By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.net
The two owners of the former Aurora Hotel arrived at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting with a lawyer, an engineer, an architect, and a planner. Their main purpose was to change the zoning for the famous #6 Atlantic Avenue hotel from a “conforming” single family home into a multi-family “non-conforming” residence with “4 homes under one roof.” They promised to keep the exterior essentially unchanged while providing “substantial” changes to the interior.
No one seemed to disagree with the notion that the Aurora is a “key” historic structure in town which should be preserved. The architect said that the Aurora “is extremely iconic; among the top 3 such structures at the Library of Congress.”
The site plan was discussed briefly and consists of preserving the exterior of the building and, even, to make it look more authentic by removing some extraneous, non-historic features such as a fire escape. There would be two homes on top and two homes on bottom, separated by a fire wall. A fire suppression system would be installed, and there would be two elevators.
Two insignificant structures would be removed from the property: a garage and a storage shed.
Besides members of the ZBA, Neptune “professionals” were present including a lawyer, an engineer, and a planner. For the most part, they seemed to be just along for the ride in terms of where this hearing was heading.
Several Grovers were present and had a chance to ask questions but not offer opinions. They brought the only skepticism heard during that 3 hour meeting. The HPC chairwoman was there with her lawyer, but all she seemed to be worried about was her jurisdiction over demolitions. A representative of the Home Groaners was there, but not a word emanated from her lips.
The owner’s lawyer wanted to get on with receiving a use-variance, but that soon took a back seat to a heated discussion about parking which the developer hopes to create with 4 on-site spaces; but that would involve “stacking” or lining up the 4 vehicles in a row. Would the residents clash over access and egress to those 4 spaces? The Chairman said, “The residents will have to duke it out.” The lawyer said, “They’ll figure it out.”
Two neighbors were concerned about safety as the 4 cars pulled in and out, but their concerns were brushed aside.
The parking debate spilled over the edges as it was revealed that Neptune zoning laws demand no parking on site, even though the State demands 8 spaces. But the owner’s lawyer, a bit irritated, blew that off by saying that his side didn’t have to worry about any parking if it chose to follow the Neptune lead.
The traditional Neptune indifference to this topic was plainly evident. Jack Bredin was questioning the owner’s engineer and got him to admit that State law supersedes Neptune law in situations like this.
Historical preservation of the building was mentioned, but the main focus was on the idea that the Aurora should be chopped up into “4 homes.”
Initially the discussion focused on technical points such as fire suppression, flare pattern, parking, site plan, and where the AC units would be hidden.
But the real pivotal issue for the evening was whether changing the zoning to suit the Aurora’s new owners was best for Ocean Grove. Everyone knew that the current zoning was that of a single family house, but no one even mentioned the possibility that remodeling that building as a single family home might work very well for a variety of reasons.
Instead, it seemed a given, just by walking in the door, that the owners would get their requested nonconforming multifamily residence. How could they have been so certain when they bought the place that Neptune would fall all over themselves to give them what they want? After all, there are very large single family homes in the Grove and elsewhere all over the shore, as pointed out by Kevin Chambers, so why not at #6 Atlantic Avenue? Wouldn’t someone want to ensconce their large family in a magnificent large historic home by the sea?
The most interesting part of the meeting was when the owner’s planner was to explain why a multifamily use-variance should be awarded. He glibly said, in so many words, that there are many “special reasons” why granting the variance is essentially a no-brainer. His tone was “how could you possibly consider any other option?.” And no member of the board challenged this fundamental opinion, even though they should have.
The special reasons the planner offered were:
a. This site could easily accommodate 4 residences. Imagine, he said, if this were an empty lot, 4 homes could easily go there, but this point was irrelevant because it is not an empty lot.
b. A single family residence in this building is “not appropriate.” A multifamily use “makes much more sense.”
c. The new use is “inherently beneficial.” After all, he said, aren’t 12 bedrooms better than 32?
But even a new single family use now would involve downsizing the hotel rooms into a large residence with maybe 5-10 bedrooms. They did it for Mary’s Place. And don’t forget the Pine Tree Inn, 6 Ocean Avenue, and how about the Greek Temple? Also take a look at the large home at Heck and Ocean. spreading out from Heck to Main—a much bigger space than the Aurora, and it is a single family. And you can find such examples in all the towns around us; been to Asbury Park, Deal, Loch Arbor, and Spring Lake lately?
The planner argued that a 12 bedroom building would be better than a 32 bedroom building (“a significant improvement.”) creating a “density more consistent with the neighborhood.” But that is a red herring: the number of bedrooms would be reduced in any case.
d. The building would “deteriorate if left as is,” but why wouldn’t a new single family owner take good care of preserving it?
e. The applicant would install a fire suppression system and sprinklers. “There is a huge risk of fire as it is.” This is “a very important consideration.” But a single family owner could also fire-proof this house.
f. The applicant promises “a significant historic restoration.” But the discussion of historic restoration seemed only to put some frills on the wedding cake; to make the Grovers present satisfied.
As the meeting droned on, the owners lawyer became concerned that he might not have enough votes due to some absentee board members and he wanted to continue the meeting on another day so that he ostensibly could bring some more evidence in response to opinions just voiced.
The Neptuners agreed, so the owner’s team, minus the planner, will return for Round 2, on June 6 at 7:30 PM.
Maybe Grovers should demand that this variance be denied.
BILLIE HOLIDAY
Did you see that the Aurora rebuild is the Zoning Board’s agenda for June?
Editor’s note; Please read this article about the first ZBA meeting on May 4 in which no decision was made, and the owner’s lawyer asked that the matter be discussed further at the June meeting on June 6, 7:30 pm
The equal protection clause in the MLUL is very clear that an ordinance must take care to avoid any distinctions between property owners that are irrational or discriminatory. Federal and State constitutions (laws) require that persons similarly situated be treated equally.
In other words, all non-conforming single family lots in Ocean Grove must all be held to a single family use. The Board of Adjustment has never treated the residents of OG equally nor its nonconforming lots. This Board has always violated law in order to grant uses and density in violation of law.
OG’s zoning is irrational and discriminates against residents of OG. The fact that Neptune has refused to adopt State mandated RSIS requirements for OG while enforcing them for the rest of Neptune in order to protect residents out side of OG is a clear and disgusting show of discrimination and a clear violation of the civil rights of residents of OG.
Kevin Chambers
Does anyone here have a land use (or impact) attorney recommendation to fight this on behalf of the affected neighbor(s)? We were unable to attend because we were not in town in May, but we will be there in June. Want to come prepared. In God We Trust, all others bring data (and an attorney).
Regarding the parking, where else in OG is there off street parking like that which is being suggested? Is there another single family home that has been converted to a multli-unit dwelling where state law has required the developer to comply with its law over Neptune’s?
The rules of the Board that are printed in every agenda clearly show that developers have every right to present their application for a variance, while the neighbors who are trying to protect their property rights are discriminated against with the five minute rule.
There is no ‘equal standing’ before the Neptune Township Board of Adjustment.
The Court has ruled that all interested persons have the right to be heard and to cross-examine other witnesses. While the board chairman can reasonably control the length of time for presentations, particularly where they become repetitive, the chairman may not arbitrarily deny any objector the right to testify or make a statement or to cross-examine other witnesses.
Further, the Court has held that when a board has not allowed objectors the opportunity to address the full range of issues contained in an application, that the attorney effectively becomes an adversary of the applicant and therefore the board decision is a nullity. Both statements may be found within the MLUL.
This Court decision is very important for the following.
At the Aurora hearing the Township Attorney shouted down Mr. Breden to prevent him from entering into the record through the applicants expert that State law supersedes Neptune’s invalid parking ordinance. The Attorney and the Chairman, holding Mr. Breden to their 5 minute time limit became an adversary to the applicant. Their 5 minute time limit is meant to bully and stifle the public from bringing to the court a full hearing.
The Board may not grant variances for parking. Parking is required by state law. The Township Planner may not argue in defense of Neptune’s parking ordinance which is in violation of State and Federal law. The Township Attorney, whose job it is to uphold state law, should have informed the Planner that Neptune’s parking ordinance is in direct violation of law and in contempt of a Court order.
To have two officials violating law by preventing objectors from seeking the facts establishes that the Attorney and the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment are acting as true advocates the developer. This violates my right and every objectors right to a fair hearing.
Kevin Chambers
This proposal is a microcosm of everything wrong with the governance of Ocean Grove. I agree with Kevin – it’s spot zoning and should be illegal. But who will enforce if not the Township? The parking solution is totally impractical. And the exterior integrity of the structure should be the responsibility of the HPC. So the Chair wants to talk about jurisdictional control over demolitions? This is a very unique and key structure, and I doubt the final proposal will preserve the architecture as much as they want you to think right now. The HPC should preserve properties like this. And if they can’t do that, what can they do? Oppress weak homeowners while developers can do whatever they want? I’ll say it again, if historic preservation can’t be enforced uniformly, then let’s just get rid of it and treat all property owners equally.
If the Aurora can be chopped up into four condos, then any owner of a large single family house in “historic” OG should be permitted to chop up that house into a few apartments or condos.
In the 1980s and 1990s chopping up old houses in OG was not unusual. Walk around town (especially west of Central): where you see a large house that appears to be a single family home, check out the number of mailboxes.
I guess I was naive to believe that this practice was no longer allowed.
Editor’s note: This is how Neptune Township has permitted the condoization of Ocean Grove—over and over again, but maybe the residents OG might pivot on this and set a new precedent; and not allow it to happen to the Aurora.
Where are residents of that neighborhood? This project will increase density, not decrease it as the applicant would have us believe. If that building were marketed properly, someone would buy it as a single family house.
Variance relief should never be granted unless it can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and unless it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
Boards are the creatures of statute and may exercise only those powers granted by statute. Thus, at the most general level, their variance power is only a power to make exception from general zoning regulations, not to re-zone by the indirect means of granting variances.
The provisions of the ordinance purportedly granting power to a board of adjustment must be within the ambit of powers contained in and provided for by the MLUL.
In other words, the board has no right to re-zone this property for multi-family use. That is called illegal spot zoning.
This should have been stated to the Board members by the Township planner. Instead she kept silent. Clearly, the intent is to violate the MLUL and state law so a developer may make the greatest profit at the expense of the public.
Kevin Chambers
Town professionals failed to advise the Board that State parking standards require 8 on- site parking spaces, and even though local standards require no on-site parking, State standards supersede local standards.
In short words, the Board has no power to depart from State parking standards.
The Aurora site-plan provides zero on-site spaces, but their professionals advised 4 cars can fit bumper to bumper into a narrow side yard. In order to use the first car in, the other 3 must be backed out into a narrow street.
This would create pandemonium in the Summertime.
Just business as usual at the Board of Adjustment in Neptune Township where
The Committee ‘s slogan is ‘ WE NEED THE RATABLES’
The Manchester became single family homes; The Surf became condos (under suspicious circumstances), and The Warrington became nothing but a charred remnant, the centerpiece of a current lawsuit.
The Aurora’s zoning should not be changed. It’s time to agree on priorities in the Grove.
Planner’s point a – 4 homes if empty lot and point e – huge risk of fire as it is:
The new owner bought The Aurora with this plan in mind – to chop up a big old hotel into four condos. There is certainly precedent for this. One example is what Jack Green did on Ocean Pathway. The developer totally remakes the structure and sells the condos for a tidy profit. Then Neptune taxes several units for a total tax bill higher than what the tax bill would be for one large unit. And, of course, OGCMA gets a nice piece of the action by hitting the new condo owners with high “land rent” bills (a 2nd tax). Everyone wins while this historic 19th century building becomes a facade for 21st century condos.
If the new owner lacked confidence in his ability to persuade the committees to approve his plan, he could have hired the Manchester, Surf, Warrington arsonist (during OG fire month – March) to clear out the lot.