Council Mulls Meter Extension, Times When Construction Is Permitted

SEA ISLE CITY – Sea Isle City Council met Nov. 24 and addressed two issues that had received citizen comments over the last few months.
Amending Demolition
Council member Mary Tighe said she had received a number of complaints regarding construction procedures in the city and actually just one related to actual demolition concerns.
“The one letter I received about demolition had more to do with dust exacerbating her asthma problem. What I really am hearing about is the early start time for construction at 7 a.m., and the entire issue of neighborhood upheaval such as blowing trash, wire, pipes and other construction material left strewn around, porta-potties next to houses, foul language, rude behavior, parking spots taken up and blaring radios,” she detailed.
Tighe floated the idea of having a later start time, at least in summer, for construction. She said “I would really like to see a uniform later time for the entire year.”
Council member Frank Edwardi said that he would not comment on the merits of any demolition limitations since “I’m in that business; however, I do know that most deliveries come in early, they want to get in and out especially during the heavy traffic season of the summer. Construction might be a different situation since that goes on for five or six months but let’s not include any new requirements on deliveries into town.”
Council chair, Jack Gibson, summed up members’ sentiments by asking that the administration put together a proposal that will reflect the comments and discussion that morning. During the citizens’ comment period, additional input was given that the city has enough ordinances. “Let’s not over-regulate; it’s not good for business and our overall economic climate,” he said.
Draft to Extend Parking Meters
Tighe reported that each year the city makes about $340,000 from parking meters and supported extending keeping meters operative annually until the end of October. This extension would add two weeks’ additional revenues to coffers estimated at about $20,000 annually.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, one resident said that he wanted to push for an even higher per-hour charge, i.e. raising the current $1 per hour to $2 per hour.
Council members debated the detriments of extending the season of functioning parking meters with John Divney noting that it would be mainly residents paying for the meters during the off-season additional two weeks rather than visitors and tourists and thus, in reality, would be a kind of new tax on residents.
“In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I propose putting off further discussion of this ordinance until next year,” said Gibson. Council accepted.
F.A.R. in Advance
A major portion of the meeting was taken up by a presentation by Ed Sgalio, the Master Plan Re-exam Subcommittee chairperson, who began his briefing by noting “The tremendous response we received to our requests for comments, survey input and attendance at a recent workshop open to the public as well as the civic groups’ workshop.”
Sgalio said that the master plan will take years to implement and that the process is on-going, estimating that it will be finalized about 12 months from the present.
“However, I am here today to recommend that council adopt the new F.A.R. (Floor to Area Ratio) portion of the plan which reflects citizens’ desire to curb the ‘monster house’ building and other related issues such as drainage, congestion and over development they perceive as being a huge problem of council’s earlier action to eliminate the F.A.R. We want council to not wait until the entire re-exam is completed and enact a F.A.R. of 0.7 at this time.”
Edwardi reacted with near disbelief at this request saying, “A few years ago, you asked us to eliminate the F.A.R. and we did. A few months ago the planning board asked us to enact a ratio of 0.8 and now today you have yet another figure. I don’t understand why you want us to accelerate this and implement a piecemeal master plan.”
Tighe said, “When we eliminated the F.A.R. we listened to business people who said it was hurting our town and that property values were being negatively affected. We thought we were acting in the best interests of people but the results were not positive.
“The master plan survey received the most comments of anything we’ve ever done and the majority of the comments that came in related to overbuilding and the F.A.R.  in the city.” During the public comment portion, a resident said he supported Divney’s earlier comment of “Why wait? The public wants F.A.R.  strengthened now.”
At the end of discussion it was agreed to recommend that the planning board accelerate its work on the overall master plan which would include its new F.A.R. recommendations and then present in writing actions that require council action.
To contact Camille Sailer, email csailer@cmcherald.com.