By Paul Goldfinger, Editor@Blogfinger.net
As usual, lawyers will seek to find some loophole to circumvent the Neptune land use ordinances, in this case to discover an “exception” to the rule about new driveways. But this time, the OGHOA has stood tall, studied the case, and is supplying talking points in opposition.
This ZBA meeting is Wednesday, April 5 at 7:30 pm.. Citizens should go to support the HOA in an effort to finally resist double standards and favoritism in Ocean Grove. It might actually be fun to witness this dispute.
What you see below is from an email sent by the OGHOA to its members. Hopefully their embrace of this issue signals a change in emphasis for that organization.
The Neptune Township Land Development Ordinance, at Section 412.06 G, reads as follows:
New driveways shall be prohibited in all Historic Zone Districts. (Emphasis added.)
The applicant seeks a use variance pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A 40:55D-70.c.
Parking, Driveways and Variances Talking Points: (HOA text)
- There is nothing “exceptional” about the property at 27 Heck. It is two standard 30’ x 60’ lots. The shape and dimensions of the lots do not limit the ability to use the property for construction of a single-family home.
- There is no “extraordinary situation” affecting the property. To the extent that the property is in an area with a short supply of on- street parking, that is the situation for most Ocean Grove residents.
- The proposed driveway is exactly what the Land Development Ordinance is designed to prevent. The driveway would encroach on the flared avenue open space area, a key feature of the Ocean Grove streetscape that was highlighted in the designation of Ocean Grove to the National Register of Historic Places.
- Because the property lacks a garage, presumably the purpose of the proposed driveway is to provide off-street parking. Using a driveway to park cars is not consistent with a 19th century streetscape.
- One condition of the grant of a variance is that the benefit of the variance to the applicant must be outweighed by the detriments of the variance. Construction of the driveway will reduce the amount of curb space available for on-street parking by one or more cars. The preservation of one or more parking spaces will not solve the parking problem in Ocean Grove; but, in a town where parking in the summer is an ever-increasing challenge, it certainly will not help.
- The proposed driveway would benefit one property owner. The board must weigh the disruption to the historic streetscape, the damage to the integrity of the zoning ordinance, and the elimination of one or more public parking spaces against that single driveway.
- Further, the board cannot ignore the disappointment of the vast majority of residents if the board declines to strictly enforce the ordinance.
And:
The application seeks to “construct a driveway which historically existed”. What “historically existed” at 27 Heck Avenue was not a driveway. The curb cut provided access to the loading dock at the Sampler Inn. Trucks backed up to the inn, unloaded their cargo, and drove away. The applicant intends that the proposed driveway be used for parking. That use did not historically exist at the Sampler Inn.
FIORELLO:
First of all, all of this new building is “a serious impediment to historic preservation,”because the new “Victorians” are not historic; they are new.
In many cases, if the original Victorian remains, the façade is all that is historic. Interiors look like garden apartments or loft spaces.
A cutout is really the least of my concerns.
Two questions:
1. Who, of our five Neptune Township Committeepeople, is on the zoning board?
2. Did the owner of 27 Heck donate to his/her campaign?
It is amazing and amusing how many people are arguing about one lousy driveway. It just illustrates how desperate our parking problem is in OG, especially during the summer.
The HOA had a parking committee and then the Neptune Township Committee organized a parking task force. And, after all the hot air, we get a few more diagonal parking spots on Main (farther from beach).
SAD
The curb cut is there, the state law is clear and has precedence over any HOA or neighborhood association. It historically was a driveway and any cars that park there are not in the summer competition for precious on street parking. Property rights of the owner should trump outsiders concerns. Score one for the Constitution!
The curb cut is pre-existing; State law requires off street parking.
It is the Townships zoning that is in contempt of Court. The Township will and should lose this in Court. Because the Townships zoning is in contempt of Court, all of the Township’s reports and testimony will also be in contempt of Court.
Therefore I support these Heck Avenue homeowners 100% on their application.
Kevin Chambers
Additional information: In 2015, the owners of these two lots consolidated the two into one.
The old curb cut would determine the location of any approved driveway.
But when the Sampler was demolished, all associated uses were removed for that property. Would that rule out a historic (ie “grandfathered”) argument for a driveway approval? Or would a use variance make this driveway approvable?
Aggravated Curmudgeon is wrong. This was not a driveway intended for parking a car over long periods of time. It was a loading dock for a hotel that no longer exists (not a single family home).
Since the cutout has not been in use for years, and since the business it used to serve is gone for good, it does not qualify to be grandfathered in. The master plan clearly states no driveways.
It is exactly in situations like this where the law says that things simply revert back to the intent of the master plan. Why allow this one person special dispensation to inconvenience so many others and build something that is not in the character, or even the existing master plan, of the town?
Thanks Fran: I kept re-reading that but without a clear conclusion–now we know. Hopefully there is someone from the HOA who reads BF and gets in touch with us for a correction.
Sorry, but I am going to side with the homeowner on this one. The cutout is there, and the owner bought the house that way.
I find the argument that the cutout was used for access to a loading dock at the Sampler and is therefore not a “driveway” unconvincing. Did a vehicle use it to exit the street and drive on it? That sounds like a driveway to me. The homeowner should have the same access, and paving it to support a car is not a major alteration.
And the car could be parked forward enough to limit exposure to the “flare”. At some point common sense needs to prevail.
I think the word “not” is missing in the fifth talking point from the OGHOA. It would make more sense if it read, “One condition of the grant of a variance is that the benefit of the variance to the applicant must NOT (my emphasis) be outweighed by the detriments of the variance.”
From the picture – it looks like potentially a big driveway how many cars could be parked there? If it is more than 1 doesn’t that help the parking situation in OG? – otherwise those cars will be on the street.
It is ironic that RSIS parking standards would permit this driveway since those standards require on-site parking for a new single family house. But Neptune has ignored those standards, and it would be double dealing to invoke RSIS rules in this case.
This is why Jack Bredin tried to get the HOA to support the idea to exempt single family homes from the standards in order to forbid driveways which are serious impediments to historic preservation.
However, in a bizarre twist of the knife, the HOA membership defeated Jack’s motion, and the leadership did not support his “out of the box” solution.
In addition to just showing up, it is important that during the public portion, you MUST go to the podium, give your name and address for the record, and tell the Board if you are in favor of against the proposed driveway.
The Members of the Board cannot consider anything that “is not on the record.”