Paul Goldfinger, Editor, Blogfinger.net. And Jack Bredin, researcher. July 1, 2020. Ocean Grove, NJ
Shouldn’t the North End Redevelopment Plan be above reproach? Shouldn’t the Township make sure that the process is ethically clean and legally sound? Is the Committee sure that this project complies with the “Local Redevelopment and Housing Laws?”
The Neptune Committee is ultimately responsible for all this. Their official name is the “Redevelopment Entity,” so the buck stops there. Have they been doing their due diligence?
Many questions have come up and no answers have been forthcoming to reassure the residents of Ocean Grove regarding the North End. Why go ahead with this project while so many eyebrows have been raised and so many questionable procedures uncovered?
We have obtained the only North End Redevelopers Agreement to ever be signed by a Neptune Mayor, and Carol Rizzo performed that deed on October 3, 2019.
The North End Plan was completed in 2008 and signed into law by the Neptune Township Committee. It remains the only legitimate plan into 2020, and we wonder if Carol Rizzo actually read those 90 pages in her contract.
The Agreement, a contract between Neptune Township and the redevelopers WAVE/OGNED was pushed through after negotiations in a backroom somewhere.
Here are some worrisome aspects that we have spoken about on Blogfinger including some new findings from the Rizzo contract:
a. In the Rizzo Redevelopers Agreement it says, “It is anticipated that the Project will provide many positive effects on the community.” Do you believe that? (page 38)
b. It says that the “final site plan submitted to the Planning Board shall comply with the original Redevelopment Plan.” But we believe that the current site plan does not remain true to the gold standard 2008 NERP. For example, instead of 165 residential units, the count is now 40 in the hotel, 39 condominiums and 10 single family homes, totaling 89. The issue is not whether one number is better than another, but the contract requires that this 2020 plan conform to the 2008 plan and it does not.
Other areas of nonconformity include elevations which appear to be way off, especially around the boardwalk. And some lots were carved out of the project including boardwalk, Wesley Lake, and Pavilion components. This site plan is smaller and is significantly incongruous with 2008.
Do you think OGNED reduced the size of the project for altruistic reasons? Don’t buy into that. They should not have made any changes without going through land-use procedures.
c. Mayor Rizzo failed the people of Ocean Grove when she signed that document.
d. The contract says that the project presented now must “be in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan” of 2008. It says that there must be a “consistency determination” between the original 2008 plan and the current one, and at the Planning Board meeting November 2019, the Township Engineer swore that they were consistent, but she spoke for about 30 seconds and got out of there lickety- split.
The OGNED lawyer backed her up, but neither of them defined “consistency” for those present. We believe that there are unsupportable changes from the old to the new, and no fast talking lawyer can brush that off.
e. Why don’t they make the required traffic study public..it has to do with parking and traffic?
f. None of the biggies who are pushing this project along have shown due respect for the HPC. The HPC doesn’t like the plan and says it is not historical and won’t be good for the Grove in a variety of ways.
The law says that the HPC must bless this project with a “Certificate of Appropriateness.” But what will happen if the HPC refuses to do so, and they should refuse?
We sent some information about the HPC’s opinions to the HPO (Historic Preservation Office) in Trenton. They expressed interest in our HPC’s views.
g. And finally, the Rizzo contract gives these people 5 years to finish the job. Can our citizens stand for 5 years of construction over there?
Someone or some Grover organization should sue to make sure this project is carefully investigated, including the original designation as a “zone in need of redevelopment.”
Another possible wrecking ball may be served up by the DEP. Or maybe the Attorney General’s office since the AG is the lawyer for the DEP.
We need to pay attention and make some noise:
THE BEATLES:
And while the Attorney General’s office is at it,
they should take a look at the County Democrats
who seem to control who sit on the Township Committee who support the big developers.