PODCAST: St Leonard’s Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request

PODCAST: St Leonard's Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request 1 PODCAST: St Leonard's Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request

Ventnor City Planning Board January 8, 2025.

In attendance: Board Chairman Jay Cooke, Board Engineer & Planner Roger McLarnon, Lance Landgraf and Tim Kriebel.

APPLICANT Paul McQuade – 5801 Ventnor Ave located in the R-1 zoning district seeking approval for minor subdivision along with C variance relief for lot area and lot depth.

Ventnor Planning Board St. Leonard Tract

Bill Sill is President of the St. Leonard’s Association. Sill has testified numerous times before the Ventnor Planning and Zoning Board. Ventnor St Leonard’s Tract Bill Sill public comment:

LISTEN TO AUDIO CLIPS from Ventnor City Planning Board meeting, January 8, 2025.

Ventnor Planning Board St. Leonard Tract

I’m here tonight to explain why the variance application cannot and should not be granted. It cannot be granted as the applicant’s notice was inadequate. It has not met its evidentiary burden. And it is not, and it should not be granted as it’s contrary to the public interest.

May 2023, St. Leonard Tract was deemed to be a historic district by both the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This is a significant development for Ventnor in that it will bring additional visitors interested in historic districts to Ventnor.

The notice was inadequate because it inadvertently used the incorrect code requirements for lot size and depth, which inadvertently made it seem that the variance was far less significant than it truly was.

Roger McLarnon in his memo pointed out this fact and in your presentation today, you used the correct numbers but that doesn’t take care of the problem with the notice. The reason that is a problem is that it has the effect of the utilization of the wrong lot size and depth numbers.

Incorrectly minimized the effect on the subdivision and it inadvertently misled the public as to the magnitude of the variances and the number of variances that would be needed.

The incorrect lot size and depth requirements were orally changed today but there is an additional variance that would be needed as a result of the correct lot size and depth being used.

The applicant believes that the variance relief can be granted as they are both remaining in a substantial lots, conforming to the requirements of St. Leonard’s Tract Association. This is incorrect on three different basis.

First of all, unfortunately, the city does not enforce the conditions in the Tracts deeds. In order to do that, we would have to go to court. So whether the proposal conforms to the Tracts deeds is for the purposes of this proceeding it’s it’s not terribly relevant.

Second, our planned oceanside community relies on the requirements contained in the deed in each property that they all have, if you’re a property owner in the Tract, not on an association document.

And third, I would like to take us out of the world of conjecture. And bring us into the world of fact before I came here, I looked online at the tax maps for ST Leonard’s Tract, not just the cherry picked portion of the Tract, but the entire Tract and a great many houses are located on lots that are 125 by 50.

Most importantly, building more than one building per lot was explicitly precluded by a condition in our deeds.

PODCAST: St Leonard's Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request 2 PODCAST: St Leonard's Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request

This proposal to subdivide the lot into two non conforming lots and build houses is antithetical to the Tract’s plan and mission. And that’s a very important thing. We could decide to piecemeal subdivide the entire Tract using the same logic that you bring forth today.

But as Roger McLaren’s memo correctly points out, the city’s regulation states the hardship must relate strictly to the physical or topographic features of the property and cannot relate to any personal or financial hardship that you will suffer. A C-2 variance would only be granted if the public benefits of the variance outweigh the detriment to the public good.

There is no public benefit to granting a variance, and a grant would be contrary to the spirit of the city’s code, and I’d ask you to look at article 4, section 125b3. In which the code permits variances to aid the repair and rehabilitation of historic structures. In contrast, the application would disrupt and contravene the very characteristics that led BOEM and the New Jersey Historic Protection Office to deem the Tract a historic district.

They called it a planned oceanside community with zoning and design style regulations regarding setback requirements.

We are proud of our Tract, and it has become known as one of the gems in Ventnor’s Crown.

If you go on listings of MLS, you’ll see that the houses within the Tract prominently mentioned that fact, we are genuinely concerned that a grant of this application could be viewed by developers as a signal that the city would entertain variances, permitting additional subdivisions within the Tract.

If that were to occur, it could threaten the Tracts designation as a historic district as a historic district. can and has been delisted if its structures and historic elements are diminished or destroyed. We respectfully ask that the planning board deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to make comment before the board?

PUBLIC COMMENT I’ve been in Ventnor since 1974. And every time I go to Longport, Margate, you go up to Haddonfield, New Jersey, there’s always historic areas, beautiful homes, mansions. And it gives the character of the town something to behold. I feel the same way about the Tract.

Population density in the summertime only increases with people coming down, renting homes.

I got houses across the street building up, million dollar homes, but now people are renting them out as AirBnBs. So you wind up with more cars on the street, less parking.

According to the deed restriction instituted in 1921 by the St. Leonard’s Association, it says that in the case of removal or destruction of any building or part of the building, now erected. In violation of forthgoing covenants and conditions or any of them said man shall be subject to the covenants and conditions here mentioned and any new building or part thereof shall not be erected or used in violation which is. One building per lot.

PUBLIC COMMENT: It is a huge house on a huge lot. It is literally one of the largest lots in the city of Ventnor, and yet it’s apparently not big enough, so we have to develop it more. It smacks of an overreach. I understand the economics of it, but again, this is an overreach. It’s not necessary. The property can be developed. I’m sure it can be profitable for somebody with the right plan, right place. I’m not a land use lawyer, but I’ve heard nothing about hardship and I certainly don’t think that adding another house with more parking is to the public benefit. You have no hardship, you have no public benefit. It smacks of an overreach.

PUBLIC COMMENT Former Ventnor Mayor TIM KREISHER: Very reputable family in the city of Ventnor through the years. The McQuaid family. If anybody deserves any consideration, it is certainly the McQuades.

Importance of the St. Leonard’s Tract in Ventnor.

Kreisher: Mayor Kriebel, you mentioned that this sets a precedent. Which I think it does. You send a message that if you’re in St. Leonard’s Tract and you want to buy a big home and tear it down and subdivide it. You can do that. I think that’s a dangerous precedent to set, today it’s 5 feet. The next applicant comes in and says you gave it to them for 5, I want 8. The next one says, you gave it for 8 and I want 15. And over a period of time, the zoning laws were just destroyed.

And while everybody sympathizes with McQuade’s situation, I think that the city and the board needs to adopt a philosophy that build the house that you can, not that you want. Or in this case, developed a lot that you can, not what you want to develop. So I would encourage the board to vote no on this variance.

Hearing all the comments we’ve just heard, it’s the applicant’s intention to withdraw the application tonight and not proceed to a vote.

So be it.

Are you formally requesting to withdraw the application?

Yes.

Lance Landgraf, who supports occasional spot zoning and ‘areas-in-need-of-redevelopment tactics’ said: Don’t come in here for a subdivision of lots. It’s not appropriate. It doesn’t fit the character of the St. Leonard’s Tract. It doesn’t fit the character of what we want to keep there.

Author

1 thought on “PODCAST: St Leonard’s Tract Ventnor Applicant Withdraws Sub-Division Request”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.