Ocean City Council Makes Final Decision on Coastal Cottages

Ocean City, NJ -- After tabling its final decision three times, Ocean City Council finally revoked the Coastal Cottages concept as a conditional use in the Drive-In Business (DB) Zone during Thursday night's council meeting at City Hall.

However, the battle may not be over, as former councilman John Flood reiterated his opposition to the proposed ordinance to revoke the concept.

He reminded council he has filed a petition that includes the signatures of at least 20 percent of the property owners who currently live in the area in which the cottages stand, and that he has filed a lawsuit against the city to challenge the proposed ordinance.

He also reiterated his belief that two councilman should recuse themselves, and Councilman Anthony Wilson did recuse himself from Thursday night’s vote.

Council President Keith Hartzell, who previously said he hired an attorney to help guide him on the issue, voted on the matter.

Hartzell and Wilson each own property in the Drive-In Business Zone, according to ocnjdaily.com.

“Voting on zoning is always difficult,” Hartzell said. “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what the taxpayer believes.”

Hartzell said he knocked on 160 doors in the neighborhood, and most people said that while they like the cottages, improvements were needed.

City Council approved the Coastal Cottages concept for smaller, more affordable single-family homes in Ocean City in 2013.

Hartzell was among the five people who voted in favor of the proposed ordinance in the 5-1 vote.

Councilman Peter Guinosso provided the dissenting vote, saying he would be in favor of the legislation if it didn’t include a “grandfather” clause that allowed projects that had already been approved to move forward.

“I didn’t think this was a good idea, and I’ve said no from the beginning,” Guinosso said, referring to the original approval of the concept.

Flood’s family has filed an application to build two cottages on land on Simpson Avenue his family currently leases to Ocean City Chevrolet, according to the Ocean City Gazette.

The project isn’t protected by the grandfather clause included in the proposed ordinance because it hasn’t yet been approved locally. The state’s grandfather clause protects developmental applications that have been submitted, City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson said.

When introduced during the Feb. 25 meeting, city officials said part of the goal of the proposed ordinance was to take a pause on the concept to examine specific issues, including the possibility of implementing some of the suggested improvements, including decks and some maintenance design issues.

“This is an opportunity for us to look at it, make some decisions and bring it back and do it right,” Councilman Antwan McClellan said on Thursday.

The suggestion came from a Planning Board sub-committee. Flood pointed out that those who helped draft the original ordinance weren’t consulted about the pause, but McCrosson previously said this wasn’t improper procedure.

“I’ve looked at all sides and made my decision, but irrespective of what I decide, this will end up in another venue for someone else to decide,” Councilman Michael DeVlieger said. “It’s been my experience that when something is left in someone else’s hands, both sides will lose.”

In addition to Flood, three residents spoke on the issue, including a new resident of Ocean City who moved into a cottage and is happy with it, as are most people who live there, he said.

Another resident spoke out against overbuilding in Ocean City, while another said the presence of the cottages enhances flooding problems and further complicates the parking issue in the area, since more cars will be coming in and not enough spaces will be available. He also worried about the impact on the tourism industry.

There were 18 homes built in the area of 13th and Haven. Twelve of those 18 homes have been sold, and eight of them have been sold to families who intend to move in as year-round residents.