WILDWOOD CREST – Several motel owners showed up to voice their opinions on an anticipated application from Mahalo Hotels LLC at the June 1 Wildwood Crest Planning Board meeting.
Without explicitly referencing the proposed development, they hinted at frustrations with what they viewed as prior special treatment for the Mahalo.
The comments centered on the 18 variances that the Mahalo applicants had sought and been granted by the Planning Board in a past application.
Background
The Planning Board voted unanimously to grant all 18 variances to the Mahalo in a March 2020 meeting. Now, though, the prior application is null due to changes required by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Because of its proximity to the ocean, the planned development required a special permit from the DEP. Known as a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit, the process allows the DEP to put certain conditions on any developments in the area.
The Planning Board’s prior approval was given conditionally, stipulating approval only if state or federal authorities did not intervene. The DEP required certain changes be made to the plans. The revisions mandated by the state now necessitate an amended application to the Planning Board.
Unlike the late 2019 approval, members of the public are keenly aware of the process as it currently unfolds.
The DEP approved the CAFRA permit May 27, paving the way for the Mahalo to submit an amended site application to the Crest Planning Board. The DEP has entered a 30-day appeal period where parties can object to the CAFRA permit being granted.
Mahalo has yet to submit the new application. When it will be filed is unclear.
Objections
Joseph Salerno, owner of the Imperial 500 at 6601 Atlantic Avenue, asked the board about any recommended changes to view corridors in the Master Plan, a document that offers guidance regarding the borough’s development plans and guiding principles.
Salerno’s concerns are founded on a variance granted to the Mahalo that allows it to change the minimum required front yard setback from 30 feet to zero, a move that would effectively erase the view corridor on the south side of Rosemary Road.
Patrick Davenport, chair of the Planning Board, responded that the board was not considering changes to specific ordinances, likely in reference to a Wildwood Crest ordinance that mandates the view corridors that characterize the Crest’s layout. About the Master Plan, though, he assured Salerno that nothing was being changed.
“View corridors have always been part of the Master Plan here in Wildwood Crest. It’s remaining that way. There is no plan in the future to change that,” said Davenport.
The board is required to examine and update the Master Plan every six to 10 years under state law. The Planning Board approved a new iteration of the plan June 1. As Davenport answered, the board has done nothing to change the plan’s guidance on view corridors.
Robert Belasco, attorney to the Planning Board, sought to clarify the limitations of the Master Plan.
“Bear in mind what this document is. This is really your blueprint. Once this is approved, the board then uses this as its blueprint to… enact changes or modifications, which the board felt was appropriate to look into further,” he said.
The Master Plan is not legally binding.
As Salerno spoke, it became clear that his concerns went beyond view corridors to include parking, another point of contention in the Mahalo’s original application.
“Through the years, I’ve applied to build, and I had to stop a fourth floor for that reason because I did not have enough parking and I understood that,” said Salerno. “If you’re consistent telling other people that are applying also they cannot do that for many, many years – if the change in thinking is ‘now we’re going to allow it for one or two individuals,’ that’s a major change.
“I was denied, and many other people were denied. If you do not have the proper amount of parking, you cannot continue to build because it would be an impact on the community. My concern is: If that’s going to be changed, does that mean now I can go back and continue building and apply the same way?”
“Every application for variance relief stands on its own merits and the board has to determine whether the positive aspects of an application outweigh the negative aspects of an application,” Belasco responded. “To answer your questions, there are no changes proposed to the existing zoning ordinance.”
Several more motel owners used public comment to object to the Mahalo’s application.
George Pawlowski, who owns Compass Family Resort, the motel opposite the Mahalo site on Ocean Avenue, also attended the meeting. He sued the board over their approval of the original Mahalo application in 2019, citing the last-minute shuffling of meetings and the limited public notice provided.
A Superior Court judge ruled against Pawlowski in 2021, saying that the Planning Board did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably. Pawlowski is appealing that decision.
At the June 1 meeting, his concerns centered on the board fairly assessing the amended site application anticipated from the Mahalo.
“Just to clarify, it will be looked at individually, from the start, fresh?” Pawlowski asked.
Belasco remained noncommittal, citing pending litigation in the Appellate Division.
“A CAFRA permit was required. That was denied. They have to re-file, and when that’s coming, I couldn’t tell you,” said Belasco.
Salerno returned to the podium to ask about valet parking and off-premises parking. Neither was included in the original Mahalo application.
“They would still have to come back to this board if they want to reapply for valet or off-premises parking consideration for a variance?” Salerno sought to clarify.
“If they wanted to pursue parking off-site, a standalone lot, they’d have to get a variance for that,” said Belasco.
Melissa Roy, of the V.I.P. Family Motel, wasn’t concerned with off-site parking. Instead, Roy raised concerns over changes to the size of parking spaces.
Davenport said in the meeting that he can’t remember ever entertaining a variance for compact cars. Davenport voted to allow the Mahalo to shrink the width of parking spaces from 9 feet down to 7-8 feet, along with several other board members, in 2019.
Unprompted, Davenport told Roy of a study conducted by the Doo Wop Preservation League years ago.
According to Davenport, that study found that “pretty much not one hotel met the parking requirements either by numbers or by length or width. We have a whole bunch of non-conforming hotels out there that don’t have what we have in our ordinance today as a required parking spot.”
What’s Next
Mahalo’s original application included several variances related to parking. One requested that only 70 of the required 84 off-street parking spaces be required. Another decreased the stall width of parking spots from 9 feet to 7-8 feet. Yet another requested permission to park cars in tandem. It remains to be seen whether the amended site application will contain these same requests for variance relief.
Davenport acknowledged the dozen or so members of the public who had shown up.
“It’s rare that we have anybody from residents or the business community that comes into any of our meetings. We would always welcome any comments or concerns at any of our meetings,” he said.
The Planning Board is scheduled to meet again at 5 p.m. July 6.
To contact Alec Hansen, email ahansen@cmcherald.com.
