The Whitfield Hotel in 2015. The front of the lot is on Surf Avenue facing north (60.5 feet wide). The back is on Bath Avenue, facing south (60.5 feet). The side is 103 feet long on Beach Avenue facing the ocean. This property, #20 Surf Avenue in OG, is zoned for one lot (Block 113, Lot 10.)
4 foundations on one lot, seen here from Surf Avenue, are not permitted. Photo by Stephen Goldfinger on 3/18/17. Blogfinger staff.©
This is a view taken from Beach Avenue showing the separation between foundations. . By Stephen Goldfinger 3/19/17 ©
This is the second installment of “The Case of the Notorious Whitfield Hotel.”
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger and Jack Bredin, Researcher @Blogfinger
Not only are there now 4 foundations on that one lot site, but those lots would have to be undersized. 30 x 60 is the minimum lot size requirement for Ocean Grove. The size of the rectangular Whitfield site is 103 feet long, and four regulation lots would need a minimum of 120 feet along each side. But the Whitfield lots would have to fit into 103 feet, and they are, by definition, undersized.
Everyone we have spoken to, including Township officials, residents who live near the Whitfield, and concerned Grovers tell us that the Whitfield site will become 4 detached single family homes, and almost everyone seems delighted. But should they be?
The excavation has begun, and we now know that there are four foundations. And a source tell us that the developer has been officially “approved” for placing 4 homes at that site. But who allowed work to begin without a 4 lot subdivision being blessed by the Neptune Township Planning Board?
We asked around and learned, mostly from people in the know, that Bernard Haney, the long-standing Tax Assessor in Neptune Township, who also wears a second hat, that of Land Use Administrator, was responsible for that decision.
Bernard Haney, Neptune Twp.Tax Assessor and Land Use Administrator. Blogfinger photo c.2015. Neptune Twp Municipal Bldg. ©
Here is how the procedure should work. First the developer orders a survey map of the property. The survey map shows the exact size of the lot, and the map is used to prepare a site plan/subdivision.
This is a plan which shows where the buildings will be “sited” on the subdivided property pursuant to the zoning and the subdivision ordinance. The site plan is part of an application for development and is to be filed with the Township Building Department.
The site plan is then prepared and signed by a licensed professional who in this case would clearly show on the cover page that the applicant wants to subdivide the property into 4 undersized (nonconforming) lots.
However, the problem is that there is no type of variance or procedure that would permit a conforming lot to be subdivided into any nonconforming lots.
The application should have been referred to the Planning Board for a public hearing, but that referral was never made. We checked with the Planning Board secretary who verified that she was not instructed to schedule a hearing on the Planning Board agenda.
Approved subdivisions are recorded on the tax map under the supervision of the Township Engineer. As such, the Township Engineer should have been asked to review the plan and prepare a written report for the Planning Board. The Neptune Engineer said she received no such request.
We learned that after the subdivision approval, the approved plan was sent to the Building Department to issue permits for the 4 single family houses, or, at least, for the foundation work which is now in progress.
It appears that the current 2014 tax map, which clearly shows one existing lot at the Whitfield site, not four, was ignored. That lot would ordinarily require a subdivision if more than one single family house is proposed.
We were told that Mr. Haney decided that after the demolition, the current empty lot would automatically revert to an 1879 tax map which showed 4 lots and to declare that the 2017 post demolition lot was already subdivided into 4 lots.
This maneuver by the Township appears to be a technique to allow 4 single family houses to be built on a lot where only 3 can be permitted.
Even if this method of circumventing the usual approach to subdivisions turns out to be acceptable, the application still should have been referred to the Planning Board.
Do you suppose that this is a well traveled highway in Ocean Grove? Have we now lost that loving feeling in our town, or did it disappear a long time ago?
ELVIS:
From Jack Bredin, Blogfinger researcher: I recall in 2012 Mr. Cuttrell also said, “The North End Redevelopment had all the necessary approvals.”
Of course, it did not, but this was the Township’s position.
Mr. Cuttrell is a loyal professional municipal employee, like every other professional employed by the Governing Body, such as the Attorney, the Planner, the Engineer, the Administrator, etc.
It is their responsibility to support all decisions by the Township.
I do not agree with Mr. Cuttrell’s opinion.
Re: “Grandfathering in a four lot subdivision from the 19th century is improper.”
I sent an email yesterday to Rick Cuttrell, our Municipal Clerk, asking whether the Whitfield lot has been subdivided recently, and he graciously gave me permission to post his reply here:
From Rick Cuttrell, Neptune Township Clerk.
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:36 AM
“I checked with our Land Use Department on your question. They advise that the property was 4 separate lots up until the new tax maps were put into effect on 1/1/2015. At that time the four lots were consolidated into one lot for tax assessment purposes since at the time one single structure covered all four lots.
“There are also four land leases from the OGCMA, one for each of the four lots.
“Given that the four separate lots were consolidated by the Township for tax assessment purposes, the Land Use Administrator made a decision to allow property to be treated as four separate buildable lots.
“On a separate note, but relating to the same property, someone recently asked me about the lots being “undersized” because the lots measure approximately 30×51 versus the 30×60 lot size requirement for Ocean Grove. Many of the lots east of Central Avenue are less than 60 feet in depth because of the historic flare.
“The Township zoning ordinance addresses this scenario in Section 413.06e which states in part, “For lots east of Central Avenue, except those fronting Olin and McClintock Streets, the lot area and lot depth requirement shall be measured from the curb line rather than the property line. A calculation of building and lot coverage requirements shall be based on the resultant lot area”.
Before the demolition, this property only had one lot. In order to get more lots on that property you need a subdivision.
Grandfathering in a four lot subdivision from the 19th century is improper.
As for whether it’s better to have a rundown hotel or four houses there is not the question facing us today.
Instead the question should be why do we have an illegal subdivision occurring on this property?
Blogfinger: Re: “Daniel: Yes, but….what about the subdivision issue?”
What subdivision issue? The 4 lots are full sized lots, just like every other lot on the block. There’s no encroachment on the flare. It’s better for the community to have 4 houses there instead of a run-down hotel.
And to respond to Oh My’s comment about 3 single family homes being proposed for the Whitfield site — I don’t know where s/he heard that. I attended the HPC demolition hearings for the Whitfield and the HPC meetings for the proposed structures and never heard any proposal other than 4 single family homes for the site.
Is Main Street actually zoned the same as our residential lots? Isn’t it zoned for commercial use? I don’t think it could be zoned to default to single family.
Yes, indeed — if you look at the Neptune zoning map for Ocean Grove, the zone for 50 Main is HDB1 (Historic District mixed use). For the Whitfield, it is HD-0 — HIstoric District Ocean Front. (Zoning Map is at http://www.neptunetownship.org/sites/default/files/archive/documents/NEPTUNE_ZONING_MAP_Ocean_Grove.pdf) If you read the “permitted uses” of property zoned HDB1, it states “Purpose. The HD-B-1 Zone District serves as the commercial core for the Ocean Grove portion of the Township, and intends to serve the specific retail sales and service needs of local residents and seasonal visitors. This Zone District also acknowledges the suitability of residential uses located at upper stories of mixed-use buildings, with the
ground story devoted to permitted uses in the district.” (p. 114, Neptune Township Land Development Ordinance). So, no, 50 Main would not be expected to revert to single family, it could be rebuilt as a mixed use building with retail and residential aspects.
Not surprised. Happens all the time with Mr.Haney. He finds a story to back whatever he wants to do. Kevin is correct in that the Board of Adjustment should have heard these arguments. They fail as well sometimes. -See variances given at 27 Surf. (like infiltrating the Historic Flare.)
I wonder what the OGCMA (the Ocean Grove Counting Money Association,) will charge in land rent for these four lots. $10.50? $21? Or hundreds of dollars as has been their pattern for new construction?
Neptune Township gets four more taxable properties.
Everyone wins, except us.
The flare has been encroached on for years. Sometimes in a seemingly minor way; other times more flagrant. The most egregious example is the condo building erected after the Surf Ave fire. Stand on the north side of Surf at Ocean and look inland. The setback can been seen at work until you reach that building. It’s not just a few inches of encroachment, it’s measured in feet.
It’s not just the flare that’s involved, either. Variances were granted regarding the RSIS regulations and height.
When the demo of the Whitfield was first announced it was said that it would be replaced with 3 single family homes. How did that morph into 4?
Editor’s note: Really? Do you have that in writing anywhere?—Paul @Blogfinger
Meshach: If you are a resident of OG, your frustration is understandable, because this sort of game-playing has been going on for a long time in the Grove.
We will soon be posting the story of an OG house during the 1980’s when the Zoning Department in Neptune was trying to pull a “fast one,” and when such manipulation succeeds, all of us in town suffer in a variety of ways.
However, in that instance, citizens fought back, and….well you will see what happened.
So being vigilant and trying to fight back is the only sensible approach to situations where crime seems to pay. According to the “broken window” theory of crime fighting, society needs to oppose even the smallest transgressions (such as ignoring zoning ordinances) in order to avoid the larger variety.
Paul @Blogfinger
Daniel R. Grayson: You say there are 4 conforming lots “after taking into account the setback from the sidewalk.”
That would not apply to the first 2 blocks in OG.
As Dr. Carol points out, along the first 2 blocks of OG there is a “historic setback.”
This is a separate lot owned by the OGCMA and is part of the pedestrian right-of-way.
Both you and Dr. Carol are suggesting that this separate lot can be included when calculating the size of the Whitfield lot, thus creating enough land for a four lot subdivision.
According to the office of the Tax Assessor, this is not true. The size of every lot is on the tax map and in the tax book.
Most people who buy these expensive, million-dollar homes don’t spend any real time in the town, anyway. What difference does it make?
They are not Grovers, they are investors! Who cares if there are four “single family homes,” or ten. They are not really “single family homes,” because there are no real “families.” They are just empty buildings, owned by who knows, like those in Deal and Spring Lake.
Likely rented on websites to some unknown vacationers, or held for future sales. So there is no real concern for the nature of the town, just a blind equivocation of wealthy people and progress.
Who really cares anymore? The powers that be will always be….
Let’s make sure we get every square inch of the town covered. That’s what happens when you put the fox in charge of the hen house.
Dr. Carol and Daniel: Yes, but….what about the subdivision issue?
We will undoubtedly get more feedback on the sizing matter.
—PG @Blogfinger
Very few of the lots in the first two blocks are 30×60 — the Camp Meeting owns the setback, which is a triangular lot with the wide end towards the beach. The lots west of the Whitfield are 30×55, the next lots are 30×57, etc. If you include the setback, the lots are all 60′ deep.
No, the 4 lots are not undersized. Lot #10 is 60 feet wide and 106 feet deep. The 60 feet will accommodate two standard 30 foot width lots on Bath and two on Surf. The depth is standard, too, after taking into account the setback from the sidewalk.
A similar situation occurred when Haney’s department was granting zoning permission for Mary’s Place. They allowed that developer to put together two lots and to construct a large building under the dubious zoning category of “community shelter: terminally ill” which was a state category to override the town zoning in certain special circumstances.
The zoning official who worked for Haney told us that no variances would be necessary nor would any appearance before the Planning Board or the ZBA.
Mr. Haney states that after the building was removed that the single lot reverts back to the four OGCMA lots. If that is the case, why didn’t the lot on Main Ave revert to two lots when that building burned?
There is a serious problem going on here which is that Mr. Haney is granting variances and sub-divisions where he doesn’t have zoning power. If this is the case where the four lots reappear on Surf Avenue, than the same should have applied for #50 Main Avenue* and those two lots should have been held to two units each.
This is a very serious issue because it is now clear that the public and I were denied a fair hearing at the Board of Adjustment, and I was denied a fair hearing in court.
Kevin Chambers
*Editor’s Note: Mr. Chambers is referring to the fire on Feb. 6, 2015 at #50-54 Main Avenue which destroyed a 3 story building. The new replacement structure contains 6 residential units on the 2nd and 3rd floors. The building will also house a variety of commercial businesses. —-PG
They invoked the ‘better than what was there’ clause. It’s been used many times.
Not all neighbors are delighted to have 4 cookie cutter homes shoehorned into a lot on a block that already has more than its fair share of condos. But really, what can we do? Thanks for explaining how things work around here.