Mary’s Place architect rendering. Internet photo
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
In July, I noticed a billboard on the empty double lot near the ocean on Main Avenue which announced the location as being the “future home” of Mary’s Place. I posted an article about it on July 18. Link; July 18 BF post on Mary’s Place
If you read the article, you will see that the issue was quite straight forward: “How could such a usage be permitted under the zoning regulations?”
I asked Bernie Haney about the zoning for that project. He is the Land Use Administrator for Neptune Township. He said that I would have to “talk to George.”
It turned out that George is George Waterman, the zoning officer whose official title is “Assistant Land Use Administrator.” I interviewed George prior to posting that article, and he said that he knows nothing about the project “because no one has filed papers for approval.”
It seemed odd that Mary’s Place would make this announcement of the project so publicly on a billboard and on their web site (with an architect’s drawing ) if they hadn’t obtained the necessary approvals in advance.
Later we learned from the Zoning office that Mary’s Place received very rapid approvals in August as indicated on the “Correspondence” which we posted. We learned about it when we followed up at Town Hall.
We have until now posted all the facts as we know them in a series of four articles on Blogfinger.
But some mysteries remain such as how did those quick approvals occur? Then something happened yesterday which raises a concern about what actually went on with the approval process that seemed so lightening fast.
A blogger in Asbury Park, who rarely reports on Ocean Grove, published an irate piece about our coverage of Mary’s Place He did not link to our site, so I will not return that courtesy. Most of his piece was journalistically useless because it was clear that he has no knowledge about Ocean Grove and its issues/history, he launched multiple personal attacks, and the posting contained at least five outright lies and factual errors.
However, that blogger did report on something that was quite a surprise. He did not name his source, but what he said suggests that he got this information from someone associated with Mary’s Place. The “he” in the quote refers to Blogfinger:
“If he chose to invest the time he would have learned about everything that led up to the town’s ultimate approval, including: the six months of dialogue between Mary’s Place and town officials, three aesthetic architectural revisions and the community impact study conducted by the charity.”
Wow!! How did all that stuff remain so quiet? What “town officials?” Is the quote true? I don’t know. But there you have it.
Editor’s Note: See the comments below to read Michelle Gannon’s timeline which she submitted to the Township Committee on Sept. 22.
The RSIS definitions are certainly being stretched in this case, since the approval is based upon Mary’s Place being a “home for the terminally ill”. How can it be categorized as a “home for the terminally ill” if their guests are there for day spa activities and can stay only one or two nights?
In my opinion, the Mary’s Place Trustees and Founders tried to pull a fast one, with the full cooperation and support of Neptune Township, and got caught.
Now they and the Township are basically saying “Nothing to see here, folks, move on, move on now.”
Not buying it.
Why is the township Committee so strongly supportive of this out-of-place, inappropriate structure/facility being put where the zoning is for two single family Victorian homes? What are their motives and incentives to advance something so against what we are trying to do in OG? Seems pretty suspicious to me.
Is it their view that OG would be better served by having facilities filled with itinerants? Once this facility is built, what’s to stop there from being 10 more built? The precedent is set. If you want to build a facility — come to OG!!! Next time there is a fire or other situation that clears a lot, here comes a facility…..
Township Committee…who do you represent? the citizens of OG or developers? BTW that’s rhetorical as you have already answered this question through your actions. You should be very ashamed.
Calling it a 10 bedroom home can’t change the fact it is really a hotel and spa.
Mr. Bishop can’t even clean up his own block yet he is voted in every time.
See the 9/22 comment below about Michelle Gannon’s speech to the Committee to see that the date of HPC approval was August 12. We corrected a few of these dates on 9/24 after reviewing her speech. –Paul
A neighbor of the future Mary’s Place addressed the Township Committee at the Sept. 22 meeting. She was worried about garbage pickup, deliveries and parking. Mr. Bishop reassured her saying that the building is “a home with 10 bedrooms,” so her “concerns are unfounded.”
The woman compared this situation to some of the problems that occurred at the Sampler (RIP). But Mr. Bishop said it was “apples and oranges.”
We would need the Mary’s place leadership to tell us about that study which was mentioned in the referenced article.
What community impact study??
Has anyone seen it?
Something seems ‘off’ about the timeline and who knew what when. Also, so many of the concerns being raised now, should have been answered during the process, not after the fact. It’s about a lack of transparency which has been a concern for a lot of people for quite sometime.
Weren’t they application #7 on the August 12th HPC agenda?
I note that there was no HPC meeting listed for August 22, and no minutes have been posted as of this morning on the township website for HPC since April 22. (I have sent a note to Dawn Crozier to ask when to expect them, so they may appear shortly).
How are we as a community supposed to know what is being discussed and approved if the HPC website is not maintained properly?
Day Late: Maybe you are right. It’s frustrating. Some say that zoning laws are supposed to be the way that everyone in a town gets equal treatment, but skepticism seems the right tone to take around here where transparency is missing in action.
Looks like we may be trying to shut the barn door after the horse got out.
Ocean Grove may be special, but it’s still in Jersey.
TIMELINE AS OF SEPT. 22, 2014:
Michelle Gannon, one of the founders of Mary’s Place, went to the microphone tonight to “go on the record” with the Township Committee in order to tell the “truth.” She read a statement saying that she wanted to clarify some “misconceptions” about the timeline regarding Mary’s new place on Main Avenue. She said that this was necessary “to dispel inaccuracies being spread through the grotesque use of the Internet.”
The asterisks mark the dates that she offered:
She said that they contracted for the land in March* of this year, and on April 16* the design process began.
In May* she said that their architects “began a dialogue” with Neptune zoning/land use officials.
(Note that the two Neptune land use/zoning officials that Blogfinger spoke to denied ever meeting with Mary’s Place representatives.)
May 15: A blogger in Asbury Park posts information from Mary’s Place that says that construction will begin in August.
In June or July the sign goes up announcing the new facility on Main Avenue, and it also is announced on the MP web site with an architect’s drawing.
July 18, Blogfinger’s first article about Mary’s Place is posted. What’s going on? Zoning says that they have received no application for a zoning permit.
July 22* the MP architects have their first meeting with HPC and then, after that, they meet again (July 29*) at the Historical Society to review maps. Several modifications of the drawings occur in response to these meetings.
On August 5*, architects meet again with HPC and submit revised drawings. Application papers are also submitted to the Zoning official on that date.
On 8/12*, Mary’s Place receives HPC and Zoning final approvals. (BF note: The Neptune zoning official verifies that the application came in on August 5 and was approved in one week. No variances were required and no meetings occurred)
So it is still unclear why Mary’s Place announced their plans in May, online, followed soon after by that sign on Main Avenue if they didn’t get final approvals until August.
The speech by Mrs. Gannon seemed designed to show that their approvals were not so quickly granted. But, in fact, the application to the zoning office didn’t show up until August 5, with approval on August 12. That sounds like a short time.
There should have been some public meetings and public explanations of the planned zoning decision and the absence of variances, especially given the sensitive location of the proposed facility and the broad interpretation of state zoning statutes. And why was it all handled so quietly?
Editor’s note: May 24,2014: In the interest of accuracy, we obtained the recording of the Township Committee Meeting of Sept 22 to make sure that we had correctly reported the timeline in Mrs. Gannon’s speech. There were a few minor changes, and now this comment is as accurate as possible for the information we had available.
I’ll admit that I know very little about Victorian architecture, but that looks like a McMansion in Colts Neck to my unschooled eye.
Doesn’t its mission require a ramp, a wheelchair lift, or both? Where are they?
It looks like a motel!
This Asbury Park blogger rarely posts anything about the Grove except for three supportive posts about Mary’s Place since May.
But what is interesting, in reviewing his Mary’s article posted on May 15, 2014, the Mary’s Place people announce plans for their new building and actually say that construction would begin in August. How could they make such an announcement without having received permission from Neptune to go ahead?
This issue is not going away so fast, so please leave your comments under the posts that you are commenting about. And don’t forget, your post will be deleted or edited if you do not follow our rules at the top of the page.
Thank you, the management.