By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
We have just reported on a possible class action suit against Neptune Township regarding RISS parking standards. But now we bring another story to your attention. The parameters for the planned new construction at the site of a building destroyed by fire last February on Main Avenue is being challenged in court. It is planned that the new structure will contain stores, a restaurant and apartments.
Kevin Chambers, an Ocean Grove citizen, has filed a suit with the New Jersey Superior Court in Freehold against Neptune Township (Board of Adjustment) and the owner of the building–Kurt Cavano.
Although we have not yet seen the paperwork, we are told by the plaintiff that the suit is about the zoning for this building which allegedly was changed to illegally increase density. It has been re-zoned to a high density usage, and that is only allowed when there are hardship reasons.
In addition, the complaint alleges that the Township has approved this project without following RISS parking laws or offering disabled access as required by the ADA (Americans with Disability Act.)
This suit may delay the start of construction. Among the businesses which are supposed to come back to this location is Yvonne’s Restaurant.
The attorney involved is not the same as the one who is planning to bring a class action suit against the Township over RISS standards.
The docket # (pubic record) is MON-L-3663-15.
Mr. Chambers also has advised us that he has other issues as well which he plans to address publicly with the Township. We will continue reporting on this important story of a courageous Ocean Grove citizen who is insisting on his rights as a homeowner in this town.
AMY WINEHOUSE “Someone to Watch Over Me.”
Phil: Thank you for your opinion, as misguided as it seems. I’m glad you are living in OG to keep us on our toes. But for you and What Problem?—consider this:
1.The overall parking needs for that new building will be huge. There will be some sort of unidentified facility in the basement, a place which was not used before
2. The restaurant will be bigger and thus will require more parking than before. The 6 apartments above will require parking, and no parking will be provided despite State law. Also, there will have to be handicapped parking for the basement facility, the restaurant and the condos, and that will have to be on the street.
Why would anyone with a private home in OG want to support businesses and projects that will suck up even more parking and density? If you don’t think there are parking problems in Ocean Grove, wait till your mom moves in and can’t unload her groceries.
3. Asbury Park has similar parking and zoning issues as we , but they recently permitted a 4 condo building on the lake; however that building will have an underground parking garage. Good for them, but if it weren’t for that garage, only a single family house could have been allowed over there.
4. If you care about OG history, consider this: The true historic character of this town is “one unit per lot.” Why would you support anything else??
5. If you care about the soul of this town, why would you support breaking state and federal laws in the interest of helping developers? Wake up Ocean Grove!!
6. I’m hoping to have a house call by Kevin Chambers to provide more information on all this—-Befuddled in the Grove (aka Blogfinger)
I know all this and agree the law should be followed, Paul- I read your blog all the time and it’s great.
Where we will likely continue to disagree is on density — I see it as completely consistent with the town’s historical character.
Phil: You have framed your argument with inaccuracies. No one wants a parking lot there instead of a mixed use building as before. Most people want that building back, but it needs to conform to the law.
This suit is about equal protection under the law. It is about preventing special interests from ignoring the laws to further their own purposes. An example would be to ignore setbacks so that a building can be bigger and to block walkways, or to create greater density and more demand for parking.
The RSIS debate is about new construction that should not be permitted without providing parking, like the huge condo on Ocean Ave. If they can’t provide parking, which most such projects cannot, then only a single family house should be allowed.
Of course there can be no parking at 50 Main except on the street, unfortunately, but disobeying or abolishing the law are not the answers there—–a variance might be, but I don’t think variances are possible in violation of state law. So how did they get permission?
If you love historic OG then you should oppose the Township as it favors developers who want to build more non-historic condos or big pseudo-commercial non-historic buildings like Mary’s Place.
In some ways 50 Main is a test case that fights for fair implementation of the law in our little town.
Paul Goldfinger. Editor @Blogfinger
Dear Parking Panickers,
My wife and I just moved to Ocean Grove, but don’t freak out– we don’t own a car and won’t take your parking space!
We have always loved this unique town for its historical character, walkability, and access to an amazing transit corridor just 10 minutes walk away.
Please don’t replace rental units and storefronts on our treasured main avenue with parking, as some are suggesting.
And know that there are some of us who feel very well represented by the HOA and Neptune Township when they grant parking waivers with new developments. It actually tends to be needed to keep the unique historical character, as exemplified by this case on Main.
“Wisher” reminds us that, “sometimes when progress rushes ahead, it can be hard to slow down.”
This is true, but “progress” is when your objectives are advanced. What is considered to be progress to one party may be detrimental to another.
In O.G. former hotels and rooming houses that are converted to condos, with no parking and (165) plus units in the North End may be “progress” for the developer’s bank accounts and for encouraging campaign contributions, but is inconsistent with historic preservation and is not progress for O.G. residents who are trying to protect this Hstoric District from their own government.
“Wisher” is correct that this “progress” in O.G. is “hard to slow down”. Greed is motivating.
“Wisher” also stated, “Development now comes to us, and we do not have to say ” O.K.” to every developer.” This is delusional.
The fact s that the approval process in Neptune Township is rigged to favor select developers and we are forced to accept their decisions or appeal to the courts, while the historic nature of our town is slipping away.
The Township Committee is systematically transforming Historic Ocean Grove into Asbury Park South, and we just want to keep the town we have.
Keeping up with Madison Marqeutte and Istar’s ambitions for growth and boom in Asbury Park is a corollary and I think, and should be a furtive matter. The town next door is bent on tourism, traffic and achievement. They have the first three blocks from their shores already scheduled, demolished and de-marked, with parking and access accurately assessed by professionals . Are we ready for their astute planning as it affects interest in our district? We don’t have such sophisticated assessment. Rapid growth is a serious matter.
Sometimes when progress rushes ahead, it can be hard to slow down. Development now comes to us, and we do not have to say “OK” to every developer. We can wait for them to come to us with the best, and right, plan.
I give Kevin credit— Neptune has ruined O.G. Kevin is using his own savings to do the right thing; I hope residents help with the expense.I have written in the past along with Kevin to the SITES Comm. about our parking nightmare and we had stopped Neptune from enforcing their special standard act that would allow absolutely NO parking in town and it was shot down.
Neptune doesn’t want driveways or garages because then the homes would have to be made smaller and this would bring in less revenue. GET IT?
Re: bogus studies: go back to the records of the 27 Surf Avenue Bd of Adjustment hearings and seek the statements from studies that suggest that the area would not be subject to change etc. Then follow to statements by interested parties stating that it was incorrect. Alas, look at the issues on that street today. The “2 to 7 to 6” mathematics(Asylum) are not the issues. OG has a density problem which somehow our “protectors” feel ubable to keep safe (i.e.: obey the law) from
developers and all others who feel that they can dis-regard all that can keep OG a wonderful place to be.
Rather than appropriately looking at Ocean Grove as the Jewel in the Crown, Neptune looks upon OG as the Goose that gives us golden eggs. They have ZERO sense of history, sustainability, heritage, or practical planning. They just crave taxes. I am a true liberal, but these people are craven.
I have received a copy of the complaint which was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey against the Neptune Township Board of Adjustment and Kurt Cavano. It turns out that the Board did in fact issue variances to benefit the building’s owner. There are number of counts having to do with those variances, and I will post them shortly. Kevin chambers is the plaintiff.
The Main Avenue building will bring more commercial and residential traffic to Main Street, already stressed during the summer. Looming large after that, is the North End Development Project, bringing more traffic. After that, the Park View and the Warrington development properties, with more engine cholesterol; lots of cars, no where to put them.
Assured, what we are looking at, is artery-clogged, back-to-back-lines of cars, as can be seen in Long Branch. Has anyone tried to go near the ocean in the newer development in Long Branch? Good times! No parking, and you sit in traffic for an eternity, and when you arrive, there are no spaces. It is a nightmare.
Of course, the developers will craft bogus studies that without doubt conclude, “impact on traffic and parking will be minimal.” Hasn’t New Jersey learned anything about sustainability?
And where do the inland breezes, clean fresh air, room for vistas, go? I’ll tell you where they go — down the memory hole.
“Permitted density would be 2 apartments. They are requesting 6…”–another missed opportunity to reclaim some parking spaces, It may not seem like many, but a few here and a few there would eventually make a difference and give Ocean Grove some desperately needed breathing room on its streets..
Asylum: Thank you for this laundry list of “facts” regarding the new building, but nowhere in your list does it say that the Board of Adjustment voted to approve a use or density variance. Nor is the result of a Board vote provided.
The Municipal Land Use law says that variances might be granted “in particular cases for special reasons.” I don’t see any special reasons in your comment.
The Gibbons Law Firm* expert on this says, “In the event of more than partial destruction, even if such destruction is due to fire or a natural disaster, the property owner loses vested rights to the structure and/or use. In order to get the usage applied-for now, use variances would be required and would be difficult to justify.
“If the structure housing the nonconforming use was indeed more than partially destroyed (by fire), the owner will need to apply to the local Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), among other approvals. The standard for obtaining a use variance is difficult to meet, and at least five members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment must vote to approve the variance. Even if successful, the applicant will still incur costs for application fees, escrow deposits, engineering and other design professional costs, and, if a business entity, attorneys fees.”
Asylum: #10 says that current permitted residential density is 2, but, with devious reasoning that compares the requested 6 residents to the pre-existing 7 , they conclude that density is reduced, but the comparison should be between the current permitted use and the proposed requested use—clearly an increase in density.
I am no lawyer, so maybe you are. If so, please explain what appear to be distorted “findings of fact regarding density.” Thanks, Paul
*Gibbons link: http://www.rpelawalert.com/2012/11/articles/developmentredevelopment/rebuilding-new-jersey-after-sandy-hurdles-for-nonconforming-uses/
First,let all this who question Kevin’s lawsuits recognise that Kevin has deep roots here in OG. His family has been here for generations, and we newcomers should appreciate his knowlege and willingness to help save OG from the ogre Township.
Curmudgeon alludes to the fact that Kevin has sued before and on occasion “lost”. Nevertheless he continues to try to help protect the OG Historic Designation and all the things that make US want to be residents and does not shirk his responsibity when he knows that the “rules” are not being adhered to.
Curious should attend some of the Board of Adjustment hearings and listen to the testimony and follow as well, their rulings on same. She might stop wondering why OG’ers are so sensitive to these “minor” issues. Things get taller, wider, and infringe on the flare without just cause.
Should we not expect honesty,good judgement,and proper interpretation of the law from our officials? That,in fact, is what all of this is about. The Twp. collects astronomical amounts in taxes from the “Cash Cow” OG without the slightest concern for the protection of the very heart of what makes people willing to come here and pay those $.
Paul,
Thank you for the feedback. I couldn’t agree more about the practicality of developing parking lots in Ocean Grove but it always seems like developers find a way to cram things in. I hope the suit will bring about positive change, increased density is not something that anyone wants to see anywhere in New Jersey. I just hope it doesn’t have possible adverse affects that people aren’t thinking about.
1. This is a reconstruction of a multi-use building which was destroyed by fire in Ocean Grove. Applicant is seeking to reduce the number of residential dwelling units to 6 (from the previous amount of 7), while increasing the number of commercial units, by one.
2. The Board finds that this construction is reconstituting the building that was there in a better way. This will be a 3 story structure with an elevator and fire suppression system.
3. On the First floor: 4 individual commercial spaces. These are commercial tenants for permitted uses, not as those defined on plans.
4. The Second Floor and Third Floor has been designed to accommodate previous tenants and is ADA compliant.
5. There is access to the roof. Will only use roof to get to A/C units and will not be a recreational area. Space will be limited.
6. The Board notes that the design of the stair tower may have to be modified without having to come back for additional relief.
7. None of stores would have more than 4 signs (will have blade sign and overhead sign, but with only two more signs in either of the 3 windows for the tenant in gold leaf. They can choose which two windows, if that, for additional lettering)).
8. Applicant agrees to erect a 5 foot fence on rear lot line, with no gate along rear, so there will be no access to or from Heck Avenue.
9. There is a setback for the building of 4.25’ feet in rear and 3.23” and 5’ feet on each side for setbacks. Impervious coverage is being reduced.
10. A density variance is required. This is a mixed use with residential component. Permitted density would be 2 apartments. They are requesting 6 where 7 used to be permitted. Either side of this building has greater density. This is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Site accommodated the density of apartments for over 20 years.
11. Planner opined that this met the positive and negative criteria and the Board agreed that the site is particularly suited to this use. The application reduces previous density, increases setbacks for greater access and safety of emergency personnel and fills a need for housing units/commercial component. The benefits clearly outweigh any potential detriments. Board Planner Beahm advises that the density was closer to 67 units per acre and is now is being reduced by 10 units per acre.
12. Applicant advises that the reports of Board Professionals, plan revisions requested in both letters will be complied with.
13. Applicant advises that they are willing to construct 5’ high fence on either side of property for benefit of neighbors if the Board is so inclined and trash cans may be added or applicant will have additional pickups for trash by paid service, if necessary, once the building is tenanted.
Above please find the Zoning Board Findings of Fact published and memorialized in the Resolution of approval on this project.
Curious: As a practical matter, there is no room for a “sea of asphalt parking lots and garages strewn about in Ocean Grove.” This suit is about the rule of law in a town where it is being ignored. That is Kevin Chamber’s theme. He will pay for this suit and he is doing it on principle. The most he stands to gain is to protect the town from developers and perhaps gain reimbursement for his legal fees. Of course he does not want to see parking lots all over the place. He is a champion of Ocean Grove historical preservation—former President of the Historical Society in OG.
The argument over parking is primarily about future condominium development in a town where density may be increased without providing parking. RISS standards will force single family homes to be built where condominiums without parking might be built. —Paul @Blogfinger
Paul,
As always I’m looking to you for answers that’s why I’m asking what was approved and what variances granted. I assure you I do not work with the developer nor do I know them. Additionally I am not an expert, that’s why I’m “curious” I’m looking for the truth and answers. The problems I raised were what I see to be possible issues for all I know someone with the expertise could chime in and explain why my problems are not valid. I would just hate to see Ocean Grove turn into a town with a sea of asphalt parking lots and garages strewn about, one only needs to go a little north to see what that looks like.
It’s obvious that Curious is not merely curious. This person wears the mask of an expert while refusing to tell us his/her credentials or her name (we’ll refer to it as her.) She finds “problems” with the suit without saying if she actually read it. Would you give credibility to someone who comments here regarding the indications for coronary stenting without revealing if she has an MD after her name? The same applies here.
Sure we allow anonymous comments, but when it comes to authoritative opinions, we expect people to sign their remarks and tell us who they are. When Kevin Chambers or Jack Bredin or JP Gradone, or Paul Goldfinger etc. speak on Blogfinger, they proudly sign their own names. It’s one thing if a resident of the Grove complains about street sweeping and signs off as Humpty Dumpty, but if someone offers a technical discussion of storm drain engineering, then they better tell us who they are if they want to be credible.
I believe that “Curious,” who admits that she doesn’t live here, is a shill for someone associated with the Main Avenue project.
Why did I allow this rambling anonymous lecture? Because Curious raises some topics of interest, however we need to hear from persons who are bonafide experts and who are willing to identify themselves if they want to be taken seriously by our serious readers.
I am not a resident but love the character and charm of Ocean Grove. While I agree that the government should be kept in check, especially in New Jersey, I also think people should carefully “think before they speak” their actions could have adverse consequences on their daily lives. No one has explained exactly what variances and waivers were granted and what arguments were made. It seems to me that people just assume everything the zoning board does is illegal without looking into the facts, per the Land Use Law the zoning board’s decision is deemed as true and fair and the burden of proof lies with the person arguing they’re wrong
Let me start by admitting I am not an attorney, but I think there are a couple problems with the lawsuit. First being that RSIS was established to help developers not hurt them. It allows developers a minimum to adhere to so that Municipalities cannot push harder restrictions, ie if the Town requires 4 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom unit the developer can argue for a waiver based on RSIS only requiring 1.8 spaces. Waivers can also be granted from requiring any parking; I believe Red Bank did this with some of there recent developments and charge a fee based on the number of delinquent parking spaces. Additionally since Ocean Grove is historic it may have special standards that do not meet the RSIS.
The second problem with the lawsuit is that if Kevin wins it will set a precedent in Town that would require residents that rebuild their homes, build new homes, or add living space to meet off street parking requirements. Something that on the smaller lots would be near impossible.
I agree with RM that this could stall or kill a project that would leave an eyesore in a beautiful section of Town. Additionally the suit could hurt residents and businesses from trying to rebuild from a travesty.
The big issues for me, in order, are: parking, traffic and urbanization. Neptune Committee members could care less if we have to scrounge around for spaces so long as they get their tax money. To the Committee, it’s “us and them.” Many residents don’t care because in a few years they will be out of here anyway and they just want to see any building there, no matter the impact on the future residents.
There is also a strange wealth bias among residents in this town. Parking, traffic and urbanization are real problems even if the apartments and tenants are high-end. She may drive a Lexis, but she has still been parked in front of Nagles for a week.
A shiny penny is nice, until you have too many and no where to park them.
RM The issue here is not one that hinges on opinions. The suit is about defying the law, and our legal system will decide. Do you favor breaking the law in town to benefit developers? If not, then at least take an interest in Kevin’s concerns. —Paul
Observer: That destroyed building was a non-conforming use which means it would not be allowed today if it were proposed. Once the fire burned it to the ground, current land use standards should have been applied.
Here is a quote from an expert land use source:
“Many businesses and residences in the shore area were constructed many years ago, before local zoning codes were adopted or subsequently amended. When municipalities subsequently adopted or amended their zoning ordinances, some existing uses were rendered prohibited. Those existing, but subsequently prohibited uses, are known as nonconforming uses.
“In the event of more than partial destruction, even if such destruction is due to fire or a natural disaster, the property owner loses vested rights to the structure and/or use.” In order to get the usage applied-for now, use variances would be required and would be difficult to justify.”
Dr. Carol: Does it bother you and RM that the law is being ignored in our town to favor developers who are receiving special treatment to the detriment of the citizens and Ocean Grove? Why do you and RM look critically at the guy who is demanding justice while having nothing critical to say about the politicians whose behavior is suspect? —Paul
Evidently, there’s a “better than what was there” clause in the building codes. I’ve heard it used many times used to defend high density condo developments with no parking provided for the last 10 years. It obviously overrides all building codes, flare incursion guidelines and height regulations.
The last thing I want to do is suppress a good discussion on zoning in the Grove. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why I love this site.
I’m right on board with railing against the lack of transparency in the North End project and WAVE and fully agree that we can’t allow developers to come in and fill our streets with oversized condominium projects. However, I’ve always held the belief that one should pick their battles wisely. I just don’t think that this important commercial project in the center of our downtown is one that we should apply the brakes on. I hope you are correct that there is no risk in getting this site developed in the near term. However, life is short and I’ve already spent far too long looking at the travesty which is 80 Main (of whom I fully blame the owners…and then the incompetent town for my misery) to feel comfortable. I was just looking forward to getting our downtown back and honestly fear the possibility of walking past an empty lot for the next few years.
As for the condos in this project – let’s face it, this will be a brand new mixed-use building in the center of the best damn town on the Jersey Shore (yes…I’ll admit I am a bit biased). Therefore, the units above the retail would be nothing less than high-end rentals or high-end condo units. Unfortunately, OG is not necessarily a high-end rental market outside of the summer months. Including condominiums instead of rentals will simply allow the owner better financing and the ability to eliminate risk and actually get this thing built. Nothing would prevent the future condo owners from renting their units out.
Now…as for my “trash strewn lot” comment. Ha! Yes, maybe I was being a bit overdramatic. Instead, I likely should have better described it as being at risk of becoming the next perfect spot for a local contractor to store excess dirt piles or haphazard port-o-johns over the next few years instead… 😉
I absolutely agree with RM. How does anyone KNOW a permanent” trash strewn lot” won’t happen. This sad,empty lot in our downtown has been there too long.
RM: The prior building was a non-conforming use which means that after the total fire destruction,the same setup of residential and commercial should not have been approved for the new development of that property according to NJ Municipal Land Use Law. The density increase is substantial when compared to what is supposed to go into that empty lot. The new building approval is being questioned in the suit.
As for parking, why should anyone be above the law? At least the subject of RISS parking rules should be addressed as part of the approval process and not merely ignored which is what routinely happens with development in the Grove. This new building has, by law, to provide parking. Evidently no such arrangements have been made to comply with RISS. That issue is part of the complaint.
And as for a permanent “trash strewn lot” you know that won’t happen. Your vision of that is just a distraction to replace a real discussion of zoning in the Grove.
This is all about the rights of citizens to expect its governing body to follow the rules of law, and these are NJ State laws which are being ignored according to the complaint.
I’m all about “fighting the man” and there is plenty to fight about in Ocean Grove as we all know…but at what point does this simply turn into us being obstructionists towards all development? I’ll admit to not having all the facts regarding the situation at 50-54 Main. However, I do know that there was a terrible accidental fire, we all lost several retail establishments, our downtown suffered and now there is a big open space in the middle of our downtown.
I have to admit that I did like the design of the proposed replacement and thought it would be a positive for our downtown. I mean, can we really demand the developer to include off-street parking spaces for the new stores/restaurant? Do we want a parking lot on Main Ave? I have no idea how big the pockets are of the prior building owner now turned “developer”…but tackling a lawsuit while trying to build a building with insurance proceeds will prove to be difficult and could likely result in a failed project. Do we as a town really want to spend the next decade looking at a trash strewn lot in the center of our quaint downtown. That is definitely a possibility. Just a thought. Curious everyone’s thoughts.
Curmudgeon: It must be nice to be prescient. Have you studied Kevin’s prior suits (I think there were three or four) to be able to say what you say? You would be surprised to find out who Kevin’s lawyers currently are. In particular, the attorney who offered to represent the citizen’s group is well known throughout the State, and it is unlikely he would have stepped up if he didn’t believe in the cause and think that he could win. I hope to have more details subsequently. Other than that, I agree with your comment about NJ corruption involving developers and local government, but surely you have heard of David and Goliath.
We can be cynical, like you, or we can keep trying to insist on representative, lawful and untainted government in Neptune Township. Even if Kevin loses, there will be a record and a voice of reason and right enshrined in the books and in the hearts of those who stood up and those who watched the process in action.
Did you know that “nothing ventured,nothing gained,” “to win the lottery, buy a ticket” and “if at first you don’t succeed, try try try again” Why don’t you cast aside the negativity and join the citizen group? Paul @Blogfinger
I am not sure what arguments Kevin can bring that will make a difference from his lawsuit against the developers of the Surf Avenue condos, which was decided for the developers after lengthy appeals: see http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2009/a3692-07-opn.html
While those of us near Surf Avenue hoped he would prevail, the end result was actually only a long delay in construction which left the neighborhood in a mess pending the outcome of the court case. None of us wants a similar delay in the reconstruction of the Main Avenue fire site. I, for one, hope the issues can be resolved quickly and construction can begin.
Kudos to you Kevin. Hang tough.
I don’t think this is the first lawsuit filed by the plaintiff over building projects. And it’s unlikely the outcome will be any different this time.
Former President Reagan loved to extoll the virtues of local government. Maybe he wasn’t familiar with New Jersey, where local government consists of the developer, the lawyer, and the council (who might have something to gain by all of the development). Maybe this lawsuit will go somewhere. I suspect not.
Wow …someone is actually standing up to the “powers that be”…as an out of towner…I will be rooting for “David” …I mean Kevin…way to go.