Whitefield Avenue runs down the middle of Embury Arms, oriented north and south, providing private parking spaces. Blogfinger.net photograph. 9/22/15 ©
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
Here is a re-post of part I of our research about the Embury Arms Condominiums posted in September of 2015. Time to re-read it now in 2020. The dots between it and the current North End Plan can be connected.
Recently a reader wondered about the Embury Arms condominiums. Her concern came about in the midst of our real-time discussions of the North End Project and Mary’s Place zoning. She asked how that large condo project came about and whether there were issues then similar to the ones that we have been considering recently.
Embury Arms condominiums on Whitefield Avenue consist of 112 units. It was built in the 1980’s. Old OG newspaper reports say that the CMA approved the project in 1978, and then the ground breaking ceremony was held in 1980. Those news reports never mention approvals by Neptune Twp. nor do they mention any concerns about historic preservation. They do talk about energy conservation measures that won awards for the developer.
These condos are 1 and 2 bedroom apartments within four large 3 story buildings. The complex sits in the middle of the Grove, surrounded by Benson, Delaware, Heck and Abbott Avenues. Embury and Webb Avenues stop short as they go west to Delaware Avenue, right at the border of the Embury Arms condos, and Whitefield Avenue goes straight through the middle, with private parking spaces on the perimeter of a public street.
Ocean Grove Times, August 25, 1978.An ad in a 1982 local newspaper describes “authentic Victorian designs.” The apartments were starting at $49,900.00.
These are the Embury Arms buildings as seen from the Delaware Avenue side. Blogfinger photo/ ©The official 2015 CMA summer guidebook map shows Webb and Embury going straight through to Lawrence Avenue, but they do not and they never did because west of Delaware, where Embury Arms now sits, there were stables, used mostly for storage by the Camp Meeting Association. Apparently some of the buildings were rented out for parking, but it was not an area for public parking.
It is not our intention to review the detailed history of this condo project, but anyone walking by has to wonder how the heck the developer got permission to do this distinctly un-Grovian style condominium complex. It not only is contrary to the Master Plan as we know it, but it takes up space that could have been filled with single family Victorian style homes in order to match the appearance of the rest of the Grove.
Embury Arms provides PRIVATE parking by allowing head-on placement of vehicles on Whitefield Avenue that is partly on private property (using the theoretical front yards of those lots) but it also allows the cars to stick out over where the public sidewalks should be. In other words, that parking lot violates the public pedestrian right of way.
Note how the sidewalk (pedestrian right of way) ends to allow parked cars to protrude into that right of way. This is Whitefield Avenue taken by walking from Heck Avenue. Blogfinger photo ©Normally the right of way along a public street is 40 feet wide, consisting of the road (auto right of way) and the sidewalks (pedestrian right of way) measured together.
Yes they put some recessed sidewalks there, but that is private property, and public access could theoretically be shut down at any time. The Whitefield Ave. auto right of way is intact for cars driving through, but is not inviting for autos to drive through, and warning signs threaten anyone who would dare park there.
In addition, the project deprived Ocean Grove of many potential public parking spaces if private homes had been built on streets. Instead, all those curb cuts created a giant parking lot. Where else in town is a public street (in this case Whitefield Avenue) used for private parking?
The property was originally used for stables, so no private homes were demolished to make room. Undoubtedly the CMA, the Township, and the developer were in collusion to create this massive mistake, but the history of the time* indicates that OG was not as proactive in historic preservation then. It was a time when governance here was in a state of flux**, and the public did not protest much. There was a suit that delayed completion, but eventually the Embury Arms condominiums were finished. At least the condo developer of Embury Arms provided parking, even though the law was stretched to make that happen.
We have no information as to how the zoning was finessed to allow this, nor do we know what the Planning Board had to say. At any rate, it is a done deal, and nothing can be done about it at this point.
It is interesting that there is an earlier precedent. In 1964, across from Days, a large hotel burned down, and in its place rose the Arlington Court Co-op. consisting of one bedroom apartments for which no mortgages were allowed. This was a new idea for the Grove, and evidently no one cared that single family Victorian homes were not built. The CMA was in charge then and they must have supported the idea. (? sound familiar)
However, now we are in a position to do something about the largest condominium development in the history of Ocean Grove—the North End Redevelopment Project. But there is concern that public apathy will once again allow a wrong-headed condo project to go ahead. We have seen this illegal process before. If no one takes legal action when work begins or sooner, then, as with other projects in town, nothing can be done after the fact.
The CMA and the Township are counting on public inaction. Will we let them do it again?
CREDITS:
Ted Bell*, Ocean Grove historian
Jack Bredin, Blogfinger researcher
Tom Constantino, Blogfinger researcher
** In 1980, governance of Ocean Grove was turned over to Neptune Township by the NJ Supreme Court. That transition must have taken years to work out, but the Embury Arms project took hold during that delicate time.
Here is a link to Part II of this Embury Arms historical review.
Embury Arms Part II. Blogfinger.net
NANCY WILSON “Please do it again.”
