Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ocean Grove parking issues’

This thing has been parked here for several weeks on Heck near Delaware Ave. Can I buy a storage unit, park it on the street and store my winter clothes?   Blogfinger photo. ©  August 2, 2018.

 

JOHN DENVER “Looking for Space.”

“On the road of experience, I’m trying to find my own way.
Sometimes I wish that I could fly away
When I think that I’m moving, suddenly things stand still
I’m afraid ’cause I think they always will.”

Read Full Post »

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor and Jack Bredin, Reporter/Researcher. Blogfinger.net

On May 15 we posted a report of the May 14 Township Committee meeting where a rushed ordinance was presented for a first reading.  It promoted a pro-business plan to restrict downtown parking to 3 hours per parker.  No study had been done in preparation, and some Committeemen had misgivings, but in the end, all 5 voted for what seemed to us to be a strikingly deficient proposal.

A variety of concerns were expressed including the question of where the residents of that area who parked downtown would go, and that concern also was about those who work in the shops.

We have pointed out that there are often, in season, more cars in town, than there are spaces.  And this is particularly true in the shopping district which is close to the beach.  So was this just a mindless scheme to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic’s deck?

Who stood to benefit from this ordinance which seemed to be propelled  at full speed ahead by some special interest?  The most likely culprit seemed to be the Chamber of Commerce, pushing for an advantage regardless of the effects on the rest of the town’s demographics.

And why would the Mayor offer special attention to them when there already are concerns of favoritism at the Committee?   Are they so blind to the optics of such suspicious behavior?

It is difficult to even track the origins of the plan. Somehow it was placed on the agenda by the Mayor, but why was it rushed through without preliminary study and discussion?   Who was responsible for pushing this idea onto the Committee’s agenda and then trying to ram it through in less than two weeks?  The issue of process is at least as important as the half-baked almost incoherent ordinance itself

To get the background, click on the link below

3 hour parking plan ordinance first reading

At the May 24 meeting, the new ordinance was supposed to have a final vote by the Committee after the public portion when anyone could get up and speak about it. It seemed like the ordinance would pass easily based on the first vote.

Remarkably,  the President of the OG Chamber of Commerce got up and said that her group hadn’t discussed or voted on the issue, and that perhaps half of her organization was opposed to the plan. Some evidently were worried that the ordinance would be a bad public relations move.

But in the Coaster article prior to the first meeting, they reported that the Chamber was encouraging its members to go to the meeting and support the plan.   As for the past history of this idea, this Chamber official revealed that Joyce Klein, of the OGHOA, had come to the Chamber with the idea 2 years ago, but that the Parking Task Force had shot it down.

So who brought it to the Committee now?   The veil of secrecy once again is floating around the facts.

The meeting was sparsely attended.  But when some Committeemen spoke now, it appeared that they were going to do an about-face on their own ordinance that had passed 5-0 on May 14.  Carol Rizzo said, “We’ll do a study.” But she didn’t say who would do the study. Michael Brantley said, “We need a real study to make sure that we are not making things worse.”  So a motion was made to table the ordinance, and that passed, in an almost psychotic reversal, 5-0.

Tabling means that it could re-emerge again, but obviously it’s too late to affect this summer season.  Maybe it will  be buried with permit parking.

What isn’t clear is why the Committee did a total flip-flop now since most of the facts that are now known were available when they voted “Yes” 5-0 on May 14.   Did they come to their senses?  Were they out of their senses for the first vote?  Did the Chamber flip-flop and then strong arm the Mayor?

The public ought to worry about the procedures that are followed in the back rooms of the Neptune Governing Body.

BEVERLY KENNEY:

 

Read Full Post »

Commercial vehicle parked at a work site early on a Sunday morning.  No work being done that day.    7/30/17 ©

The commercial van above should not be left overnight at a job site. Allowing such vehicles to park on residential streets overnight aggravates the parking situation and encourages other contractors to do the same.  However if the commercial van owner actually lives in the Grove, there is an ordinance exception for one such vehicle.

DEAN MARTIN   ‘Please Don’t Talk About Me When I’m Gone.”

 

Read Full Post »

By Charles Layton

For the past two weeks, people on this blog have been discussing the interrelated topics of parking, New Jersey land use law, and the conversion of old hotels into condominiums (a trend many of you deplore).

I think I speak for everyone when I say that this stuff is too thorny for amateurs. Most of us haven’t followed the history of zoning, and we don’t know the jargon — RSIS regulations, special area standards — yikes!

Yet, when Kevin Chambers claims, as he did in a posting on January 31, that what Neptune has been doing – letting condos be built with no provision for parking — violates the law, it is our burden as citizens to try to understand what he means.

So I’ve spent the past two days poring over the scores of comments published here, and I’ve also read most of the key documents people have referred to.

If you’ll bear with me, I’ll try to lay out, as simply as possible, what I think it adds up to. Please excuse some of the bureaucratic gobbledygook.  And please, also, understand that I’m no expert; take this with a grain of salt.

-0-

Here is the history:

On June 3, 1997, New Jersey gave birth to a body of land use law called Residential Site Improvement Standards. That mouthful is usually shortened to RSIS. These standards deal with sewers, storm water, streets and the like. And they establish rules for how much parking a builder must provide for condos, townhouses, single-family homes — all kinds of residences.

Neptune Township happens to have an ordinance especially for the Historic District of Ocean Grove that conflicts with these state rules. Our ordinance prohibits off-street parking requirements and driveways for new residences. The justification is mainly that driveways, curb cuts and garages erode the historic character of Ocean Grove. There were no cars when this town was founded, so its architecture and town plan made no provision for off-street parking. And if we monkey too much with the town plan, we might lose our Historic District status. It is also argued that Ocean Grove is unusually compact (at least 24 units per acre in most parts of town) and its lots are unusually small (30 feet in width). The argument is that a driveway curb cut severely limits the amount of on-street parking, with the net effect of giving us less parking space overall. (While that argument works for single-family houses, it’s less persuasive when applied to a multi-unit condo development.)

On January 25, 2005, Neptune received a letter from the state Division of Codes and Standards pointing out the obvious — that our local ordinance violates the RSIS and is therefore legally invalid. However, the letter said Neptune could apply for special permission, in the form of what’s called a “special area standard.”

On October 26, 2007, Neptune did apply. It asked the New Jersey Site Improvement Advisory Board, which enforces RSIS, to let it retain its own separate regulations. Its application laid out all the arguments mentioned above.

On February 21, 2008 and again on September 18, 2008 the board held hearings on Neptune’s request.

On September 29, 2009, Neptune received a letter from the chairman of the board stating that there was insufficient evidence to justify a special standard for Ocean Grove. This letter reiterated that the Neptune ordinance was inconsistent with the RSIS and therefore invalid. However, the letter said the board was “willing to work with the Township” if it decided to submit a new or different request.

During all these years of negotiation, of course, quite a number of residences have been built in Ocean Grove, on Ocean Pathway and elsewhere. According to the RSIS law, those residences should have included off-street parking. But, because the buildings followed Neptune’s law rather than state law, no such parking was provided. In fact, by local law, the builders were forbidden to have off-street parking even if they’d wanted it.

How much off-street parking are we talking about? Well, under the RSIS standards, new condo developments must provide room for 1.8 off-street parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit, 2.0 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and 2.1 spaces for each three-bedroom unit. Obviously, the kind of density we’ve seen lately in Ocean Grove condos wouldn’t be possible had the condo builders been required to follow this legal standard. But because Ocean Grove builders continued to follow the local standard, they provided no parking at all, except for parking on the street.

A few Ocean Grovers, most notably Kevin Chambers, have been arguing for years that Neptune was in defiance of the law, and that the practice of allowing new condos without parking should be stopped. Chambers has made some enemies in the course of pressing this case.

But without judging whether all this condoization is good or bad, the historical record does seem to support Chambers’ claim that it’s illegal. And although nobody can now undo what’s already built, surely as citizens we could insist that all future condos provide off-street parking for their residents — unless the state changes its mind and gives Neptune some sort of exemption.

In conclusion, allow me to say that if Township officials, developers or others have a different perspective, or see errors in what’s written here, please give us the benefit of your knowledge. We are trying to feel our way forward on this issue. We are hungry for sound, detailed information. We will gladly correct anything that needs correcting.

Also, since the mother of all Ocean Grove condo projects is the proposed North End Redevelopment, we should point out in closing that the Township has provided, by law, that RSIS standards for off-street parking be followed in that case. That is to say, approximately two off-street parking spaces are required for each residential unit. In addition, the North End plan requires one off-street parking space for each hotel room. The North End is a special case because sites deemed to be “in need of redevelopment” fall outside the normal zoning process. It is the only such special case in Ocean Grove.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: