalski would be so kind as to mention the redress, appeal time, etc. before this becomes mute. She has involved herself with advice and comments, would this be to much to ask.
What is the time limit for appeal.
Also can a zoning officer combine 2 lots without a hearing. Maybe she can cite that statute.
Neptune politicians have pretty much always been absent in zoning issues ever since I can remember, and have never been punished at the polls. Where are they now, you know they read this blog.They have no courage—-pure and simple. Deputy Mayor Mary Beth Jahn was a frequent commenter here, very quiet, as is Randy Bishop Committeeman – very quiet.
I’m not suggesting they take a position, but there are many questions and concerns on this subject and they could shed light, maybe call a local meeting to answer questions. Residents are concerned.
The clock is ticking…. till an appeal can’t be made and then it’s a moot point.
The Tax rolls as of today show Shep Pettibone as owner of 22 and 24. 28 is owned by a Koplitz brother.
Other than the people of Mary’s Place, who is/are the prime mover(s) behind this project? There must have been local advocate(s) familiar enough with working through the system to have gotten this deal done so quickly.
There are several large derelict homes and structures in town including two on Wesley Lake that could be converted to this type of facility. Why build new when there so quite a few alternatives available?
Jan: Unfortunately there is no clear mechanism to move this issue forward by the citizens, and the township officials, especially our elected representatives, have so far shown no interest in this matter despite all the controversy.
It seems to me that one of the organizations in town needs to take the lead to put together a coalition to stop this fast moving train. Either that or an individual activist who would be a leader. Unfortunately, apathy is rampant in our society, and the groups in town won’t take the lead.They are too set in their ways.
The organization which is an obvious choice would be the Home Owners Ass. but they don’t have the leadership to act. Maybe they will find some courage and step in. Maybe their hundreds of members will put pressure on their board.
Given the outpouring of interest, there must be something now that might impress our Committee persons—- maybe a letter writing campaign to the Mayor and the Committee asking them to put a stop to this zoning permit until the matter can be further investigated with full transparency for the public. Our elected officials should explain to the public why we should be satisfied with this zoning decision.
How about a poll? —-tonight. Tune in to place your vote.
Bob Borders:
Sorry to say when there were two hotels there were blue laws in effect and there were very few cars at the time,and there were no residents but there were vacationers.
Paul don’t you think it’s time for the residents, Chamber of Commerce, OGU and all other groups to ban together to stop this destruction to the Grove ?
I would like to know how a zoning officer (what are his credentials?) has the authority to approve this whole project without the Zoning Board involvement or Planning Board. What criteria is he using and is he following the Ocean Grove Master Plan?.
If this is not presented to the public, it is violating the residents’ rights, especially the people that live so close to this project.
If this has all been done properly, we just need to have it explained to us.(procedures that they took and why) That is all that I ask. Maybe at the next township meeting they can explain this to us.
I highly recommend going to the next Neptune Township meeting on Sept. 22 at 7 pm. Prior to the this meeting, there is a workshop meeting at 6 p.m. in which they talk about what is on the agenda but the public can not speak at this meeting. The public can speak at the Neptune Township Meeting at 7 p.m.
.
10 bedrooms, each with a private bath. Don’t know the answer to #2 or why those lots were never actually used.
Bob. Once again the discussion gets muddled by words. This is the first time that “health care facility” has appeared. Even the Zoning Officer did not try that one on for size. Mary’s Place is not a health care facility because no medical care is given there. Besides, the zoning criteria for that HD-O (Historic District–ocean) do not mention health care facilities.
Mary’s Place is actually a spa which would be fine for anybody seeking a restful and soothing environment. The fact that it is for women with cancer is not a criteria for zoning approval, and any other spa which is not for cancer patients would certainly be turned down if it applied for permission to build a facility on the beach block of Main Avenue. It also is not a shelter or even a residential facility, because most of their clients go home in 2-3 days and most of them are not homeless or in immediate danger.
Let’s face it, this zoning approval might pass muster by virtue of clever manipulation of definitions, but it is wrong. If this project goes forward, there will be resentment in this town for years, and not because it is a place that serves women with cancer, but because of what people will see as favoritism and double standards and as a compromise of the promise to keep Ocean Grove as a unique residential historic place. One of the goals of the upturn in the 1990’s was to increase the number of single family homes in the Grove. It was, I believe, part of the Master Plan.
And as for parking, there were no parking rules years ago when those hotels were in business, but now there are state parking standards for new construction, and they should be followed. Anybody who calls this new building a “single family house” is insulting the intelligence of Grovers.
I’d like to know some facts here:
1. How many bedrooms/occupants are planned for the proposed new location of Mary’s Place? This would give some basis to estimate of parking usage.
2. Who owned the two lots on Main Avenue being used for the new site? How were the lots conveyed to Mary’s Place: were they donated to or purchased by Mary’s Place, when and at what cost?
I believe those lots were listed for sale for multiple years and had failed to find a buyer willing to pay the asking price.
The definition most commonly used in NJ of a Community Residence is found in TITLE 30:11A-1 INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES, Definitions. It reads (and note the term “whether public or private”:
“For purposes of this act, a residential health care facility is defined as any facility, whether in single or multiple dwellings, whether public or private, whether incorporated or unincorporated, whether for profit or nonprofit, operated at the direction of or under the management of an individual or individuals, corporation, partnership, society, or association, which furnishes food and shelter to four or more persons 18 years of age or older who are unrelated to the proprietor, and which provides dietary services, recreational activities, supervision of self-administration of medications, supervision of and assistance in activities of daily living and assistance in obtaining health services to any one or more of such persons.”
It then goes on to exclude such establishments that are run by or under contract to the State.
Lastly, as to parking, there used to be 2 hotels on this site, with a combined occupancy of close to 100 residents. If there were 3 people in a car, that was 30 cars that needing parking. Mary’s Place will house a fraction of that number; and most of these women are not driving themselves there.
56 Comments and counting……………surely and don’t call me Shirley, the only thing that will be on the lot is the sign. Someone remove it, move in four or five Gazebos, a few gardens and make it a place for almost everybody to visit and enjoy. You might even call it ” Main’s Place”…………
Hi Monica: Here is a simple one for you to defend—-you have to know that Neptune has avoided enforcing the parking standards delegated by the SITES Committee. Don’t you think our rights are being violated?
I have been at a few of the ZB meetings and when residents read RSIS and SITES Comm. documentation you have failed to explain to the board members that these documents are valid.
In my opinion, the Board, along with attorneys representing their clients, act like the good old boys having a meeting.
I doubt if the members of the board have been certified from the State of NJ.
Blogfinger: This subject is relevant because of the lack of parking for Mary’s new facility.
So a single zoning officer approved this project? No public hearing? No community input? No board approvals? Um … ah … Really?
Bythesea: As compelling as your statement is, the aesthetic concerns of the neighbors are not relevant to our discussion of zoning issues. We need to know if the zoning decision which was made is lawful and correct (which is what Neptune officials claim) or were liberties taken with the statute’s definitions? Only an expert could answer this for us: Anybody want to hire a consultant or lodge a complaint with State investigative agencies?
The main purpose of Blogfinger here is to air out the facts and relevant opinions. Let’s stick to the topic and see if anything useful results. One thing I am sure of is that freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, but not everything you say will be accepted on Blogfinger. Please refer to our rules page on top. I will try to be fair in moderating comments.
I have had the opportunity to read most, if not all, of the comments posted. Despite Mr. Chambers assertion, I would like the public to understand that neither I or the ZBA has even seen the referenced application.
If it is approved by the Zoning Officer, (it is his job to review all zoning applications and approve or deny same based on ordinance or statute) then it does NOT come to the Board, or it’s attorney. If the application is DENIED by the zoning officer, THEN it can be appealed to the Board and would be subject to public notice, public hearing and review by all professionals.
I make no comment on this application because I don’t know if it will ever come to the Board nor do I have any knowledge of what was submitted and approved. Please keep in mind that I am happy to answer questions about the application process at any time.
But, it is difficult to stand by and be accused by some people of violating rights or essentially being in cahoots with cronies from people who find it easier to point a finger when something they don’t like happens yet no effort has been made to understand the application, ask appropriate questions of the process or understand what role a volunteer Board plays in undertaking hearings on zoning matters.
I am now jumping off my soapbox. If you have a problem with the decision of the Zoning Officer, then seek appropriate redress according to Statute. That is your right. That is your remedy.
In addition to the many reasons listed above for opposing Mary’s Place’s zoning gambit, let me add one more.
Look at Paul’s photograph of the open lot at the top of this thread. Look past the sign to the beautiful Victorian homes that back onto the open lot. Imagine the anxiety and concern their owners must be experiencing, knowing that a large facility is to be built, with loading docks, fire escapes, wheelchair access ramps, itinerant populations, etc., all backing up to their back doors.
Would you want such a facility built directly behind your house?
Why doesn’t the Home Owners Association use their legal fund to look into this ASAP?
It’s neck and neck with our latest parking discussion, however, when it is done, the Mary matter will definitely have the record; but who’s counting?
Counter: This topic is very important for the town’s future, and we will have an editorial soon to explore the significance of the Mary’s Place debate. If any of you are feeling eloquent and want to write an Op-ed on this topic–something more than just a comment—-then please submit your essay to Blogfinger@verizon.com.
This is a first to invite such input, but we are open to all sorts of ways to express your opinions on a topic of great importance.
There is no guarantee that it will be posted; please keep it about as long as the original post on this subject.
Does Mary’s Place now have the record for comments?
I agree 100% with Constance. This discussion is not about Mary’s Place. What they are doing there is wonderful and welcome in Ocean Grove.
I oppose how Neptune Township handled this application. There has to be one set of rules for all. This application needs to go before the full zoning board just like the rest of us.
I think Mr. Waterman should revisit this application and follow the guidelines currently in place, or change them for all applicants.
Sounds like there is enough complexity that OGCMA or HPC should be able to tie this up in court for a couple of years. Maybe then, Mary’s Place will move on and try to bust the zoning of some other town instead. We don’t need neighbors who disrespect our zoning and, by direct association, the values they embody.
This has nothing to do with the cause of helping cancer patients, it is all about the Township’s process of handling this project. I could not be more sympathetic to this cause since I have been through the breast cancer scare three times and have helped numerous people with their cancer care or helping them with their Hospice care. I oppose how it was handled by Neptune Township not the cause.
Bob: Your quote refers to “provider agencies” that create “community residences.” Do you think that they might be thinking of government programs that provide for the unfortunate among us? Would a sort of spa for people who don’t need an “agency” to help them fit into that category? What if a Mary’s Place for people with congestive heart failure were to apply to build a similar facility in the Grove. Would that be approved? I tend to doubt it. We go back to the definitions for community residences.
Your last sentence is unfortunate because it accuses those who oppose this project of not caring about “women in need.” You know that that is not the issue here, and there is nothing “disgraceful” about having this debate.
We have had a couple of commenters who think that those who oppose the Mary’s Place project are biased or indifferent to the plight of women with cancer. But that is nonsense because Mary’s Place has been in Ocean Grove for 5 years without, to my knowledge, any complaints about their mission.
If one takes the time to study the NJ Dept of Human Services report, Community Helath Law report #2 issued by the Christie Administration, (http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/clients/disability/goodneighbors/law_report2.html)
you will see that in Section 1, discussing how local ordinances are used to disallow community residences, it states that “The State statutory and regulatory schemes that govern community residences contemplate that provider agencies will provide residents with “food, shelter[,]… personal guidance,…such supervision as [is] required,…[and] assistance” both temporary and permanent.” And that this is the basis for allowing such facilities.” It then ends with “Consequently, it shares in the sanction afforded by current statutory law: it is part of a use that is permitted “in all residential districts of a municipality.” Municipalities cannot move against it.”
As to the Gannons, while some may not like 1 building they have built, thay have also built a number of Victorian houses within the Grove. As to North end, it’s tha OGCMA that wanted to develop the site – the Gannons were simply selected as the builders.
As to the community, the Grove is owned by the OGCMA, a Methodist community. On their website, under “Social Community” (http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-social-community), it states – “We call the Church and society to be sensitive to, and advocate for, programs of rehabilitation, services, employment, education, appropriate housing, and transportation.” Allowing Mary’s Place to expand is living up to these principles.
Lastly, independent of anyone’s religion or beliefs, what type of community are we if we get upset at a facility that helps women in time of need. This is disgraceful!!
Questioner: Condos are not on the list of approved zoning uses for that block. But it’s not clear that Mary’s Place is either, unless the law, as in this case, is interpreted to allow the project as a “community residence or shelter.” Usually those terms are used for facilities that house those who can’t take care of themselves, are escaping danger, or are terminally ill—such as a hospice.
But what seems to be going on here is a broad and questionable interpretation of those category definitions.
Would a developer or a builder be allowed to erect a 13 unit condo complex by combining two single residence lots a block and a half from the beach? I would think there would be some uproar and objection to that. How is this different? It’s not about the worthiness of the organization or it’s mission! It’s about the transparency of the process.
It’s about the selective enforcement of laws, ordinances, regulations and a State mandate (RSIS) which appear to be bypassed or ignored in some manner. It seems that if you can find the right lawyer you can build whatever you please in Ocean Grove.
Downward: Your comment about the “downward spiral” in town over the last 10 years is debatable, but in terms of our current topic, are you saying that the Mary’s Place project is just another example of that sort of decline?
David: You say that people should “back down” because “this is a noble cause.” But that is not how the law works. Our laws (in this case zoning laws) should apply to everyone the same way, regardless of whether or not their cause is noble.
Sounds like Mary’s Place is trying to pull a fast one on OG. Let’s hope they don’t get rewarded for it (assuming that the above commentary is accurate).
I agree that we don’t need more “facilities” built in OG — we have to many boarding houses already (and in my mind one such establishment is too many).
As Blogfinger has stated, the applicant before Mr. Waterman was for a community shelter not a single family house. I believe it was before the HPC for the same use. Does the applicant meet all the zoning requirements for such a use? The State, through RSIS requires parking for this development. Why was this not addressed at the Board of Adjustment?
The Township Committee, Mr. Waterman, the Board of Adjustment Attorney, and the Township Planner have all violated our rights on this issue, even for those who are for this development. The people of Ocean Grove should demand that the state Attorney General investigate this serious violation of the Open Public Meetings Act and the violation of our civil rights.
“No good deed goes unpunished.” Parking is an issue for 3 months. At one point the Sampler Inn was near this site, certainly causing more congestion than the proposed usage now. Back down people. This is a noble cause.
Obviously someone’s lawyers had looked this over to make sure that they could avoid the regular approval process so that it would be quick and easy and no questions asked by the public. Their attorneys found a loop hole with the Municipal Land Use Law and the Fair Housing Amendment Acts and ran with it.
Neptune should be questioning this whole process that took place with this project.
Bobi: Mary’s Place is NOT a facility for the terminally ill. That would be a hospice, which this is not.
Kevin hit the nail on the head just as my comments did. Waterman cannot combine lots.
Obviously Concerned Citizen doesn’t know about the N.End. I have been on top of this project since it’s existence; I live across from it.
They seem to be leveraging the Fair Housing Amendments Act to get the pass to construct such a place in a residential area. The act meant to prevent discrimination (in this case disability).
I did some fact checking : no variances were required for this building or use. In fact the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law requires Mr. Waterman to treat this application as ” a single family home” as long as the home does not have more than 15 occupants. Waterman and the township followed the law – a law that was passed so people could not bully out of town the ” retarded” , the ” battered wives” or in this case the “terminally ill” -BRAVO NEPTUNE AND BRAVO MR.WATERMAN !
Thank You Kevin. I think the residents, OGCMA and Neptune Township should rethink how this was handled. I hope the OGHOA gets involved in this (the process of how this was handled) What authority does Mr. Waterman have to approve this. What about the public notices and the public meetings that are suppose to be open to the public on this project..What about the Zoning Board and the Planning Board’s role in this. I think this needs to be checked into before the projects goes any further.
Love OG: The issue up for discussion is not whether Mary’s Place will look good. The parking concerns are real, but are not factored into the zoning approval; at least the Zoning Officer didn’t mention them.
But what is really up for discussion is whether this zoning approval, which seems to be very subjective and rushed, seemingly spinning the meaning of the statute, and without any known discussion or debate, was accomplished by placing the best interest of the town first.
This is about precedents and about concerns regarding double standards which, whether valid or not, are a reality in this town.
Kevin Chambers has raised some other worries, and perhaps some of you readers who know about the legalities, will weigh in on his comments.
I think it will be pretty, and the parking will always be a problem. Maybe the guests will be dropped off especially if they are in treatment and not feeling thier best. How could a beautiful new B and B looking building lower property values? I think it will be better than 2 empty lots filled with dog poo! How are people so upset about Mary’s Place when the Cordova houses transients and the police are always there. Maybe a blog should be started about that mess! Be happy!
I wonder what the Township Committee has to say about this.
Mary’s place has not received zoning approval. That requires a public notice and a public hearing at either the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Board.
Mr. Waterman does not have the authority to combine two lots on his own nor grant the variances needed for this development. That is the soul authority of the Planning Board or the Board of Adjustment. Not only has Mr. Waterman violated the law, he has violated the Open Public Meetings Act that is designed to protect our civil rights of the residents of the community.
The application for Mary’s Place needs variance approvals for a loading dock, parking, density, use, and the combining of the lots.
The civil rights of every resident of Ocean Grove have been violated by Mr. Waterman. The Monmouth County Prosecutor should be looking into the actions of Mr. Waterman.
If the decision can be appealed, then appeal it. Stop pointing fingers at other groups to carry the water for you. Organize and execute direct citizen action. Enough caterwauling already.
13 more handicapped parking spots! Near the beach no less!
It seems that everything in this town comes down to parking.
This is the reason there is a parking problem in Ocean Grove. When this place is full there will be at least 13 cars (1 car per bedroom plus employees) on the street. Mr. Waterman cites a NJ statute to approve this application. What about the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS)? The State has told Neptune Township since Feb. 1997 that new construction requires parking. This approval violates this state mandate. This location does not have 13 spare parking spots.
Why isn’t the Chamber of Commerce in an uproar about this? Why doesn’t the Home Owners Association speak out and hire an attorney? Why didn’t this application go before the Planning Board? Do we still have a Planning Board?
This would never have been approved if it was in another part of Neptune.
Does the Zoning Officer really have the authority to change the zoning for two single family lots like this? I don’t think that’s his call. I think that’s why we have the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Just asking…
Helen : I do appreciate what some did for the mentally ill in OG. St Pauls was and is a loving caring Church. One of the few organizations that tried to help out the mentally ill then & still do to this day. I apologize if I in any way offended St. Pauls. In my comments I was not referring to St. Pauls but rather the town itself of OG.
Kudos to St. Paul’s. The reality is, “our quaint Victorian seaside resort town”has been on a downward spiral for the past 10 or so years as new homeowners gut historic homes and build “bigger and better” houses on every available square inch of their properties. Yes property values have risen, but so have the number of rental properties, owners, and tourists without a clue of what this town was all about. Talk about a reduction in quality of life.
First off, I’m not questioning the mission or the organization. I understand it is a non-profit/charity with a very good reputation. That said, I have several questions.
Firstly: Those lots were supposedly designated for single family Victorian reproductions weren’t they?
Secondly, and I’m sure I’m gonna catch hell for it but, just where are they supposed to park? Continuing to ignore that issue is extremely short sighted. It will certainly cut into seasonal beach parking, won’t it?
Lastly, a suggestion … how about using that white elephant in the North End. Looks like a great spot for a recovery/spa facility doesn’t it? Away from a busy traffic thoroughfare with less impact in the business area and direct access to a very underutilized beach.
Questions:
1. Is HPC going to be able to help keep the integrity of the architecture in this particular area in relation to this project? HPC seem like they are the only ones that are willing to stick their necks out to help with these issues in relation to keeping this a historical district after the Code/Construction, Zoning and Planning board make decision that jeopardizes it.
2. What about parking in this area in relation to this new massive building on Main Avenue that already has parking issues?
3. Who is going to keep watch over the parking issues, height, size and bulk of building, etc. of this project?
What is the role of the zoning board, planning board and HPC at this point in relation to this project?
I love the concept of Mary’s Place but this needs to be taken into consideration before the building is built. Maybe Monica can answer these questions.
Sounds like OGCMA or OGHOA or HPC should aggressively appeal this ruling by Waterman. What are OGCMA’s and OGHOA’s and HPC’s views on this project anyway? Could representatives please post their views here? (Remember, you are supposed to defend this town).
Combining lots and setting the precedent that we welcome halfway houses in OG are very problematic things. We need to protect and enhance real estate values and quality of life for OG owners — let other towns sacrifice themselves and their residents for charity causes if they want.
There is an appeal period for the public to change a decision made by a zoning officer.
Gosh,what gray monster on Main are you talking about?
Frank S. Your choice of words, “OG drove out” is unfortunate. At one time, a tenth of the winter population of OG was folks tossed out of mental facilities with no support. Nor did the communities they were dropped into.
It was at this time that the Food Pantry at St. Paul’s started and the ladies of St. Paul’s ran a drop in center at Thornley Chapel with refreshments and activites that became so popular that car loads of folks with thugs mixed in came to use the faciltiies. And heat as many of the residences kicked the folks out during the day, in the winter.
Obviously Gosh does not know about the North End Condo/Hotel/Retail project that the Gannons have been trying to get built there for the last 5 years.(high density building) Also that all the work that is being done on the existing building at the North End is being done by the Gannons.(most of the initial work was not done with permits until they were forced to by the town and Mr. Waterman was part of this) I do not think Mr. Waterman should be part of this approval process-what are his credentials to do this) This construction project should be watched carefully. People are completely blind because of the wonderful cause.
Sorry but I’m going to further muddy the waters :
Although Marys Place is a wonderful cause why is it for Women only ?
Also very nice & thoughtful & loving would be a seaside peaceful retreat for the mentally ill. Yet OG drove these folks out of town years ago. Cancer is PC but mental illness is not ? Stigma.
What everyone here is missing is the bigger picture. If Mary’s Place can get a variance to zoning, no questions asked, by a zoning official who has no oversight and does not care what damage he is inflicting on OG, then Mary’s Place could have instead been a home for any manner of retarded/disable/dislocated/diseased people. And indeed, if Mary’s Place should become insolvent down the road, maybe the next owner of this “facility” will be running a methadone clinic for recovering addicts. And the next open lot that opens up — perhaps next to your home — might one day be filled with folks who, while pathetic, will bring down your real estate values and diminish your quality of life. Mary’s Place is exactly the kind of establishment that OG has been trying to get rid of for the past 20 years. This is supposed to be a quaint Victorian seaside resort town, not some type of social welfare engineering project. We have been there and done that.
Seriously folks, I did not buy a house in OG just to become surrounded by “facilities” designed to harbor “residents” who will destroy my quality of life.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I find this really disturbing.
Last I understand Waterman can not make the decision to combine 2 lots that needs to go before the Zoning Board ( It will pass anyway, there’s nothing they turn down).
Second of all a halfway house and Cancer patients are not on the same page.
Third, Gannon has nothing to do with the North End project.
And don’t forget that the gray monster on Main was built by the Gannons. That is reason to question this project.
Monica: Thank you. Sorry, but I missed that. Oldtimer’s comment has been corrected—a great advantage for a blog to correct a mistake. Your explanation is very important for our discussion. I asked George about a variance, but he said it wasn’t necessary.
–Paul
Even though this is good cause: The building and construction of this building should be carefully watched by the town and the residents. Remember this is a designated historical town and this is going to be built by the Gannon construction company, the same company that built the monstrosity (the bank) at the beach front, wanting to build a massive high density condo/hotel at the north end and a high density condo development by the old Neptune high school.
Lots of square footage means a lot of people and the need for parking on a main street in OG. Please watch the construction of this project so it does not ruin that part of town-architectually and historically.
Do not be blinded by a good cause, but a bad building design and size. Given the impracticability of the size of this building in that area and the parking needs for this building, I hope the Township is going to be on top of this because the residents will be watching because of their track record.
Paul, please be advised that this matter never came before the Zoning Board, as stated or implied by Oldtimer, above. A zoning application apparently came to the Zoning Officer in the Township and was approved. The Board plays no part in the application or approval process.
If an application is submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer, it would never come before the Board, nor would the Board be aware of it. Had the Zoning Officer denied the application, it could have been submitted to the Board for a use variance by the developer. I hope this clarifies the zoning application process prior to reaching a board level. Regards, Monica C. Kowalski, Esq. Neptune Township Zoning Board Attorney
I went to their website to read more about their organization. I think that Mary’s Place will be a wonderful addition to Ocean Grove. I have to have faith that the building will be in harmony with the architecture and charm of existing (and former) Inns of OG. The thought that our OG could provide peace to women fighting cancer should be all the more reason for our community to embrace our new neighbors. Blessings upon them and welcome.
Carol. Let’s not muddy the waters. The issue here is not whether or not Mary’s Place does good works. Nor is the issue about how they are a “wonderful place,” or that they are a “serene and soothing environment,” or that they have a “caring mission,” or that they are “angels.”
But what Mary’s Place actually does (i.e. it’s use) is relevant for this discussion of zoning, and despite what you say, they are not a hospice devoted to care for people in their “final days.” as you put it.
So, please, join with us in a discussion of the zoning process in the Grove, apart from the good works of Mary’s Place, which must be practiced in a way that is stringently followed for the benefit of the town and which is applied equally for all our citizens.
I think Mary’s Place is in keeping with the values of our town. Not everyone who has cancer has the ability to spend their final days in a serene, soothing environment. I am proud that we will be welcoming such a wonderful place with a mission to care for those who need what we have. We should support those who have worked so hard to make this a reality. They are truly angels.
I have looked at the drawings and elevations, I think it fits into that part of Main Ave. I don’t think there is a huge demand for single family on that block of Main, it there was, the vacant lots would have been sold and built on years ago. This place is going to look like a victorian rooming house, B & B.
Truly a horrible outcome and I feel for those who will live around this facility. While cancer is a terrible disease, these are lots where nice single family Victorian homes should be built. Why is everyone out to destroy our town? Too bad that the real estate values for anyone bordering on this massive facility filled with the terminally ill will plummet.
If anyone who wants can come in here and just bust our zoning, than what good is it? How can I be hassled over a fence that is 6 inches too high by HPC and they let in a 9,000 foot facility?
Anyone who had a hand in this should be ashamed of what they are doing to OG.