grass, weed, pot, hash, tea, ganja, cannabis and other synonyms. It all spells getting high. APP photo.
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.net
Legalization of marijuana for recreational use is favored by the Asbury Park Council. They see major dollar signs as well as social progress.
The Governor wants this, and A. Park wants a piece of the action. But it may take over a year for the legislation to be hammered out in Trenton and then locally.
It is not our intent on Blogfinger to report on this subject except as it pertains to Ocean Grove. As we have noted before, OG and A. Park are culturally quite different, but, in some ways, they do complement each other.
However, we suspect that this particular issue will be viewed negatively in the Grove as it pertains to our quiet, family oriented historic town which might find itself as an entry point into a pot paradise to the north.
Also, the allure of A. Park will magnify the current problem which we already inherit from them regarding the park-and-walk habits of A. parkers who love the free ride on OG’s already gridlocked narrow streets.
According to the Asbury Park Press, “Asbury Park is often viewed as a bastion of social progressivism, with an all-Democrat City Council, a strong arts and entertainment scene as well as large minority and LGBT populations.
“Its support for marijuana legalization and sales isn’t new. Two years ago the city backed a resolution that supported legalization of marijuana in the state.”
Asbury Park Press piece dated April 4, 2018:
“Asbury Park is one of only two cities in New Jersey where officials have talked openly about the opportunities associated with opening a legal weed dispensary. That enthusiasm — coupled with the city’s location and reputation — could turn the City by the Sea into one of the state’s epicenters for legal weed, New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association President Hugh O’Beirne said.
“The city has a “natural advantage” with its location, a relatively northern Jersey Shore destination with a much easier ride for travelers from North Jersey and New York, O’Beirne said. The town of less than two square miles has a population of 16,000 people.
“Further, it’s already a “cultural destination” that is drawing marijuana users – just without a legal place for them to purchase weed. In its 2017 Cannabis Attitudes Survey, New Frontier Data reported that 22 percent of respondents nationwide said they’d be more interested in visiting a state with legal weed.”
THE FRATERNITY OF MAN “Don’t Bogart That Joint” from the soundtrack of Easy Rider.
Amateur historical architects are already raving about this home under construction on Ocean Avenue—a work in progress. Our consultant has a one word review of this project so far, “WOW!”
Johnny on the spot evokes the old days when there were outhouses. We assume that there will eventually be indoor plumbing.
Besides the welcoming sight of this single family home going up where condominiums were once proposed—at the Manchester Inn location before it was destroyed by fire, other new Victorians (four of them) are actively under construction at the Whitfield Hotel site (Bath and Surf Avenues.) Recently #19 Bath Avenue reached the market at $1.25 million. #17 was similarly priced. As far as we can tell, no condos are presently in the works.
The owner of the Warrington who is suing the Township because he wants a hotel (? or condos) on his Lake Avenue property, the site of a huge fire last March which destroyed that hotel, might take notice of what happened to the Manchester and the Whitfield, and back off—choosing instead to put up one or two single family homes over there as well.
It would be good if the OGCMA (who owns all the land in town) would pay attention to the Master Plan and support the Single Family Homes in the Grove Movement–to join with the citizens of Ocean Grove who are solidly behind that concept.
The CMA might begin by pressuring the Warrington owner to change his vision for that site and then top it off by withdrawing their support for the aggressive and destructive North End Redevelopment Plan.
After the Park View Inn was demolished in the summer of 2016, Blogfinger wrote some articles regarding the fate of that property. The Planning Board approved a subdivision that would allow the site to be turned into 4 lots for single family homes. But Blogfinger questioned the legality of that subdivision, because the 2 lots on Lake Avenue would not face any street—Lake Avenue is not a street.
On the other hand, after years of trying to get rid of that derelict property, it was accomplished, and the neighbors were thrilled. They did not question the legality of what occurred next.
Now, one of the 4 houses has been built, at #21 Seaview Avenue, and the developer has the other 3 properties, including #18 and #20 Lake Avenue and #23 Seaview Avenue up for sale. The homes will cost over $ 1 million. They will have 5-6 bedrooms and 3-4 bathrooms. They are 2 1/2 to 3 stories high and they will have views of Wesley Lake and the Ocean. The subdivision, which is one block to the beach is called “Seaview by the Lake.”
The marketing by realtors is of interest, because it is revealing the attitude of this developer toward Ocean Grove. And will this sort of promotion become the norm? We have been worried that the community of Ocean Grove will be left behind to collect sand in its shorts as the developers promote the town of OG as basically a gateway to Asbury and other areas, as they turn out very expensive homes as is the norm now in Asbury Park.
The Internet promotion of these 4 homes refers to “landmarks” that are accessible, and this list includes only one in OG—the beach. The rest of the list includes sites in Asbury Park, Belmar, Pt. Pleasant Beach, Long Branch, and Spring Lake beach. There is no mention of Ocean Grove’s historic nature or its fabulous places to visit—not even the Great Auditorium is featured. And there is no mention of the community of Ocean Grove, its life styles, its diversity, or its friendly and neighborly porch culture.
In addition, there is no talk about parking. As with other projects in town, the Township allows defiance of State mandated regulations, so these 4 houses provide no off-street parking—just further congestion at that North End part of town. And who knows what will happen at the Warrington site?
PEGGY LEE AND GEORGE SHEARING “If Dreams Come True.” Live in Miami, from the album Beauty and the Beat
Main Avenue. Starting from far left: Pet Boutique, April Cornell, DJ’s Market, and DJ’s Delights (a restaurant.) Blogfinger photo. Dec 4, 2017
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
A few weeks ago we heard that the Pet Boutique on Main Avenue would close, but that is all the facts which were then available. But now, some reliable sources have provided more information about three adjacent stores which will close.
The common thread for all these stores has to do with the landlord who owns #60 Main Avenue, the location of all three businesses: Pet Boutique, April Cornell, and DJ’s Market (groceries.)
Evidently the rents are being raised “significantly.” In addition, some months ago, there was flooding in the building damaging the ceilings of these shops, resulting in temporary interior framing being installed to prevent collapse. And the owner is evidently expecting the tenants to help pay for repairs.
The owner of #60 Main is Sackman Enterprises, aka Linus Holding Co. This is an established real estate company based in NYC and surrounding states including 6 properties in Asbury Park
One year ago we wrote about the owner’s plans for this building. The links are below:
In the case of the Pet Boutique,”there are some other elements including the desire of the shop owner to retire. That store will close on Dec. 31 and it will be missed by the pet owners in town.
DJ,s will close its grocery store, but the adjacent DJ,s restaurant on the corner (pizza, sandwiches, etc.) will stay open.
April Cornell, probably the most famous and unique shop in town, is reluctantly planning to leave the Grove and move to larger quarters in Spring Lake. Evidently they were unable to find a suitable replacement location in town.
The manager of April Cornell asked that we make it clear that the business is not closing—-just changing its location, and that won’t happen until April, 2018.
The new white building at #50-54 Main Avenue may not have any store vacancies. We do know that a high-end pizza business will open there next year, but right now there is a perfume store and a Christmas shop. And the Comfort Zone has temporary quarters in that building pending renovation of their space eastward down the block.
The Emporium’s Beach shop is currently closed pending renovations.
There is a for sale sign outside “Favorite Things,” but they are open for business.
We have reported in the past on the theme of the Main Avenue shops: Are they to be for tourists or for residents? Some businesses serve both constituencies. We have already lost a doctor, a pharmacy, a barber shop, a dry cleaners/tailors, a fine grocery store, a news stand, a flower shop, a toy store, a newspaper printing shop, a butcher shop, a popular restaurant (Moonstruck), and a video store.
We have had increased parking and tourist congestion downtown as well as in other parts of the Grove, and that speaks to the fundamental question of what kind of town will we have here? What is the town’s future and what will happen to its historic theme?
Who will win: residents who make this their home or the commercial interests?
Here is a link discussing the business community on Main Avenue:
On August 16, 2017, Rev. John DiGiamberardino (OGCMA) issued a statement about permit parking. And in that statement, besides threatening to sue the Township over parking permits, he said, “I believe the plan also will negatively affect property values.”
That provoked a local realtor, “Susan,” to say, “As a full-time realtor for more than two decades, I can tell you that resident permit parking will help, not hurt, home sales and thus,values. It is precisely the gamble of whether or not a person will be able to find a place to park that dissuades people from buying in Ocean Grove.
“On weekends, they know it’s a losing proposition. It’s the #1 deterrent for OG sales and rentals, in my experience. People don’t want to deal with it, they just buy elsewhere.”
Now, the CMA remains in firm opposition to the permit plan, and I am interested in pursuing the topic of what factors influence the selling prices of our homes in the Grove.
Of course, we know the usual suspects that are mentioned including location, comps, the economy, interest rates, and others. But since we are in the Grove, we also know that our town is unique and has beautiful historic architecture. We know that our porch culture, neighborliness , quality of life and diversity—including the fact that we have a vibrant gay community here—- are all positives in the marketplace. The proximity to an erupting Asbury Park is a mixed bag for OG buyers.
But let’s consider the negatives that potentially drag down our home values, and this is not necessarily a judgement of those factors, but simply an analysis of what might pull our home valuations in the wrong direction—this is fact-based economics:
a. We have a dominant religious presence in the Grove, and that will turn off some buyers, and those buyers are increasingly secular. And if potential buyers dig deep, they will see that the CMA can sometimes be quite arrogant—as in the recent threats to sue and the recent unpredictable acceleration of some lease fees.
Then add on the CMA fight against permit parking, a policy which buyers would likely support, and their concerns might multiply.
b. Potential buyers are turned off by the chaotic parking and congestion situation. How many buyers will love the idea that our town has monster events that bring thousands of tourists to town? Year round congestion in the Grove is becoming progressively worse to the detriment of residents and their quality of life.
I know two couples, each living here for many years, who sold their homes because they had become exasperated by the constant battle to find parking and constant bumping into tourists—something that is becoming year round.
c. We have shopping in town, but most of it is for tourists. Home buyers like the idea of a town with shopping, but it would be quality of life shopping, not T shirts and gifts.
d. Quality of schools is a huge factor for some home buyers. The Neptune test scores would be a turnoff.
e. Access to parking. Home buyers will reject a house without a garage or even a driveway. But maybe they would be tempted if the current trend towards increasing parking distress were turned around. But developers, business people, Neptune Township and the CMA have shown no interest in finding solutions to the issues raised by homeowners. And I’m not convinced that the Committee is sincere about permit parking.
f. Supply and demand. It is our understanding that the high taxes here are discouraging young families, senior citizens and middle class buyers. Those high taxes for Grovers are out of proportion to the services which we receive.
And if the negativity and indifference towards residents continues on the part of Neptune Township, it will discourage investors in buying homes here.
And that negativity includes disinterest in our history and our quality of life. We wonder if the Township is intentially trying to weaken the Historic Preservation Commission and even wanting to rid the “historic district” of its historic designations.
There is no organization in town that represents residents. Unless you pay money and join you cannot vote at the HOA, and renters are excluded. The HOA is an ineffective institution here in terms of quality of life for all residents.
If the town wants home values to go up, it should become a historic, culturally rich, genuine community where residents are the top priority and where an activist group stands up for the people.
g. Other negative factors include dumping dirty water into our lakes, crime/drugs around the corner, developers who want to increase congestion without providing parking, a Township Committee which promotes a “cash cow” culture towards the Grove including ignoring our master plan and favoring zoning changes that will pull the town away from being a single family residential community.
For those of you homeowners who are indifferent to social, political, environmental, and cultural issues in town, maybe you would reconsider if you were to think about your home valuations. And you could begin by supporting the permit parking plan.
At the present time, there are no details that would describe exactly what such a permit plan might look like in this town, so what we are actually polling about has to do with a concept not a specific parking plan.
Debating specific features of a plan now is a waste of time and a distraction. The Township is trying to cut this off by saying that specifics and a referendum are needed but they don’t really want anything to happen. They don’t want us to understand the real substance of the situation.
A vote “yes” sends a message to Neptune Township that we, the tax paying homeowners in Ocean Grove, deserve your attention and special consideration when it comes to limited public resources such as parking on the streets of Ocean Grove.
We have a Township government which collects a substantial amount of tax money from each homeowner every quarter. A significant number of parking spaces in town are occupied by non-residents on average. It becomes even more crowded by outsiders when the circus is in town. But those visitors pay nothing. So the homeowners must be given special recognition in terms of Township policies.
The Neptune government has made it clear that they have no interest in looking out for the homeowners/residents of this town. They don’t care about the Master Plan, the lifestyles of residents, the history of this “historic district,” the parking anguish of residents, or pretty much about anything that we care about.
For purposes of discussion we should remember that renters are residents, but homeowners pay the taxes. Ideally, actual residents, including renters and homeowners, should benefit from a new system because they are more important than tourists. But if push comes to shove, taxpayers should be top dogs. But renters have no chance at any benefits if they vote “no.”
The Committee plays up to other parts of town, such as Midtown—to the people whose votes will re-elect them time and time again. The only segment of OG citizenry which the Township favors is the Camp Meeting Association, and most of their trustees do not live in the Grove, and how much of their property is tax exempt? And they don’t even pay taxes on the land which they say they own. We do!
When we consider the behavior of Neptune Township governance, forget what they say at public meetings. Instead study what they do. For them actions (ie inactions) do speak louder than words.
So this parking permit question really represents the idea that our elected officials should give the taxpayers an edge when it comes to policy. Until now , they have done whatever they please, including ignoring the parking issue and ignoring OG taxpayers/residents.
It is not unreasonable for homeowners to want a new precedent where the Township does give an edge to tax payers. There is nothing untoward about their making life easier for taxpayers/residents in this town, because we put up money to keep the Township going. No tourist gives NT money.
It’s time for the Neptune government to respond to this principal, and the demand for permit parking is the tangible symbol of a change which is long overdue.
So this Blogfinger poll represents a message to our non-representative elected officials who will begin to hear about this principle through our vote. That is why all homeowners and residents should vote “yes.”
This is really about telling them that attention must be paid to us. If you choose “no” then you tell them that their dismissive behavior towards us is OK.
As a bonus, hopefully we will see them recognize their obligation to us and come up with a plan that will show some favoritism to tax payers. And the only way that we can be identified by those indifferent officials who sit up on that dais is by the issuance of permits.
Let’s not argue now about how many permits, who gets them, etc. Let’s get an advantage in the marketplace of ideas in our town.
I will tell you about how I feel regarding the number of permits later, after the Township takes a real first step, encouraged by our vote in the poll. There is room for negotiation if only they will pay meaningful attention to us. The referendum is useless and is just subterfuge for them to move on and leave us no where.
From the soundtrack of the film Chef. It’s about finding an idea and running with it.
“Stop your messing around (ah-ah-ah)
Better think of your future (ah-ah-ah)
Time you straighten right out (ah-ah-ah)
Creating problems in town (ah-ah-ah)”
By Jack Bredin, researcher and reporter for Blogfinger.net and Paul Goldfinger, Editor@Blogfinger.net
Blogfinger has posted a variety of articles about Wesley Lake pollution. Today we feature yet another piece on that subject which contains some new elements which we have not addressed before.
Q: The Lenape Indians used Wesley Lake as a source of food. Now the Lake is reserved for recreation and conservation—-or is it?
A: According to the Neptune township Tax Map (effective Jan. 1, 2015) Wesley Lake is now a municipal facility to be used to treat dirty street-water runoff. The Lake’s name has been changed to ” Wesley Detention/Retention Basin” under the supervision of the Departments of Public Works.
Q: Who is responsible for this?
A: It starts with the Neptune Township Committee along with the Mayor and Council of Asbury Park. The two governing bodies are in charge, so the buck stops with them, or in this case, the pollution starts and stops with them. Officials from both towns took an oath that would include managing the welfare of the Lake for recreational use. It should be noted that most of the dirty street-water runoff comes from AP.
Q: How did this happen?
A: It happened when the mayors of both Neptune and AP took their charters and hung them on the developers’ walls.
Q: Who can correct this plethora of problems involving the Lake’s rehabilitation and restoration?
A: The Wesley Lake Commission. Or can they? Jack attended a meeting of the Commission on May 16, 2017, and suggested that they should not allow street-water runoff to enter the Lake because that is causing the Lake to be polluted. And the streets are not part of the Lake’s natural watershed.
Discussion:
A member of the Wesley Lake Commission representing Neptune’s DPW (Dept. of Public Works) said, “The streets are in the ‘watershed area,’ and in New Jersey you are permitted by the Dept. of Environmental Protection to allow street water runoff to drain into a lake.”
But the “watershed area” includes all the land that drains into the lake, and by that definition, it does includes street run-off. But there is a semantic issue here. He would be correct if the streets were a part of the Lake’s “natural watershed” and not just “in the watershed area.” The”natural water-shed area” is desirable, but dirty street water is not part of that.
So his argument boils down to “let’s keep polluting the Lake illegally.”
You might have noticed the Rainwater Garden near the train station in Asbury Park. That is an example of a desirable “natural” water-shed area where the rain is purified by the soil and plantings and then the clean water drains into the lake.
And if the name change from Wesley Lake to “Wesley Detention/Retention Basin” had been done legally by Resolution of the Neptune Committee with permission from the New Jersey DEP Green Acres Program, then the streets would become “the watershed” for a detention/retention basin, but there was no such Resolution or Green Acres permission. Note that a detention/retention basin is an actual structural facility to clean the water draining into the Lake. So far all we have is a name change on the Neptune Tax Map. We don’t even have a map that shows the Lake’s water-shed. And we don’t know where A. Park stands on this, but we can guess.
So what’s in a name?–in this case, nothing.
Another member of the Commission said, “The condition of Wesley Lake is the same now as it has been for the last 10,000 years, and the condition of the Lake’s mud is a naturally occurring condition found in every lake.”
We think the dead fish never got the professor’s message. And, we have to remind the professor, that 10,000 years ago they were first brewing beer in Mesopotamia, but there are no records of what Wesley Lake looked like then. We barely know about it from records of 1869. We do know that it was much different than it is now—then it was a full blown estuary.
And don’t forget, the water may look or test clear sometimes, but what toxins are trapped in the mud? They don’t test the mud, only the water, and how often do they test the water?
We may be at a crossroads, but we still have the choice of which road to take, before it is too late:
1. “The road to recovery:” Stopping the dirty street water from entering the Lake would be the first step in the Lake’s road to recovery
2. “The road to “Condo-City:” This road would be a fantasy by certain factions in Ocean Grove who might see the Lake as a dead-end street where the polluted silt (ie mud) builds up to a point where dredging and disposing of all that polluted mud becomes economically unfeasible.
And that leads to a scripted conclusion that it would be more cost effective to “cap” the mud, fill in the Lake, and build some modern, up-to-date condominiums. It could happen!
Re: Dispute regarding ground rents for condo owners. The item below this sentence appeared recently in the Wassup? section of Blogfinger.net:
Condominium associations lose their suit regarding ground rents. The two condo units are on Ocean Pathway. The ruling allows the Camp Meeting to change ground rent charges according to the sale price of the unit.
Here are links to two of our three Blogfinger February, 2017 posts about this subject. This court ruling can have major implications regarding the condo market in OG. The lawyer for the condo owners has recommended an appeal.
I am Gorton Wood and I live at 40 Ocean Pathway; I am one of the litigants in the ground rent lawsuit.
In 2007 when I purchased my 1,090 square foot condo (two bedrooms and one bath,) I was given a ground rent spreadsheet schedule by OGCMA. It was titled “New Condo/Townhouse Ground Rent.” It covered a period of 12 years. The first three years I paid 1% of the sale price of my condo or $475.00 per year. The second three years it went to 1.5% of my sales price or $712.50 per year. The third three years it went to 2% of my sales price or $950.00 per year. The final three years it grew to 2.5% of my sales price or 1,187.50 per year. Then beginning year 13 and going on forever [hold your hat], it was going to be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which could be 3%, 4%, 5% annually, who knows. I could end up having to pay an annual ground rent of $3,000 or more annually.
On two occasions I went to the OGCMA and demanded to have someone explain who cooked this up (Jack Green—I learned from another source) and when did they cook this up? No one would speak to me. Then in 2014 I wrote out my ground rent check and sent a message to the OGCMA saying that when they gave me a meeting I would bring my check. They never responded. In 2015 I did they same thing and again they refused to grant me a meeting. Then I received a letter from their law firm in Freehold saying if I did not pay immediately, they would prosecute me.
I am willing to go to any length, even alone, to have this situation corrected. I don’t believe any of the owners, myself included, expect to not pay ground rent, but for God’s sake make it fair. I actually wrote the OGCMA and their law firm a letter saying I was confident I could get every owner at 40 Ocean Pathway and 30 Ocean Pathway to agree to $200.00 a year. They wrote back basically telling me to take a hike.
GORTON WOOD
Ocean Grove, NJ, April 10, 2017
The writer is a resident of a condominium at #40 Ocean Pathway.
The Whitfield Hotel in 2015. The front of the lot is on Surf Avenue facing north (60.5 feet wide). The back is on Bath Avenue, facing south (60.5 feet). The side is 103 feet long on Beach Avenue facing the ocean. This property, #20 Surf Avenue in OG, is zoned for one lot (Block 113, Lot 10.)
This is the second installment of “The Case of the Notorious Whitfield Hotel.”
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger and Jack Bredin, Researcher @Blogfinger
Not only are there now 4 foundations on that one lot site, but those lots would have to be undersized. 30 x 60 is the minimum lot size requirement for Ocean Grove. The size of the rectangular Whitfield site is 103 feet long, and four regulation lots would need a minimum of 120 feet along each side. But the Whitfield lots would have to fit into 103 feet, and they are, by definition, undersized.
Everyone we have spoken to, including Township officials, residents who live near the Whitfield, and concerned Grovers tell us that the Whitfield site will become 4 detached single family homes, and almost everyone seems delighted. But should they be?
The excavation has begun, and we now know that there are four foundations. And a source tell us that the developer has been officially “approved” for placing 4 homes at that site. But who allowed work to begin without a 4 lot subdivision being blessed by the Neptune Township Planning Board?
We asked around and learned, mostly from people in the know, that Bernard Haney, the long-standing Tax Assessor in Neptune Township, who also wears a second hat, that of Land Use Administrator, was responsible for that decision.
Here is how the procedure should work. First the developer orders a survey map of the property. The survey map shows the exact size of the lot, and the map is used to prepare a site plan/subdivision.
This is a plan which shows where the buildings will be “sited” on the subdivided property pursuant to the zoning and the subdivision ordinance. The site plan is part of an application for development and is to be filed with the Township Building Department.
The site plan is then prepared and signed by a licensed professional who in this case would clearly show on the cover page that the applicant wants to subdivide the property into 4 undersized (nonconforming) lots.
However, the problem is that there is no type of variance or procedure that would permit a conforming lot to be subdivided into any nonconforming lots.
The application should have been referred to the Planning Board for a public hearing, but that referral was never made. We checked with the Planning Board secretary who verified that she was not instructed to schedule a hearing on the Planning Board agenda.
Approved subdivisions are recorded on the tax map under the supervision of the Township Engineer. As such, the Township Engineer should have been asked to review the plan and prepare a written report for the Planning Board. The Neptune Engineer said she received no such request.
We learned that after the subdivision approval, the approved plan was sent to the Building Department to issue permits for the 4 single family houses, or, at least, for the foundation work which is now in progress.
It appears that the current 2014 tax map, which clearly shows one existing lot at the Whitfield site, not four, was ignored. That lot would ordinarily require a subdivision if more than one single family house is proposed.
We were told that Mr. Haney decided that after the demolition, the current empty lot would automatically revert to an 1879 tax map which showed 4 lots and to declare that the 2017 post demolition lot was already subdivided into 4 lots.
This maneuver by the Township appears to be a technique to allow 4 single family houses to be built on a lot where only 3 can be permitted.
Even if this method of circumventing the usual approach to subdivisions turns out to be acceptable, the application still should have been referred to the Planning Board.
Do you suppose that this is a well traveled highway in Ocean Grove? Have we now lost that loving feeling in our town, or did it disappear a long time ago?
What are we to do with the totally ineffective Home Groaners? They have a meeting, drag a crowd of Grovers away from their warm beds, and find out that the Groaners accomplished next to nothing.
The first order of business was the Parking Committee report. It seems that the Township accepted none of their recommendations. In particular there will be no parking permits for residents, no parking meters on Ocean Avenue, and no park-and-ride trolley. Conclusion: A big zero for the Groaners.
Second order of business: Converting the Laingdon Hotel into a rehab facility? Well, the Groaner’s president, a lawyer, announced that she knows nothing about zoning law and that her board was considering spending $5,000.00 for another lawyer to represent the group at the Zoning Board meeting. She even admitted that she knows nothing about brain surgery either, so the Groaners should be disqualified from discussing zoning or performing lobotomies in the future.
Luckily, the Sprout application was withdrawn and saved the group $5,000.00 The Groaners must have a lot of dough, because they recently wasted $7,000.00 for a lawyer to look at a false alarm—ground rents. (i.e. no weapons of tax destruction were found.)
Oh, and why was the Sprout application withdrawn? The Groaners have no idea. Conclusion: Everyone should have stayed home in bed.
The third order of business: The meeting agenda promised that the HPC would come to discuss the “HPC War” because the Township wants to dilute the HPC historic guidelines, and this is a subject that could impact Ocean Grove’s future.
But golly, the HPC representatives instead reviewed what everyone already knows about (HPC history 101 minus the Greek Temple ) and ignored what everyone wanted to hear about—i.e. the “HPC War.”
Therefore we regrettably must report that the HPC laid an egg at the meeting and continues to deny the public information about this critical situation.
The Blogfinger correspondent concludes that “The Home Groaners Association knows nothing and does nothing.”
And that, ladies and germs, in the words of Laurel and Hardy*, “Is a fine kettle of fish.”
For our musical enjoyment we offer a suggested theme song for the HGA when the current board resigns and is replaced by a group of Grovers who will actually accomplish something for the town.
As noted in our recent posts, the Township Committee wants to pass an ordinance to make major changes in the HPC Guidelines. They placed the proposal on the December 12 agenda giving the HPC and others only a few days to consider the matter.
The document is long and detailed, and it was not marked in a way that would readily reveal the changes. At the meeting, the 1st reading was tabled to a later date to allow proper assessment of the document, but a few OG groups did get to review it, and their response was resoundingly negative, saying that the new guidelines would threaten historic preservation in the Grove.
During the public portion of the meeting, some individuals spoke for the allotted 5 minutes. The one voice that really needed to be heard was that of Deborah Osepchuk, the long-time Chairperson of the HPC. She read a prepared personal statement, but she was cut off when her 5 minutes were up.
We thank her for providing Blogfinger with her complete remarks. We cannot print the entire speech, as it is quite long for us, but we will quote most parts of it, skipping only some of the most technical details:
“In the spring of 2015, Randy Bishop announced at a Township Committee meeting that the HPC Guidelines were going to be revised and submitted to the Township Committee by Sept 1, 2015.
“A sub-committee within the HPC was formed, working through the summer and after review by the entire board, submitted our draft of the revised guidelines to the Township Clerk by Sept. 1, 2015.
“This was the last we heard of them. I sent emails, as did our attorney, asking for information and updates on the guidelines. We received no reply.
“Last Friday, Dec.9, 2016, at 3:35 pm, I received an email stating that the revised guidelines were not the guidelines we had submitted. I respectfully request that ‘prepared by the Historic Preservation Commission’ be removed from the cover page, and the names of those people responsible for this document be listed instead.
“There is much to be concerned about in this draft, but let me first focus on what I feel is the most damaging to the historic district.
The applicability of said design guidelines shall only be applicable to any portion of the structure that fronts on the street. Side and rear facades that do not front on the street shall not be subject to the guidelines.
The Commissioner described one change where “the word ‘avoid’ used in the original draft in regards to inappropriate architectural elements has been replaced with the word ‘discouraged’ a total of 37 times.
Also the words “historically inappropriate” have been eliminated. The term “where practicable” has taken its place.
She says, “All of this translates into guidelines that regulate and protect nothing.”
In addition Commissioner Osepchuk notes that a number of provisions in the original have been eliminated including the section on “Historic Flare, a unique and rare example of urban planning—- the key reason for our historic designation.”
(Editor’s note: This is where Ms. Osepchuk had to stop speaking at the meeting, but we continue below:)
“Hot tubs, solar panels, satellite dishes, retaining walls, sheds, roof top construction, chain link fencing, auxiliary structures, etc., are no longer restricted unless they are on the ‘regulated frontage’ of the structure. Then they are merely ‘discouraged.’
“Add to all this, the fact that now homeowners will need to have signed and sealed architectural plans in order to make an application. The HPC has never required this of homeowners.
“Why the sweeping changes? What will they accomplish? Who is responsible or them?
‘The objectives of Ocean Grove District Architectural Guidelines are to preserve the historic architectural integrity, craftsmanship, and heritage of the nationally Designated Historic District and encourage architectural solutions which will “Recapture the Spirit of Ocean Grove.’
“The document dated Oct. 2016 does not accomplish this, its stated purpose. Instead it works at destroying the historic district.
“Property values in Ocean Grove continue to rise. People are renovating, building new and making improvements to their homes in increasing numbers. As of today the HPC has reviewed and approved 249 applications.
“What is the attraction of Ocean Grove? It’s certainly not the parking or the fact that we pay high taxes on land that we don’t even own or that we live on lots that in any other part of Neptune would be considered undersized. Our homes need constant maintenance, since most of them are over 100 years old and we live with the constant threat of fire fueled by the town’s density.
“It is because Ocean Grove looks and feels like no place else…for now.”
Also, this matter is on the agenda for the Dec. 14 Planning Board meeting which Blogfinger will attend.
And, On December 13, 2016, the HPC voted to draft a statement speaking out against the guidelines. Stay tuned.
In the recent Bloginger post about #58-60 Main Avenue (The Pizza Building,) it was suggested that if someone opposed the proposed variances that they should attend the public hearing on Dec. 14 at the Planning Board where this matter would be heard. You could voice your opinion during the public portion, but you will only get 5 minutes.
About 10 years ago, I attended a Board of Adjustment meeting to oppose a variance. My experience speaks to the obstacles that sometimes are placed in the path of well-meaning citizens trying to voice their objections to public policy changes. The details of that experience are included in order to appreciate the sort of issues that affect our lives at the various Boards in Neptune Township.
I was there to object to an application requesting a use variance to subdivide a conforming 30’ x 60’ lot into two (2) narrow 15’x60’ illegal, non-conforming, under-sized lots within 200’ of my house.
The applicant’s professional planner did not introduce any testimony to support granting a use variance.
He just made a “conclusionary statement” that if the variance were approved, it would advance the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance,” in his professional opinion.
His professional opinion was nonsense.
The intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance is to reduce rather than increase non-conformity, and land can only be subdivided into conforming lots. The minimum lot size in Ocean Grove is 30’x 60’ and not 15’x60.’
However, the planner’s arbitrary opinion went unchallenged by members of the Zoning Board and the Board’s attorney, planner, and their engineer. The file for the application contained no report from the Board’s planner or engineer. There were no objections from the Camp Meeting Association or the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association.
After the conclusion of the applicant’s presentation, and without questions or objections from the Board or their Professionals, the only evidence on the record was in support of an approval of the subdivision by the applicant’s planner as noted above.
The meeting was then open to the public. I was the only member of the public to speak and I would be allowed only five minutes at the microphone.
Pursuant to the N.J. State Rules of Hearing Procedure, I had equal standing with the applicant’s professional planner to present an opposing case with no time limit.
My first question for the planner was: “What use variance are you asking for: D-1, 2,3,4, or 5?
He didn’t know what variance they were asking for.
When the planner turned toward the applicants attorney for help, I took the opportunity to question the Board’s attorney, “What use variance is the Board considering?” He had no answer and turned toward the Zoning Board’s planner. There was a long moment of silence that was broken when the Land Use Administrator loudly announced. “YOUR TIME IS UP!!”
I was only one minute into my presentation. I had asked only one question and got no answer. And so I said, “What?”
She answered, “Sit down! Your time is up!”
I said, “Are you kidding me?”
The Chairwoman said, “We do have a 5 minute limit here.”
I then asked, “Is there another public portion on the meeting agenda where I can address the Board?
The Land Use Administrator answered for the Chairwoman by saying, “No! You just want to further your case, and we won’t let you. NOW! SIT DOWN !”
While all of this was going on, the Mayor and a member of the Ocean Grove Home Owners Assoc. were calling out from the back of the meeting room, “Sit down! Your time is up!”
The Planning and Zoning Board’s 5 minute rule is inconsistent with the Municipal Land Use Law. I reported this to the Township Committee, and they didn’t care.
The 5 minute rule is still in place.
Editor’s Note: There is a history of stifling dissent at Neptune meetings. Old timers describe how discussion on a controversial agenda item would be cancelled for some phony procedural reason when a large number of Grovers would show up. They would reschedule when they knew the public would not come out, such as during a bad storm.
This story is similar to a more recent one (2015) in which we described how Jack was not permitted to finish his 5 minute comment during a Township Committee meeting. Here is a link:
“This is a better picture and we can pet her she has blueish green eyes and is frightened outside. Thank you so much for helping.” Corey photo.
Hi: I found this little girl calico on Sept 22 and have not been able to catch her, but she comes for food twice a day. I’m trying to figure out how to get her before it gets too cold. She definitely is not a stray. She is very clean and talks a lot. And she is very pretty. She was found on Pennsylvania and Asbury Avenue in Ocean Grove; and my name is Corey; my email is Coreyclayton3@gmail.com; or my number is 732-693-6516 thank you so much. I’m sure she is lost. She is very young and friendly and pretty.
