Planning board unanimously adopts master plan re-exam

Last Updated on Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:08 pm Written by Cindy Nevitt Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:19 pm

OCEAN CITY – In front of a crowd of about 70, the Ocean City Planning Board voted unanimously Wednesday, Oct. 17 to adopt the Master Plan Re-Examination Report that will serve as a guideline to the city’s land use for the next decade or more.

With the exception of two attorneys and one architect, all but one of the other 20 speakers expressed concerns with the document’s recommendations during a 105-minute meeting at the Ocean City Free Public Library.

“You’re not ready and neither is the public,” said Jack Stover, a resident of the 1000 block of Wesley Avenue.

Leveling accusations of “back room stuff” against the board, which he said met with the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors and developers during early meetings in the re-exam process, Stover said, “Not one word was presented to the public,” then added, “I guess I didn’t have the proper clearance” to have his input solicited.

Julie Baumgardner, a resident of the 3000 block of Wesley Avenue, pointed out that the final version of the re-exam was not available online until very recently – and had grown by 10 pages in the last few days.

The board voted soon after to adopt the document with a last-minute change suggested by planning board member Gary Jessel.

That change included amending a recommendation to allow supermarkets, lumber yards, auto sales and car washes as permitted uses in the drive-in business zone, an action prompted by the plea of Richard Young, who feared – after 42 years as a partner in Shoemaker Lumber – that, as written, the master plan would label his business use as “conditional.”

“They made last-minute changes and voted on it and the public doesn’t even know,” Baumgardner said immediately after the meeting, expressing her disappointment in the speedy 7-0 vote.

Planning Board chair John Loeper, vice chair Jessel, and members Mike Dattilo, Ken Jones, Antwan McClellan, Dean Adams and Meghan McMahon all voted “yes.” The board’s two most critical members of the master plan, Sally-Jo DeLussa and Marc Shuster, were absent, as were Gus Bruno and Joseph Sheppard.

While such concerns as the drive-in business zone, base flood elevation plus 2 feet, and the re-zoning of a neighborhood from multi-family to single-family were aired, the beach and dune zone was the primary focus of the evening.

“This may invite a spot zoning challenge,” said Keith Davis of Nehmad, Perillo and Davis, the first of the evening’s speakers to address the changes proposed to BDZ ( affecting six properties located on Beach Road in the city’s north end).

Davis, a representative to 20 homeowners on Beach and North roads; Dennis Myers, a resident of the 200 block of Ocean Road; and Vince Hubach, the owner of two lots on Beach Road, all suggested litigation was in the city’s future if the planning board adopted recommended changes to the BDZ.

“This is an example of spot zoning at its finest,” said Hubach, adding it was “ludicrous” that the re-exam failed to address all the lots in the BDZ, including vacant ones and one commercial one along Beach Road.

“You’re putting in building standards based on a nonexistent letter,” said Myers, who detailed his inability to obtain a copy of a letter from a judge that allegedly discussed the disposal of the BDZ. Myers said his Open Public Records Act request for that letter could not be satisfied because he was informed in writing that the letter did not exist.

Calling the city “naïve,” he said, “You cannot effectively deny the owner of a vacant lot from building once you have building standards.”

Lance Landgraf, a resident of Ventnor and a principal planner in Atlantic City; Bill Leighton, a resident of Gardens Road; and Fred Miller, Ocean City historian and a resident of the 300 block of Gull Road, also questioned the wisdom in changing a zoning ordinance that has been in effect since 1988.

“Anything that has lasted 24 years is just about perfect,” Miller said of the current rules, which are very restrictive in what improvements homeowners can make to their properties in that area. “Drive along there and it’s beautiful. Is there a possibility of seeing houses along there? Yes. Is it far-fetched? Maybe. I’m concerned about the future. I don’t want any changes to the beach and dune zone.”

Countering the argument that the planning board was opening up to the city to lawsuits, attorney Bill Serber of Serber Konschak, representing the owners of 19 and 21 Beach Road, said the “vested legal rights go back to the time when the property was built 50 years ago” and not to the time the city created the conservation zone in 1988, which it then renamed the beach and dune zone in 1992.

Dan Young, an attorney representing the owners of 233 and 237 Beach Road, echoed that opinion.

“The legal test is vested rights, not when you buy the property,” said Young, adding the Department of Environmental Protection, which he called “the experts in this area,” had issued approvals for the area that were consistent with recommendations within the master plan.

Afterward, Eric Sauder, an outspoken critic of the administration and many quasi-governmental bodies in the city, said, “I’m disappointed very few people talked about anything else in the master plan beside the beach and dune zone.”

This is the third re-exam to the master plan, which was created in 1988. Previous re-exams occurred in 2000 and 2006.