By Paul Goldfinger, Editor and Jack Bredin, reporter/researcher @Blogfinger.net
If you have been following the Warrington Hotel story, you know that the owner of that Lake Avenue derelict structure wanted to turn the old building into a boutique hotel, and he did receive approvals from Neptune Township. But the fire in March, 2017 totally destroyed the property, leaving just a charred brick foundation. As a result, the prior approvals were null and void, so the owner would now be required to put up single family houses instead.
The back story on this is that the Warrington already was a flawed property, having been built on a lot that is not facing a street and without a documented easement to get access to Seaview Avenue. Before the fire there were two cottages that separated the Warrington from a Seaview Avenue frontage. The back of the property faces the Lake, but Lake Avenue is not a street.
In addition, the Federal ATF investigation of the fire is evidently still ongoing; at least we have heard no conclusions from that.
The owner of the hotel then brought a suit in Monmouth Superior Court against the Township last November, trying to get the pre-fire approvals for a hotel reinstated. But the Township insisted on following its Zoning Ordinances which forces such properties to be zoned single family, as occurred with the Manchester Inn on Ocean Pathway.
At last night’s Committee meeting, where the Warrington was not on the agenda, an inconvenient truth was revealed. It turns out that the Warrington suit had been dismissed two months ago. We say “inconvenient” because, like so many facts buried under a translucent shroud at the Mother Ship, this fact was not mentioned publicly since it occurred 2 months ago. A review of the APP archives shows no awareness of the dismissal.
And since more than 45 days have elapsed, it seems that the owner has not filed an appeal at the Appellate Division. In fact, given the need to enforce the landlock rules, RSIS parking laws, and the current zoning for single family, this property may now be good for nothing–ie a dead duck; not fit for any life on the shore of the Wesley Detention/Retention Basin.
The public learned about the dismissal last night from the Township Attorney when pressed by Blogfinger‘s reporter, Jack Bredin during the public session. The Township Clerk said that the law suit paperwork was available in his Neptune office.
The owner may have to take his plans, present and future, and follow Little Richard who says “ball it up” or “rip it up.” Maybe the site would make a lovely waterfront park or playground.
And the Township may be able to take some bows for doing the right thing for the Grove in this case.
LITTLE RICHARD:
J. I’m no expert on this, but I believe that the owner was already building condos at the Surf Ave. hotel site, so after the fire he was allowed to resume. If the Surf Ave hotel was still standing at the time of the fire, then I guess single family homes would have been required.–Paul
Hi Paul. So very happy that the Warrington property will now have to be developed according to the zoning ordinances. I don’t know if you remember but a few years back I had commented on the Surf Avenue fire that destroyed the hotel that was being converted into condos. After the fire I had assumed the approvals for the condo conversion would be null and void and only single family homes could be built on the site. This was obviously not the case as the owner (who also happened to own the Manchester site) was allowed to recreate a non conforming structure on the site – multiple condos with no parking accommodations. I believe the township attorney weighed in as to why this was allowed, but I can’t find any of this in the BF archives. I was wondering why the Manchester and Warrington sites were required to build single family homes but not the Surf Ave site??
In 1879 the Township let the CMA act as their own Municipality.
The CMA adopted and enforced their own land use procedures, including street closings on Sunday, and got away with it for 100 years.
In 1980 the court told them, this all must stop.
The CMA complied. The Township did not.
The Township simply substituted itself for the CMA and continued approving Site Plan and Subdivision applications, not guided by State Land Use Law, but rather pursuant to the CMA’s totally invalid Land Use Procedures.
After 138 years of disregarding State Land Use law, why, in this case involving the Warrington, did the Committee suddenly decide to obey the law?
Was it inspired by the Federal Investigation into the Warrington fire?