Blogfinger

In front of #58-60 Main Avenue, currently a two story building near Pilgrim Pathway. Pizza place is on the corner to the right. Paul Goldfinger photo. June, 2016 ©

Internet graphic

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger  and Jack Bredin, Reporter/Researcher for Blogfinger

We have just received an OPRA   (Open Public Records Act) copy of the Site Plan application for “60 Main Street” from the Neptune Township office of  the Zoning Board of Adjustment/Planning Board, and the application contains so many questionable entries, that it raises a number of red flags.

Below are some of the issues that we have noticed and we wonder if Neptune Township will approve this application  and pass it onto one of their two boards.  Currently it is not on the agenda for the next Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.

The checklist says that the application will not be deemed complete until full plans are available. It’s hard to believe that  this sketch represents  “full plans.”   Click on the plan to get a closer look.

—–The street name is wrong.  They call it “Main Street.”  Also, the block and lot numbers are wrong—based on the old tax map.  They need to use the new tax map.  Surely they ought to be able to get such basic information straight.

—–“Any request for a ‘waiver’ must include a written explanation for the request.”  If they want a waiver for an RSIS off street parking exemption, they need to request a waiver.  Anyone want to guess how many resident units will be built here, without parking provided?   That should be specified.   (pg 1)  This application says that no off-street parking is required. (pg 3)

—–A “traffic analysis report and recommendations from a qualified traffic engineer” is required.  There is none at this time, and such an analysis should include parking.

—–They are applying to the Planning Board because they say that no major site use variances are needed.   But how about the one that would enable construction of that third floor?  This application probably should go to the Board of Adjustment.  And how about the use variance to sell new units as condominiums?

—Who is the applicant and who is the owner? It says that they are one and the same  (same signature on both lines.)   The “property owner” is  Linus Holding Corp from NYC with Carter Sackman listed as the President.     And their email address says Sackman.com. And if Linus is the “property owner,” why don’t they also name the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association as the owner of the land?   Doesn’t the CMA own the land any longer?

—-How tall will this building be?  The  application (pg 11) says that the existing height of the building is 28′ 2″ (2 stories);  the proposed building will be 3 stories  and 34′ 8″ high.   So, how can the third story be only 6 1/2 feet high?   Won’t major demolition involving the entire building be required?

Major demolition is not  permitted by the HPC when a building is not distressed in the Historic District.   The developers would need a demolition permit and use variances—not a job for the Planning Board.

—–No survey provided

—–No deed to the property provided

—-The developers are asking for 3 bulk variances including one to remove the requirement for keeping the garbage pails in the back.   Where will they go—in the front?

These are some of the questions being raised after review of this “Site Plan.”  We will continue keeping an eye on this situation.

DON McLEAN   ——Isn’t it time for us to fight back against the “castles in the air” syndrome in OceanGrove. We hope to be a historic town not some gentrified nightmare.

Read Full Post »