Municipal Land Use Law (New Jersey). Official record. Click to read it easier. Source: Jack Bredin.
By Paul Goldfinger (Editor @Blogfinger) and Jack Bredin (Researcher @Blogfinger)
At a recent Planning Board meeting, permission was granted to subdivide the Park View Inn site into 4 illegal nonconforming undersized lots. Two would front on Sea View Avenue and two would front onto Lake Avenue.
Although that decision was defended recently on Blogfinger by the owner’s attorney, Jennifer Krimko, there is another matter that has caught our eye.
Over thirty years ago, the first published booklet spelling out Municipal Land Use Law contained a provision (40:55D-35) regarding building lots. This item stated that a building permit can be granted for a lot only if that lot abuts on a street.
Certainly Seaview Avenue is a street, but Lake Avenue, a walkway, is not. Lake Avenue is actually a lot—–Block 101, lot 2. Therefore the subdivision approval is illegal.
So what is a street? It is roadway with curbs and concave draining contours. It is a “cart way” where garbage trucks and cars can drive and where deliveries can be made. It usually contains underground utilities such as sewer mains, water lines and gas lines.
Lake Avenue is a historic place in OG, and it meets none of these criteria,—it was always known as a walking thoroughfare, so why was it declared a street at the Planning Board?
What is the gold standard for identifying streets in town? It is the Township Tax Map which does not show Lake Avenue to be a street. It shows Lake Avenue to be a lot. The Tax Map shows a property line (see below at the arrow) which marks the end of Central Avenue which is not in continuity with Lake Avenue, indicating that Lake Ave is not a street.
Portion of Neptune Township tax map. the official Township map. Scanned from an original. Note what happens to Central Ave. It stops at a property line, short of Lake Ave. It does not round the corner the way a normal joining of streets would behave. Click to see the detail. Courtesy of Jack Bredin.
What did the “experts” say about Lake Avenue at the meeting or in writing? :
Let’s first consider the testimony of the planner for the property owner. He said that “Lake Avenue is not a street.”
What did Sharon Killgallon, director of the OG Sewer Authority, say? She said, in a letter, that “there are no mains on Lake Avenue.” She also said that the plan would require easements to connect Lake Avenue to Seaview Avenue for gas, water and sewage. The official Sewer Authority grid map shows all streets in Ocean Grove, but Lake Avenue is not among them. In other words, when it comes to sewage, Lake Avenue is not a street.
What did Peter Avakian, the Planning Board engineer say? His company’s letter to the Board says that the entire Park View lot has “dual frontage on Seaview and Lake. ” So he seems to consider Lake Avenue a street as he does for Seaview. He also said that each of the 4 lots would require a “road opening permit.” In other words, he believes that all 4 Park View lots are abutting actual streets, and that would include Lake Avenue. The word “road” is another way to say “street.”
He also concluded that the “application is complete” to get the property subdivided. Would he really approve an application that contains 2 lots that do not abut on a street? Is he misleading the Board?
How about Jennifer Beahm, the Planning Board planner. She said that she supports the application for the subdivision and that each of the two Lake Avenue lots have 28 feet of “road frontage” along Lake Avenue. In other words, she thinks it’s a street.
Then we have the input from the Neptune Township engineer Leanne Hoffmann who reported to the Board that “road opening permits for any disturbance within the right of way” would be required. So she thinks it’s a street.
Then there is the land surveyor, Michael J Williams, who prepared a subdivision map that includes a “key map” that shows the streets around the subdivision. That document shows that a lot line at the end of Central Avenue was removed from the tax map to give the impression that Lake Avenue is a street in continuity with Central. Could this be a violation of the State Map Filing Law?
Key map from surveyor. The line ending Central Avenue has been removed. Source: Jack Bredin
On December 27, Kevin Chambers said, in a Blogfinger comment, “My issue is with the fact that the same attorney for both the Warrington application at the Board of Adjustment and the Park View application at the Planning Board can, with the approval of the two boards, present evidence that clearly contradicts each other. If one is telling the truth, than the other must be lying.
You cannot present testimony at one board that Lake Avenue is a street, and at the next present testimony that it is not.”
CONCLUSION?? Let’s call the whole thing off.
ELLA FITZGERALD AND LOUIS ARMSTRONG
Two lots are for sale at 469,000 each lot and the other two lots are for sale at 419,000 each lot.
I just want the developer to have a fair chance to make their case before they abandon this project and leave this eyesore as another “area in need of development”. I just think that it might be possible that 4 single family homes may be more desirable than the property staying as is. I have been approached by homeless while walking my dogs past this property. Is that desirable?
David. You should look at the new “Tax Map–Township of Neptune,” dated April 8, 2014.
You will see that “Wesley Lake” is no longer a lake. It is now called “Wesley Detention/Retention Basin.”
You speak of “shades of gray.” If your reference is specifically referring to the NJ Municipal Land Use Law, you may want to review that 175 page document to see if you can find any “shades of gray.” And if you do, particularly as it pertains to the Lake Avenue issue, please let us know and we will post your findings.
Regarding your seeing “people who are Crusaders now,” I guess you are referring to Blogfinger, but you might recall that the Crusades (1096-1487 AD) were commissioned to save Christianity from Muslims. So that was considered a noble enterprise back then, and it may be a noble enterprise now. So I guess it’s OK for you to compare us to Crusaders, unless you have some other sort of explanation for using that metaphor now. Actually, your views would be better served if you skip the label and just tell us what you mean.—
—Paul
Wow. You guys are on fire. Making Lake Ave into a real street is a major proposition. Tampering with the Lake will get NJDEP involved, and the equipment and engineering would be an obstacle beyond the most powerful developer.
I largely agree with the points that Blogfinger has been making. I just see people who are Crusaders now and may not able to see shades of gray in this issue.
Thanks for trying to scare me straight Jack.
David: The new tax map places both Lake Avenue and the North End area in need of redevelopment into a new block 101.
The Planning Board determined that Lake Ave is an existing roadway.
The Township Committee agreed to use the power of eminent domain to provide roads necessary to develop the property.
After all final approvals, the town is required to provide the roads necessary to handle the traffic.
Existing streets cannot be widened.
The Committee volunteered to use our taxes to condemn your property, if it’s needed for a street.
A variance cannot be granted to create a non-conforming lot
We are not just trying to make a point, we are making a point, and it’s all part of the Public Record.
Obviously Paul. The point is that it is not a condition unusual to this town to have property not facing or having access to a street.
An application for a variance is likely to look at other such situations in the neighborhood, are they not? And what of the Warrington; how is that to be resolved?
I know there are some odd shaped lots in the North End, especially along Asbury Ave but the lake frontage is almost 45 degrees to Surf Av, just how will they work around that? How can something like that be ‘grandfathered in’ when creating a new building lot?
David Your house is historic and was built before the Municipal Land Use laws were invented. It is “grandfathered in .” The Park View subdivision is subject to the current Municipal Land Use laws. —Paul
I believe in law as much as the next person. I also believe in a process that allows reasonable people to show cause. Law regarding property has always had that side to it. I live in an existing house that faces Lake Ave. it was built in 1867. On my block are several houses facing Lake Ave with houses behind them facing Asbury Ave. What is different about the Park View plan other then your using it to prove your point?
David: Nonsense! The fate of the derelict Park View Inn has not been debated here. Of course it needs to be demolished, and it is a disgrace that it has stood so long. And of course there should be single family home (s) on that site.
But this discussion is about obeying the law. Do you approve in following the law or not? That is the issue. Governance in this town, as we have been showing, has been based on all sorts of trickery to get around the zoning laws to benefit developers. In fact we believe that some laws have been broken.
If demanding that the laws be followed, that the wishes of the people be considered, that there be transparency in governance is stridency, then so be it.
People can make a profit in this town without looking for ways to skirt the laws. Let’s put the people and the town first and let’s follow the laws, and all will be well, and Blogfinger can stop being “strident” and get back the arts and the jokes.
While I agree that rampant condo development of condos etc are overall a detriment to our town it seems that Blogfinger has become particularly strident in it’s outlook on this issue. The Parkview is a public menace. That someone has actually tackled this project, and even is proposing single homes as opposed to a higher density use seems very desirable to me. The owner wants to make a profit and should be allowed too if they can remove this fire trap. While trying to prevent the greed that the NERP Project represents are we in danger of driving away the responsible investors that might improve our neighborhoods?
What would be the status of the Warrington? It fronts only on Lake Ave. What would be the address of the hotel?
Joe: You are wrong about this. I wrote more about what happened than anybody in the media. The CMA made the argument, which was finally accepted by FEMA, that the OG boardwalk is a thoroughfare in continuity with other such thoroughfares to our north and south so as to provide a way for emergency vehicles and first responders to get to the beach front area. The argument was put forth to convince FEMA that our boardwalk functions for the public welfare, health and safety.
At no time did anyone ever refer to our boardwalk as a street—the issue of whether or not the boardwalk is a street never came up. —-Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
Joe: There are two sections of a street right-of -way. A section for motor vehicles and a section for pedestrians.
The pedestrian section is often referred to as ‘the high-way’ because it is six inches higher than the roadway.
In Ocean Grove, the Boardwalk, Lake Ave, and the sidewalks are all part of the pedestrian right of way.
The Boardwalk is a walkway reserved by the DEP for the recreational use of the beach, and the OGCMA’s application was filed correctly.
The boardwalk being a street was a major point of emphasis in getting federal money to rebuild it.
OGeggy: Only mad dogs and the NERP consider the Boardwalk to be a street.
So if the Boardwalk is considered a street, why not Lake Ave?
Oh My: That question would be best answered by the State Attorney General—- he is the attorney for the Dept.of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Lake Ave is part of the Green Acre Program under the jurisdiction of the DEP.
How do they plan on getting past the Green Acres designation?