Blogfinger

March 4, 2024:

At the February 26th meeting of the Neptune Township Committee, statements were made that the Committee relied on in its deliberations to approve or not approve the agreement to settle OGNED’s lawsuit against the Township. Certain of those statements were inaccurate or misleading. If we had had an opportunity to address those assertions prior to your vote, the results may very well have been different.

We focus on five of the most consequential statements:

1. If the Committee does not approve the settlement, the Township will lose control over the development.

Not accurate. Even if the Township loses in court, OGNED remains bound by the existing Redevelopment Agreement, and any changes to that agreement must be approved by the Planning Board and the Township Committee.

2. All of the HPC’s issues with the Redevelopment Plan (except for a railing modification and prohibition on flat roofs) have been satisfactorily addressed in the Settlement Agreement.

Not accurate. The most significant issues raised by the HPC in its 82-page resolution declining to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness are not addressed in the settlement agreement. These include the mass and design of the condominium buildings and hotel; oversized buildings; design features; the use of inset decks instead of porches; faux mansard roofs; projections from the rooftop; and the use of dormers instead of gables.

3. Public concerns unrelated to the HPC review (e.g., parking, fire and safety, storm water management, and a seven-year construction timeline) are “off the table” and cannot be changed.

Not accurate. OGNED and Neptune have been engaged in a renegotiation of the Redevelopment Agreement for over a year. OGNED negotiated changes to the Redevelopment Plan, and nothing prevents the Township from doing the same.

4. The settlement protects the community by restricting the hours of operation of the roof decks.

Not accurate and misleading. The deed restrictions offered by OGNED (which apply to roof decks on the hotel and the large condominium building, but not to private roof decks) are ineffective to protect the community because they are only enforceable by members of the

1

condominium association. Because the Township chose deed restrictions instead of an ordinance, the restrictions are not enforceable by the police or neighbors. Most importantly, they do not address the design deficiencies identified by the HPC.

5. The HPC lacks authority to prohibit flat roofs.

Not accurate. All exterior design elements are within the scope of the HPC’s authority. By ordinance, the HPC is responsible for (a) ensuring compliance with the Design Guidelines; and (b) considering the impact of proposed construction on the historic preservation and enhancement of neighboring properties and the Ocean Grove Historic District as a whole.

Neptune’s decision regarding the North End threatens Ocean Grove’s status as a historic district and is unequal treatment under the law. The Design Guidelines, by ordinance and under constitutional law, are to be uniformly applied without discrimination. If the Township Committee decides that flat roofs and roof decks designed for parties and events are permitted in one location, they will have to be permitted throughout the Historic District. The Township’s decision to enforce the requirement for HPC approval against every property owner, except OGNED, opens the courtroom door to anyone who is denied a Certificate of Appropriateness.

___________________________ Barbara Burns

___________________________ Eileen Michaels

____________________________ JP Thompson

Very truly yours,

______________________________ Robert Ingato

______________________________ Marybeth Robb

______________________________ Kathleen Zebrowski