Saturday, March 26, 2016. Ocean Grove, NJ.:
34 comments below.
Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger Jack Bredin, Researcher.
At this morning’s HOA meeting, the membership voted, by an estimated 3:1 margin, to defeat Jack Bredin’s motion, which would have supported a plan to promote single family home zoning throughout Ocean Grove. We have spelled out the technical details of this subject in our many recent posts.
This vote means that the OGHOA, Board and membership, will be supportive as Neptune Township continues to approve condominium buildings without parking and to maintain its ongoing policy to defy State Land Use Law .
The OGHOA has become an impotent organization without any coherent values to protect the Grove from greedy developers and unprincipled elected officials.
At Blogfinger we tried to warn everyone. It’s not that we care about what that crew at the HOA Board thinks, but we do care about what Grovers think , so the vote today was disappointing.
We will continue to report the news and our opinions, but we are done trying to encourage our HOA neighbors into opposing those who would exploit our town.
We are not giving up on Ocean Grove, but we will divert our attention from the HOA, an organization which has straight-lined as far as we are concerned.
(PS: There are 34 comments by Grovers. Click on “comments” below)
KARRIN ALLLYSON
There is a general trend to promote “affordable housing” in many parts of the country. This has sometimes resulted in lawsuits against “exclusionary zoning.” Neptune Township is likely aware of this movement.
Good questions, Fran Hopkins
Thanks. I really want to understand what’s going on here and, if possible, why.
I think that if we could distill it down to a “problem statement” that’s clear and understandable, then maybe more residents would realize why uncontrolled development is bad for Ocean Grove. It’s incomprehensible to me that any discussion of this topic, particularly one led by the OGHOA and with one of our elected officials present, would not begin with an overview of the facts: about the actual zoning in Ocean Grove, how the zoning laws are regularly waived, how RSIS is consistently ignored, and what the cumulative negative impact of all of this has been on Ocean Grove.
If this context had been provided first, then I think that the meaning and importance of Jack’s motion would have been clear last Saturday. So I can only conclude that keeping residents uninformed—or at least, doing little to help them become informed—makes it easier for those who want to maintain the status quo to do so. But as others have said, it does seem that some number of homeowners aren’t particularly concerned about what’s best for Ocean Grove.
What is the role of the Historical Society and/or the town’s designation as a Historic District in all of this? I would have thought that the group in charge of preservation would have a lot to say about variance-granting and would vigorously protest any relaxing of standards. Some of the newer buildings really are pretty ugly and do stand out like sore thumbs; how did they happen in an Historic District? And what is the issue of the “threat” to the Historic Designation — what could cause Ocean Grove to lose this designation, and what would happen to us if it did?
I’m still trying to figure out why it’s so easy for Neptune Township to do pretty much whatever it wants in Ocean Grove, to the long-term detriment of this sweet spiritual place.
Abbott: I offer one proviso: Some of them may not know what they do. There is reason to believe that some who voted “no” were clueless about the nature of the vote having been bamboozled by the varsity 3-card-monte team of the OGHOA.
Hi folks:
I am only in Ocean Grove on weekends and a few weeks in the summer — we own a single family house and we do not rent it. I was drawing a line between people who want to preserve the charm and character of the town — or even improve upon it — and those who only see the town as a place to earn money and/or impose their congested, urbanized view of the world (which they bring from wherever they live) on OG.
If you support the HOA position on RSIS, as 3/4 of the voters did in the vote, then you are in the second group by definition.
Fran: Jack contacted us regarding your comment.. He said to you, “Thank you Fran. You are exactly correct!”
Editor’s Note: And I say “Thank you Fran” for taking the time to try and unravel this stuff. Jack’s motion was simple and complicated at the same time, and it would not be surprising if many of those HOA members who voted actually did not understand the issues that Jack was trying to address.
If our goal is to block future multi-family buildings such as condominiums, then the people must understand that zoning alone won’t do the trick because the Township can change zoning as they did when the plan for 25 single family houses zoned at the North End was tossed out in favor of a highly dubious change in zoning to allow condos and a hotel (ie the North End Redevelopment Plan.)
But the State RSIS regulations, if enforced, would block future condominiums such as the Ocean Pathway Condos. The Township has not only fiddled around with zoning in the past (as with Mary’s Place), but they have ignored the RSIS new construction off-street parking requirements for years and that is why we have so many condos built without providing any off-street parking.
Jacks’ motion would have insisted on RSIS enforcement for everything except single family houses. And that enforcement would block any more multi-family buildings in the Grove. If Jack’s motion had been passed, it would have no power other than to provide a voice through the HOA to do the right thing in fighting high density development in the Grove. But that HOA vote was corrupt and should be ignored by all fair-minded citizens in town.
But OK, if the Township wants to reapply to the State for the RSIS exemption, the voices of the people can still be heard in Trenton. And if they don’t reapply, our voices can be heard by demonstrations at Town Hall the next time Neptune wants to ignore state law and permit a condominium. We should organize protests and fill up the Board of Adjustment whenever they want to do that. —Paul
I’ve been reading everyone’s comments and re-reading past discussions here about RSIS, municipal land use law, zoning, the Master Plan, and Historic Preservation. Now I understand why Saturday’s meeting was so confusing and why meeting attendees didn’t understand Jack’s motion. Neither Joyce Klein, the OGHOA trustee; nor Carol Rizzo, Neptune Township Committeewoman, pointed out to the membership that Ocean Grove is zoned single family and that multifamily residences are inconsistent with both the Master Plan and Historic Preservation (as Jack had explained at the February OGHOA meeting; see this March 3, 2016 Blogfinger post: http://blogfinger.net/2016/03/03/jack-bredin-delivers-a-prepared-statement-to-the-oghoa-meeting-of-feb-27-2016-below-is-his-unedited-statement/).
So nothing other than single family residences should be being built and that’s why his motion mentioned only them. But if variances are granted for the construction of multi-family structures, then RSIS should apply to them, meaning that off-street parking spaces must be included, meaning that those multi-family residences won’t be built because there isn’t the space to do that.
Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks.
Jennifer, I’m a one-year Ocean Grove homeowner and a weekender like you; you and I both want to preserve the peaceful, old-fashioned charm that attracted us to the town. I’ve never felt that anyone here at Blogfinger pits the yearrounders against the weekenders. But I too was a bit taken aback by both Abbott’s and Ogbess’s comments that part-time residents “aren’t true Grovers” and only want to maximize our investments. I don’t think this describes either you or me. I enjoy the Blogfinger site because I’ve learned so much about Ocean Grove here and because Dr. Goldfinger and those who post comments here obviously care deeply about preserving this lovely town. I agree with you that it’s inaccurate to generalize that part-timers don’t care about Ocean Grove, but I can honestly say that this is the first time I’ve heard this view expressed here.
Jennifer: I’m not sure what you mean by “This thread is unwelcome and divisive…..and these posts seem to be drawing a line in the sand.” I hope you are not blaming BF for being divisive, because the divisions have developed out of the realities of these situations. We are reacting to and reporting on those realties.
So don’t kill the messenger. Before solutions can be found, the problems require understanding and definition. We are trying for that, and no other media source cares to dig into the sand to bring truth and dialogue to Ocean Grove’s diverse population. Thanks for contacting us. Paul @Blogfinger
As a new homeowner to OG who bought here because of the town’s history and charm, welcoming communial feel and friendly people, which I too want to preserve, I find this thread to be unwelcoming and divisive. These posts seem to be drawing a line in the sand (pun intended) between full-timers and weekenders. Very disappointing.
Can we vote homeowners who do not support the master plan and the laws of NJ out of the HOA? I’d vote for that even if there is no secret ballot. The HOA should be focused on making OG better — not absentee homeowners richer.
I’ll position my comments as a traffic engineer would:
If residents want all NJ traffic statutes, including RSIS, then they must abide by ALL State parking regulations.
To put that in perspective, consider the following – NJ Statute 39:4-138-H states that you cannot park within 50 feet of a stop sign.
On the first 2 beach blocks in OG the painted zone showing where you cannot is park is only 10-12 feet – not 50 feet.
That’s enough space for 2 cars to park. For the 8 east facing streets in OG, enforcing NJ parking statutes would eliminate parking for 8 cars. Two cars on each side of the street at Ocean Ave, and two cars on each side of Beach Ave. And this is just for the 8 east facing streets. For the 7 west facing streets (I’m not including Main St) enforcing NJ parking statutes would eliminate parking for only 4 cars on these 7 streets.
So in total enforcing just this one Statute, on just the first 2 blocks in OG, would eliminate 92 spaces (8 spaces eliminated on 8 streets, plus 4 spaces eliminated on 7 streets). To put that in perspective, that’s about 30% more cars than can fit in the South end parking lot. Again, this is only one Staute, on only 2 blocks of the Grove
Be careful what you wish for!
It’s counterintuitive that the folks who support greed and the desire to exploit OG economically for their personal benefit — and at the expense of the the town — are the ones who don’t fear publically stating their views.
Those urbanites who like condos, multi-family development, and having no available parking should stick to the cities. They don’t need to destroy OG too.
Another factor which could have influenced the voting is the failure of the group to have secret ballots.
Ed Dunleavy: Thank you for your response and for using your real name, but most of your comment is nonsense. Consider the following:
a. This is the motion:“The OGHOA is in favor of the Neptune Township Committee refiling an application for a waiver from the State RSIS Parking Standard for detached single family houses only.” Of course it is only about new construction; that is all it could legally be about, and our many posts on this subject have made that crystal clear.
In addition, Jack’s motion is all that was on the table. It was highly irregular to ask him to amend his motion when it already stated exactly as he wanted it, with the meaning that he wanted. To criticize him for not agreeing to an amendment is presumptuous, out-of-order, totally manipulative, and ridiculous.
b. On March 22, we posted a slide from the HOA presentation. It said, “Parking in Ocean Grove is not governed by RSIS.” As you can see, they did indeed say that.
c. You are the first to report to me as to how many people did vote. Thank you for that. It shows that only 55 people voted on this important motion. We can speculate as to why so few voted, but it shows that the OGHOA is truly an impotent organization, and that small vote is essentially worthless as representing HOA policy since they have many hundreds of members. They should ask themselves why so few people took part in this vote.
This organization should be tossed into the junk pile at the Neptune Recycling Center and replaced by a democratic and transparent group consisting of all residents of Ocean Grove.
d. You say that “The motion would accomplish nothing.” This comment shows that you are absolutely clueless regarding what this is all about. You really shouldn’t have voted at all, along with all the other voters who were uninformed or mislead by the HOA presentation.
These HOA Board jokers should have brought in an outside expert in Land Use Law to make an unbiased presention before any vote were taken. That they would refuse to do so (we suggested that before) proves that they are interested in a particular agenda and not in what is best for the town.
Do you HOA members really want to belong to a group that intentionally keeps you in the dark?
Edward Dunleavy: Thank you for your vote.
My motion was to encourage the Township to simply obey the laws we already have to protect Ocean Grove as a Historic District.
I was trying to stop the misuse of the law.
Even the best land use attorneys cannot explain municipal land use law in the 4 minutes I was given to explain my motion, and the attorney for the HOA at the
meeting admitted she knew very little about land use law.
It seems to me that Blogfinger attended a different meeting that I attended. First, I was one of the 12 members who voted for the motion; 43 voted against the motion. I voted for it because I felt it would do no harm although as it was worded it would have no impact. Bredin should be commended and thanked for the work that he has done to educate the membership about the history of the Townships Zoning.
The problem with the motion was that he insisted that it was meant for only new construction of single family residences. However, the motion did not say that and when he was asked to amend the motion to state that it was meant for only new construction of single family residences, he refused to amend his motion, and more importantly, he offered no reason why he would not amend the motion.
Also, the HOA never said that OG is not governed by RSIS; they said that Neptune has never imposed RSIS on OG and is not likely to impose it unless there is a lawsuit that decides that Neptune has to adhere to RSIS. Bredin does himself a disservice by misquoting the view of the chair of the HOA meeting.
It is easy to criticize the membership vote for either not understanding the situation or being in favor of large development, but that is the wrong way to look at it. Most members, I believe felt as I did, that the motion would accomplish nothing. After talking with several members of the HOA after the meeting they all concluded that if Bredin had amended the motion they would have voted for it. Why he dug in his heals and never offered an explanation is known only to him.
Ed Dunleavy
In response to Dougs issue. What he proposes is what is called “Spot Zoning” The law prohibits it and the Township knows it. The law requires that all lots in a zone must be treated equally. All 30 by 60 foot lots in OG, by law must and can only be zoned for single family use. No other uses can be permitted since a 30 by 60 foot lot does not and can not conform to the requirements of the MLUL for a single family use. That is the law. The Township has been violating the MLUL in order to create greater taxes and greater density at the peril of the residents of OG. The RSIS Board instructed the Township’s planner to bring its zoning into conformity in 2009. RSIS parking requirements are required by law to be included into OG zoning. For 8 years the Township have denied us the protection of the law and the benefits of the law. Our rights should not be denied by either the OGHOA nor by the Township of Neptune.
Kevin Chambers.
Fran, Abbott, Paulie D.and Bythesea:
You have caught onto the fact that we can no longer assume that the residents of Ocean Grove are all on the same page regarding Ocean Grove’s future.
On Blogfinger, we have focused on the HOA Board and the Township Committee as being the ones who would compromise our town.
But now we see that there is a new demographic emerging among the citizens of Ocean Grove which includes those who voted “no” at the meeting.
The Saturday vote is a wake-up call. It seems that there are those citizens who would like to see more condos in the Grove, more commercialization, and more secularization. They care little for the history and unique values that have characterized OG. They would like to have OG turn into Asbury Park South.
We don’t know how large that demographic is, but everyone who cares about OG and its traditional values must pay attention to the new reality that has now surfaced.
Bythesea: …and don’t forget the historic validity of this town which is on the State and National Historic Registers. It is all these qualities that you mention which, taken together, make Ocean Grove so unique and which are threatened by the trends that are emerging. And since you mention economics, what effect will the condoization of OG have on on home valuations—-up or down?
By saying that there is really nothing that can be done about the parking issues, the HOA implicitly acknowledges that there is a problem. Then voting down a proposal that would, at the very least, address the issue, then endorsing another plan that would exacerbate the problem, makes no sense whatsoever——unless you only see dollar signs in conversions and unfettered development.
Good bye Ocean Grove, hello to South Asbury Park.
The first point the HOA made at the meeting was:
“Parking in Ocean Grove is NOT governed by RSIS”.
This is not true. It is confusing to me why they would say that…..Oh!, now I get it.
But when they start their presentation with a “false premise’ to support their conclusion, as the old saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”
I congratulate their attorneys for confusing some people at the meeting, while all along supporting the ‘garbage’ embedded in the Township’s application which says that we have plenty of on-street parking available to justify more multi-family approvals. That is also a “false premise”
Who cares about charm, character, the Master Plan, parking availability or quality of life when you talking about exploiting the economic potential of multi-family houses!!
Fran: You saw through that bizarre purposeful chaos at the meeting which was designed to confuse the audience and keep them from understanding the true issues. It’s amazing that the HOA lawyer/members are willing to take the side of those who break the land use laws in NJ.
Luckily the HOA has no real power, and most citizens pay no attention to them, as you can see from their meeting attendance. The Township Committee uses the HOA to provide cover for their unlawful and unprincipled activities in the OG land use arena.
Jack, Kevin, and I will no longer fight with the HOA, but we will continue making our arguments on Blogfinger or at other venues such as the SIAB in Trenton or at the Neptune Township Committee meetings, and Blogfinger will welcome your observations and opinions on these matters along with those others who are reasonable and knowledgeable citizens.
—-Paul
I agree with “Abbott” that the folks who are in favor of condo and multi-family development are, for the most part, part time residents who see their home ownership strictly as an investment. These people are not true Grovers. Their only involvement in the community is through the HOA. They were drawn to Ocean Grove by the uniqueness and quality of life here. Ironically, what attracted them in the first place is what they desire to change. Sad!
The members aren’t pro-condo. They just did not agree that Jack’s proposal was the way to go. 3 to 1 says alot – the people have spoken.
I attended this meeting Saturday and was one of the dozen or so who voted for Jack’s motion. This was my first meeting as a new member of the OGHOA and I was disappointed in the way this important topic was handled.
The woman who ran the discussion, OGHOA Trustee (and attorney) Joyce Klein, said that land use law was not her area of expertise. She also stated that she thinks the parking situation in Ocean Grove is “unfixable” but noted that the OGHOA Parking Committee will present its “recommendations” at another meeting on April 9. All of this was said even before Jack’s motion was discussed. It left me with the feeling that the OGHOA wasn’t seriously interested in offering its members a fair and thoughtful review of Jack’s proposal because it had other plans already in the works.
In fact, discussion of Jack’s motion came only after a long, “blind leading the blind” discussion of what might be the dire consequences to Ocean Grove should the state decide to make OG comply with RSIS, and that’s why the special area standard was needed, What really startled me was that, before showing the slide with Jack’s motion, they put up a slide with a completely different motion — I believe it was an exemption for pretty much all existing structures — as an “option” for consideration.
By the time they finally presented Jack’s motion, people were emotionally worked up, fearful they couldn’t replace a window if RSIS were enforced, and worried for their neighbor with a two-family house who could only replace it with a single-family home if it burned down. No one seemed to know or care that Ocean Grove is zoned for single-family houses, and that other types of residential development are inconsistent with the Master Plan and the Historic District designation. The reaction to Jack’s motion was “what about multi-family/two family homes?” People didn’t seem to get that that was the whole point, that the purpose of not exempting those places was to limit future development to single-family homes; or if they did get it, they didn’t seem to understand why that was important and desirable.
I thought that, if the OGHOA really wanted to have a substantive, factual discussion of this subject, they would have made it their business to have an actual expert there to answer people’s questions. I also agree with Bythesea that some speakers seemed to think that those of us who view the parking situation as bad ought to live in Tribeca and then we’d know what bad is! For me, Ocean Grove was supposed to be a weekend escape, a place of refuge from stress, not a cause of stress because parking is so inconvenient.
A couple of things: at one point I asked why Neptune Township withdrew its special area standard application in December. No one knew, including Committeewoman Rizzo. It was also stated that the application will be submitted again (unfortunately I didn’t note who said this). A man in the audience complained about the fact that the OGHOA had sent a letter of support of the Township’s application without consulting with its members first. A woman then jumped up and said that the point was “moot” because “the HOA letter was sent, but it was not accepted by RSIS.”
Finally, when it came time to vote, I was surprised by the non-secret ballot. When we arrived, we were each given an index card with a number written on it. I thought that perhaps you wrote your vote on that and then they’d collect the votes and tally them. But instead, you had to publicly hold your card up high after they asked “Who is in favor of the motion?” and wait with your hand up while they counted. Then they asked for the “not in favor” votes. Many people don’t like to take the unpopular position, and there may have been more support for Jack’s motion if the votes were private.
There were a bunch of people there at the HOA meeting who were clearly not full time residents — they came down for the meeting and the vote. These were largely the folks who were against the proposal.
I do not think it was random chance that there was such a strong turnout of people who favor condo development and do not care about the parking situation. These people care nothing about Ocean Grove and none of them were able to give any reasoning to support their view against the proposal.
Jack was very professional and patient in his responses but it was clear most people in the audiance were not there to listen to reason.
Paulie D: On Nov 30, 2015, we ran a poll that asked a similar question: “Do you prefer the original zoning of 25 single family homes at the North End over the current North End Redevelopment Plan? ”
More people voted on this question than attended that meeting on March 26:
241 (88%) said “Yes;” 32 (12%) said “No”
This poll gives a sense of how Grovers feel about single family zoning.
An “absentee yes vote” for Jack’s motion. I pay HOA dues so that I have the right to speak and vote on items of import. As I understand it, only those attending the meetings are allowed to vote. I was out of town and could not attend the meeting and was therefore denied a voice. As many HOA members are seasonal and the vote took place off season, it is possible that those attending did not represent the consensus of the membership.
When speaking to fellow Grover’s, most favor development of single family homes, such as Jack has long championed.
if the Blogman decided to run an online poll, I think the results would favor Jack’s motion by a large margin.
I was saying that the buildings that were allowed to go condo had to already be a multi unit residence, and the external part of the building must stay the same, no changes. What happened on Ocean Pathway should NOT be allowed.
If the buildings could not be reconfigured in their original state, then they should revert to single family.
Again, only existing multi-unit buildings would be allowed to convert and at a much lower density.
I am totally against tearing down an inn and replacing it with a condo as was suggested at the first meeting.
Doug: In addition to what Jack said above:
The category of “existing inns and multi-families” is no small thing. Such properties, including even two families, are scattered all over town, and if “multi-family” conversions (without obeying RSIS parking requirments) become popular, we will see them spring up everywhere. Each one will become an un-historic structure and will gradually cause the town to look different from the historic place it is supposed to emulate. Each one of them, if converted as in the past, will be uglier than a single family Victorian and will be built without variances and without parking. Each one will be in violation of the Municipal Land Use Law.
And you, comparing the parking requirement for a condominium against what it was when the building was an inn or a hotel, are kidding yourself. The comparison to be made regarding parking is to look at the spaces needed for a single family house vs.the spaces needed for a condominium building.
Regarding the requirement that “footprints and historic facades” be maintained—that’s no big deal for builders. Look at the Ocean Pathway Condos–#30. That monstrous building took the place of two historic hotels at the site. Do you think the result looks historic?
And speaking of “existing open spaces” being replaced “only by single family homes” consider the two lots that should have been single family houses on Main Avenue. Those two lots are now Mary’s Place, and that project was permitted because one zoning officer decided it was a “community shelter.” If you have a vivid imagination you could even say that Mary’s Place is a 10 bedroom single family house with a huge kitchen which doubles as a lecture hall and a “holistic spa.”
You seem comfortable with the sloppy way that land use goes forward in OG. There is a tremendous financial incentive to turn properties into condos. At #30 Ocean Avenue, one condo was up for sale recently at $649,000.00
Investors will jump at the chance to condoize every eligible property and to use every loophole and slippery scheme to make those deals go through. And then, poof—Ocean Grove will be another congested Jersey Shore dumpy town. And don’t kid yourself—–those gays and other daring investors who came here because they loved the old Ocean Grove and the chance to make it very special, will see the writing on the wall and will start bailing out. Then the prices of homes in OG will begin to fall, etc. etc.
Goodbye Charlie!
It is truly unbelievable that there was not more support for Jack’s proposal. I was just dumbfounded at what folks opposing the proposal had to say (I attended the HOA meeting).
From what I gathered, they simply were not able to fathom the problem and could not grasp that a solution was needed. It was pretty clear that the folks who opposed Jack’s proposal came from NYC/urbanized North Jersey and they do not see the parking situation in the Grove as a problem. They also do not see ultra-high density housing, to include condos, as a problem.
Further, I sensed that there was an unease about this proposal decreasing their flexibility to reformat their properties later (even though their ability to do so is extremely limited). Clearly, these people are not concerned about the character of the town. It’s downright scary that there are so many with these views.
Frankly, when I see something like this go down — where an extremely simple, logical proposal that strongly benefits the town is shot down by uninformed people — it just makes me worry for the future. That’s why we will be retiring down South.
What were other HOA meeting attendees’ impressions?
Doug: Believe me, condominiums are not a permitted use in Ocean Grove PERIOD. Just check the zoning schedule.
If something is not permitted it’s prohibited, and can only be permitted by variance if the use serves the public good, like a hospital, nursing home, etc.
You cannot just make up the zoning as you go along.
I think there is a pretty good way to keep the condo’s under control. The only places that can go condo are EXISTING inns and multi-families and they must keep the current footprint and historic facades, no height or footprint changes are allowed.
All the current inns have small hotel rooms and converting the space from that to condos will eat up a huge amount of square feet, I would guess something like 3 to one. So a hotel that has 15 rooms now would probably be converted to 5 condos, even with 2 cars per condo, it is still a decrease of 5 cars at peak season.
Meanwhile, NO condos are allowed on existing open spaces, only single family homes! Abandoned properties would be considered as vacant land and could only be replaced by single family homes.