“Correspondence” given to me on Sept 15, 2014 by Mr. George Waterman at his office. The handwritten words are my notes. Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger. Click on the image to read it better.
Mary’s Place “Correspondence” from the Township Zoning Officer, Mr. George Waterman. Click to read.
September 19, 2014 by Blogfinger
13 Responses
For the record, the zoning approval for Mary’s new place was on August 5, 2014. The HPC approval for the architect’s plan was on August 12, 2014. Leonard Steen made the motion to approve, and Cathleen Crandall seconded the motion.
Lot size is determined by the town, there is no standard for the state, they can be 25×100 in the cities or 2 acres in Colts Neck.
I’m sure this project will go on as planned. Questions not withstanding. Just as flare incursions and height regulations are being ignored for developers, now single family lots are being combined for basically a day spa/hotel.
A few feet of flare here, a yard of height there, what’s does it matter? Oh, maybe when 6 lots between two streets are combined and and a five a story condo complex with a front door on the sidewalk with no parking is built.
Mary’s Place has no category name other than “place.” It has characteristics of a spa, a quasi-medical facility, a residence or a shelter. The Zoning officer had to fit this facility into some category for approval, so he chose “community residence” or “shelter” which are considered acceptable categories for satisfying the State statutes, but that choice is questionable in this case when looking at the definitions.
Are they building a “community shelter”? Since when is Mary’s place a “community shelter”? I thought they were calling it a “spa”.
North-ender: It is quite possible and indeed, likely that there is either a contract or letter of understanding in place between Mary’s Place and Robert Pettibone and that the eventual conveyance/sale of the land to Mary’s Place is contingent upon Pettibone obtaining the legal combination of the two lots.
Mary’s Place today…but it could become a halfway house for recovering heroin addicts in a few years. Is this really what OG needs? Mary’s Place is trying to subvert normal zoning/review procedures. Let’s not let this bad neighbor win in our town.
Hey Lots: No way are 30×61.5 legal lots according to RSIS. Neptune can’t have more then one definition for lot size, historic or not.
In Neptune 50×100 is standard in NJ, but in O.G.just make up your own size according to the political agenda.
Dear North Ender: Let me assure you that any home in Ocean Grove, including the 17 room 1.4 million dollar home on the north side for sale, or for that matter any home in any NJ community can be sold and made into a community shelter….and there is not a single solitary thing you or any other person can do about it. That is the law in NJ.
Waterman said that the zoning approval is for Mary’s Place.
The owner of the land is Robert Pettibone, not Mary’s Place. According to the above document he got approval for a community shelter. It does not say it is specifically for Mary’s Place. Maybe after it is built it will become a different type of community shelter.
They are not undersized lots; they are 30 x 61.5 to be exact per tax records……so they are standard size lots for Ocean Grove… Actually there is nothing to approve; it is a conforming use… So what is the problem?
Both lot 579 and lot 581 are both under sized lots. Both require a variance to build. If legally combined, the then single lot still fails to meet the requirement of 36,000 square feet required for the proposed use and still needs variance approval.
The court has consistently held that municipal action in the land use control field taken in direct violation of law or without legal authority is void from the beginning and has no legal intended result… nor, in deference may a property owner, by unilateral action, secure a valid nonconforming use based on a violation of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Waterman has not only violated the law by refusing to require the owner of the property to go before the Board of Adjustment for the use of two nonconforming lots, he has violated our civil rights to a public hearing that is required by law.
If the Township fails to take proper action as to Mr. Waterman’s illegal action it will be opening itself to a major law suit at the tax payers expense.