There are a lot of moving parts to Ocean Grove’s parking problems.
I believe the number one problem starts with the Neptune Township Committee.
The process of site-plan approval is guided by both the local zoning ordinance and the State off- street parking requirements.
When local standards are inconsistent with State Standards, then the State Standards supersede the local ones.
The local Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment can grant a variance from the zoning ordinance, but there is no approving authority in the Township that can grant a “waiver” from the off-street parking requirements until the Township applies for and the State grants approval of a “Special Standard.”
However, when the Township is reviewing a site plan application for Ocean Grove, it is the Township’s policy to usurp State Authority and circumvent the State’s off-street parking requirements (that the State has exclusive authority over) and grant an approval with no off-street parking.
As a result of this practice, with few exceptions, all site-plan approvals in Ocean Grove over the past 18 ears, were granted in violation of State law.
Kevin Chambers has been telling us that for years, and it is not just his opinion—-it is a fact!
When developing a standard 50×100 foot lot, the State off-street parking standard, requiring two (2) off-street parking spaces for a detached single family house, is reasonable because the State standard was designed using the 50’x100’ lot format.
Ocean Grove cannot be re-subdivided into 50 x 100 foot lots, and so the strict application of the State off-street parking regulations would cause practical difficulties in developing any 30 x 60 foot lot in the Historic District.
Because the 30 x 60 foot lot size is 2 ½ times smaller than a 50 x 100 foot lot, there is simply not enough room to include off-street parking into a site-plan without destroying Ocean Grove’s historic character.
We are the only town in New Jersey like this, and so we qualify for a State waiver for detached single-family houses with no parking.
Last year the Township filed an application for an exception from the State off-street parking standards.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that Ocean Grove is zoned single-family, and the waiver the Township requested is not only for detached single family houses, it is for all new residential multi-family development, foreseeing variance approvals for condominiums.
If approved it would open the floodgates to condo development; that would destroy the Historic District.
The threat to our historic designation comes from an increasing real estate demand for a “condo by the ocean, for vacation.”
Make no mistake about it. The primary reason for the Township’s application was to permit condo development throughout Ocean Grove, and not just for the big guy, but also for the little guy.
As an example: If you own a two family house like I do, you can form a condominium association and, like magic, your two family house becomes two (2) attached single-family houses (aka condominiums) which are worth a lot more money than your former 2-family house. That also applies to 3,4,5 family and up. The only problem for this agenda is that you now need two (2) off-street parking spaces per unit, and the Township cannot grant you a waiver or a variance.
Although the Township had reasons for a single-family waiver, they had no reason to ask for a multi-family waiver. And so, at the Township’s request, the Town Planner manufactured the reasons, after doing a parking study of Ocean Grove.
In support of a multi-family waiver the planner determined: We have plenty of available parking spaces, and the residents also have the option of parking in Asbury Park or Bradley Beach and then walking home.
This is nonsense, and if it were such a great benefit to Ocean Grove, then why did the Town Planner call the State Advisory Board last December and request that the application be withdrawn?
The Committee has been silent on why, or who instructed the Planner to withdraw the application, and has given no indication if or when they will reapply.
But they must reapply. They can’t keep breaking the law. And when they do reapply, we should insist that we still need that parking exemption for SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ONLY, and not for multifamily buildings that are inconsistent with the Master Plan and with Historic Preservation.
I am offering a motion for your consideration that the OGHOA would support the single family application. The HOA should be pro-active and get ahead of the curve.
The motion is: “The OGHOA is in favor of the Neptune Township Committee re-filing an application for a waiver from the State RSIS parking standard for detached single-family houses only.”
Editor’s note: Jack Bredin’s motion was seconded, but the group voted to table the motion. —-PG
Jack had a prepared speech that made some good points and was educational- I was there.
– the motion was tabled, apprently to be brought up with a list of pros and cons at next month’s meeting
I hear Jack’s point about HOA leadership not welcoming motions, and look forward to seeing what happens to his tabled motion at next month’s meeting.
Nancy: The meeting was run by Barbara Burns and Ann Horan. Kathy Arlt of the HOA made a motion that Jack Bredin’s motion be tabled. Her motion was seconded and approved by a vote of the membership.
These HOA people have a conflict of interest in running an “educational” meeting about RSIS because they have formally taken a position supporting Neptune on this. They should have brought in an expert on land use law to sort it out for the public at the session. But they would never do such a thing because they would be exposed for their wrongheaded, anti-Ocean Grove and self serving opinions. The irony is that they often bring in experts to their meetings—but not this time.
Randy Bishop owns a B and B on Sea View Ave., and it is well known that he would like to turn it into condos. He has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from all land use discussions. —Paul
Is there a reason HOA names were not mentioned for standing with 2 named Neptune committee folks?
Does Randy still owns a B and B on SeaView
His street is always full spring /summer/fall.
Thanks for all you do. Jack’s presentation very clear for new learners such as myself.
I attended an OGHOA meeting a few years ago in which Jack Bredin explained that unless we spoke up, parking meters would be installed. At that time his factual presentation was cut short and an officer of the OGHOA assured us that meters were not a forgone conclusion. After the meeting, Jack Bredin was most generous with his time and educated me on ordinance proceedings and the fact that meters were in essence a done deal unless action was taken. He then appeared at the township meeting and explained some of the inconsistencies in the ordinance such as ownership of the land by the Camp Meeting Association which a Luddite like me did not fully understand. Jack was spot on and the ordinance did not pass.
It sounds like similar shoddy treatment was afforded to Jack at this meeting. Why were limits put on his presentation which outlined various land use laws pertaining to development and parking requirements? I read the entire text on Blogfinger in a couple of minutes. That being said, providing an individual with a few minutes to educate the audience on such an important issue seems appropriate at a homeowners meeting. If Neptune and the Camp Meeting disagree in their vision of development it is certainly their prerogative. Let’s be fair and hear both sides.
As an historic district we have an Historic Preservation Committee. Key words there are “Historic” and “Preservation”. “Historically”, Ocean Grove had, roughly, five types of structures (excluding government buildings and public service – eg, fire hourse) – homes, tents/camps, hotels, retail shops/restaurants and places of worship. If you want to “preserve” the “historic” nature of Ocean Grove, that would mean that any new construction or rehab of existing structures should be for one of the aforementioned uses. You acquired a big old hotel? Fix it up and continue to use as a hotel, knock it down and build a new hotel, or knock it down, apply for a subdivision, and build single family homes on the site. I don’t think there were condos in OG in 1889 or 1920 or 1952. If you want condos, lose the historic district designation, get rid of the HPC and allow people to put up 6 foot fences or paint their house whatever color they want, allow for the sale of booze, eminent domain all OGCMA properties for “redevelopment” and just make it clear what your intentions are. Or just don’t allow condos.
I am a member of the OGHOA and like any other member, entitled to make a motion at a meeting. This practice is discouraged by the Leadership because they think they know best.
At the Feb 27th meeting, they tried to limit me to ‘asking questions only’, but when I made my motion in a very respectful way, President Ann Horan announced that ‘ every time Jack Bredin comes to a Homeowner’s meeting, he causes a disruption like this ‘. And instead of discussing the motion, people in the peanut gallery started shouting for me to sit down and the motion was tabled.
I think Ann Horan was ‘ out of order’ by trying to discredit me and my motion.
Worth noting:
Camp Meeting Association is supportive of WAVE and probably any future condo conversions. It receives a high initial ground rental based on construction costs plus an escalating ground rental contract with large increases every year for 10 years and then an increase determined by the cost of living index.
Neptune Township receives more new taxes for every condo over the previous one facility tax.
Thank you for publishing Mr. Bredin’s statement.
I have found the parking/housing/development
issue very confusing. His explanation is what
I needed. I was not at the HOA meeting and
am sorry that his motion was seconded but then
not carried.