This fascinating 2011 post by Charles Layton discusses the quest to turn two OG hotels into condos. One was successful. Bernie Haney is still in charge of zoning at the Mother Ship.
By Charles Layton
The new owner of the Surf Avenue hotel, which burned on Friday, remains legally free to pursue his plan to build condominiums on the site, says Bernard Haney, Neptune’s land use administrator.
That’s because the zoning variance for condos had already been granted before the fire took place, Haney said in an interview. He said the Zoning Board of Adjustment had granted the variance and the Superior Court and Appellate Division had both upheld that decision. Furthermore, he said, the deadline for an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court has expired, which means the Zoning Board’s decision is final.
Developer Hans Kretschman recently bought the old, run-down hotel at 27 Surf Avenue from Heinz Weck with the intention of turning it into nine condominiums.
Work had already begun on the condo conversion project when last Friday’s fire destroyed that building along with seven adjacent houses and damaged five other houses. The website of Kretschman’s company, PH Properties, contains the above rendering along with a note saying completion of the condo project was expected to be finished in the fall of this year. It is unknown how much the fire will set back that timetable.
Following Friday’s fire, there was uncertainty on the part of some in Ocean Grove as to whether the zoning of the property at 27 Surf might revert to single family homes, because that is what happened last year when the Manchester Inn on Ocean Pathway burned down.
The Manchester had also been purchased by Kretschman, also for the purpose of conversion to condominiums. Kretschman had applied for a variance that would have allowed him to turn the Manchester into condos. However, at the time of the Manchester fire — March 13 of 2010 — Kretschman’s application had not received final approval, Haney said. Therefore, by law, the plan for conversion to condos went out the window and zoning of the property reverted to single family.
Before Kretschman can carry through with the building of condos at the 27 Surf site, he will still have to submit specific plans to the Neptune Zoning Department, Haney said. Following that, he will also need the Historic Preservation Commission’s approval.
Kretschman’s company, located at 6 Ocean Avenue in Ocean Grove, specializes in residential real estate mainly in coastal Monmouth County and in New York City and Westchester.
SIPPIE WALLACE:
On March 15, Monica Kowalski wrote “Since there were parking waivers granted at the time of the original hearing, they stand as well.”
I reviewed the “Resolution of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Neptune” for 27 Surf Avenue dated November 3, 2006.
It lists the use variances granted, the bulk variances granted and the design waivers granted. There is no mention of parking waivers.
Monica, can you please tell me and others the name and date of the document that states that parking waivers were granted. I would like to get a copy of it. I understand you are very busy and I appreciate any help you can provide.
Thank you,
Mary
As an non-resident of Ocean Grove, I have to wonder why no one has brought the matter of Neptune’s lack of attention to the parking issue to a legal entity for exploration. Isn’t it the job of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and take the appropriate action to enforce laws that are being violated by local politicians and zoning boards? Has anyone in this community thought to have the prosecutor get a court order to stop all construction until a solution to the parking has been found?
Let’s not let another shore town lose its character and quaint flavor. This town is one of the few left to have so much charm and quality of life. Out-of-control parking will destroy some of that quality for the local homeowners and citizens.
What is a parking waiver? Does it mean we can park on top of each other if we need to??
I hate to be flip at this time, but how can it be that hundreds of pages of documents about a property in disrepair and severe neglect, didn’t save a neighborhood from horrific fire, and my neighbors from severe emotional distress and loss of their homes?
Density is the issue.
We don’t need more condos–condos that are motivated by greed from both the township in terms of ratables and the Camp Meeting Association in terms of escalating ground rental assessments.
The future: single family homes.
Crucial: what will the new master plan provide?
Pleased to see the Homeowners Association has finally set up a committee to deal with that issue.
When the State makes them and not before that.
Since the bungalow (at bottom right in the render) was gutted in the fire, would it be unreasonable at this point to utilize that space (through to Spray Ave) as a parking lot for the residents of 27 Surf condos? The no-off-street-parking rule, being inflexibly applied, is a serious contributor to parking problems.
Monica Kowalski states, regarding the Surf Avenue condo project,” Since there were parking waivers granted at the time of the original hearing, they stand as well.”
A question for Mary Beth or anyone else on the Township Committee who cares to reply:
When is Neptune going to enforce the RSIS that was handed down to them for parking?
Yes Charles, they are. By all means…request the transcripts, read through the entire records, review the exhibits, read through the trial transcripts and briefs and perhaps you will have satisfaction to the questions that you ask. (Just like any good investigative reporter) Once again, you are getting stuck on a designation and would still have to apply that to the law for interpretation. If life were that simple (the black and white approach), there wouldn’t be shades of grey. I can tell you there were no misrepresentations made to the Court by me as my work is based on the records below, directly from transcripts. I do not believe that the designation or the answers you seek are as important in land use law as the information provided during the hearings as a whole. The Appellate Division agreed. That is as much as I am going to say on this issue. It does not pay to dwell on the “what ifs” here as the time for appeals and recriminations has long since passed.
Well said, Monica. But all I want to know is, was the property listed in the tax records as a single-family residence in order to avoid fire safety inspections? Or was it really and truly a single-family residence? And if the latter, was it falsely represented to the ZBA (and the court) as being a hotel? If it was falsely represented, what are the implications of that? Or, if it was in fact a hotel, then why wasn’t it inspected? These are not unreasonable questions. Are they?
27 Surf Ave. has morphed so many times from single family home to hotel that we on Surf and Atlantic Avenues aren’t sure that anyone ever payed much attention to what was said by whom at any of the Board of Adjustment hearings. It has not appeared to be a hotel for many years and yet was repeatedly stated to be so, even though the tax records show otherwise.
I and many of the surrounding neighbors can repeat some of the (for lack of a better word) in-correct statements made regarding this situation: check the records. Mr. Weck was in fact living there until early this fall.
Wow….what a load of speculation and accusation. I sat with this case for three years of hearings, trials, appellate division briefs, oral argument and an ultimate decision upholding the decision on behalf of the Board of Adjustment. It is interesting and saddening to listen to the “Monday Quarterbacks” dissect the events of three years in three paragraphs. The law pertaining to land use cannot be quantified by a “designation” of a hotel/single family use. That may be how it is interpreted for purposes of a fire inspection, but when you are discussing an adaptive reuse of a non-conforming structure, there are ALOT of considerations to be made, such as the “historic” nature and use of the property. If you look at the rendering provided for the proposed project, you can compare it to the post card (yes, they had a post card) from the 1800’s as to the facade of the building and what it looked like then….the original developer’s who were involved in the litigation (NOT Kretschman) provided these renderings and put forth the case. So, now after variances have been granted and affirmed by the Appellate Division, people are discussing whether or not the project has to conform or be re-submitted. While I am not making any determination for the Township at this time, nor have I been asked to, I will tell you that variances, when granted, RUN WITH THE LAND, not the building situated upon them. There is substantial Appellate Division precedent that if a building burns down after variances were granted, it can be reconstructed according to plan. The variances will continue to stand (and have already been upheld by the Appellate Division of the State) and, if the current developer chooses to continue, will in all liklihood, be able to rebuild per the plans submitted. Since there were parking waivers granted at the time of the original hearing, they stand as well.
This is another terrible tragedy for our town. The loss of property on everyone’s behalf is horrific. However, knowing the individual members of the construction crew, their commitment to the town and the fact that one injured individual is our newly elected fire commissioner, past fire chief and long standing member of our fire department, should at least assure some individuals that the site was clean during construction. These individuals took pride in their work and their town. How the fire happened is a question to be answered, but in this instance, I truly doubt it was through neglect. I am simply asking all of you to really check into your facts before these postings. To all who were involved in the fire, and who have been affected by the tragedy, my thoughts and prayers are with you.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is the attorney for the Neptune Zoning Board.)
OK, if what Mary says above is true, it looks like the Township owes an explanation. According to the Asbury Park Press, in a story on Sept. 14, 2010, the property at 27 Surf had not been inspected for 15 years because, technically, it was not a hotel, it was a single family home. (The APP story is reprinted on this blog; see “Neighbors Feared Surf Avenue Hotel Was a Fire Hazard.”)
The story quotes land use administrator Bernard Haney as saying, “Fire inspections are done by the Division of Community Affairs on commercial properties only. In 1995/96, the property owner went to the Division of Community Affairs to list the property as [a] nonoperating hotel. When a property becomes a single-family home, there are no more inspections. It’s no different than any other single-family home, only that it’s big.”
According to neighbors, the former owner, Heinz Weck, was living in the hotel alone during much of that time. So it really seems to have been, de facto, a single-family home.
Yet Mary, in the comment above, says that when the Zoning Board voted to change the property’s zoning to condominium, the board was told that the property was a hotel. And, she says, in a suit in Superior Court, it was also claimed that the property was a hotel.
As Mary puts it: “The township told the public it was decreasing the density from a hotel to condos, when in fact the density was increasing, from a single family home to condos.”
If Mary is right and Haney is also right about how the property was classified, then it seems at the very least that the zoning change was obtained under false pretenses. Therefore, the zoning change to condos should be invalid, should it not?
Discuss.
When this building went before the Zoning Board to convert to condos, the public was told that it was a hotel. Neptune Township told the courts in the court case that it was a hotel. Yet it was listed at that time as a single family home in the property tax records. I believe it had not been licensed as a hotel for more than 10 years before the Zoning Board meeting. The township told the public it was decreasing the density from a hotel to condos when in fact the density was increasing, from a single family home to nine condos.
When residents asked for a fire inspection they were told the structure was a single family home and the township couldn’t inspect it. Yet the township had told the courts it was a hotel.
I would like the township to investigate this matter and find out why the public and courts were lied to.
I believe the condos were permitted because it was a restoration of an historic hotel. Well that reason doesn’t exist anymore. There are three lots at that location and they should become single family homes.
RSIS is required and I hope the OGHOA will start addressing this issue.
It would be a real JOKE if Neptune again allows construction of new condos on Surf Ave without parking.
When is Neptune going to enforce the RSIS that was handed down to them for parking? How can they constantly allow new construction without parking?
The residents have to bear the burden of parking due to Neptune’s greed for rateables.
Those of us who own homes on Surf Avenue that no longer exist, as well as those on Atlantic Ave., have been in contact on many occasions with Mr. Haney and all others involved with the disaster on Surf Ave., which could and should have been prevented. We are blessed that there was no loss of life or injury.
(EDITOR”S NOTE: Gail Morrell lived at 33 Surf Avenue, one of the homes destroyed in Friday’s fire.)