Public comment almost unanimously opposed
By BILL BARLOW
Special to the Sentinel
STRATHMERE – After multiple marathon remote meetings that began last fall and stretched into the spring, the Upper Township Zoning Board has completed the public comment portion of an application for a new, much larger Strathmere Hotel.
Over the course of about three hours on April 21, residents spoke against the application, continuing a lengthy February meeting at which even more neighbors lambasted the proposal.
They raised concerns with density, parking, increased traffic and with the planned use of a septic system for the commercial property. Many spoke about the work put into amending the zoning in Strathmere in hopes of reducing density.
But most argued that a new hotel project would fundamentally alter the nature of Strathmere, repeatedly described as a quaint, old-fashioned village.
The proposal calls for the demolition of the existing Strathmere Motel at 513 Commonwealth Ave., which owner Stephen Maloney says is obsolete, to be replaced by a larger project to be called “The Inn at Strathmere.”
The original plan called for 15 units. In December, the applicant amended the proposal, reducing the size of the structure, including the proposed height. But the proposal would still be far larger than the existing building, which dates from 1923. Once a home, it became a motel in 1959, although it has not been open to the public in recent summers. The new building would cover most of the block, with parking underneath and kitchens in each of the rooms.
Wednesday was the fifth remote meeting on the application.
A decision may at last be in sight, possibly at the next meeting, which is set for 6:30 p.m. May 13.
Matt Unsworth, who has been leading the meetings on this application, said the board must still hear a summation from the attorneys representing the applicant and those representing the neighbors objecting to the proposal. After that, the board members will agree on a finding of fact and then offer their comments before a vote.
Early in the meeting, Zoning Board member Christopher Phifer suggested speakers not reiterate testimony that had already been made, but rather just say if they agree with previous comments and state if they were for or against the application.
Most of those who commented thanked the board members for their patience and for listening to Strathmere residents. Among them was Al Clark, a neighbor of the motel who joined the meeting with his wife.
“We just want to make it very clear that we’re completely opposed to the proposed application in its entirety, and we agree with all our neighbors who have testified in opposition to the proposed application,” he said. “It’s clear that you’re carefully considering the Strathmere residents’ testimony in opposition to this application and in support of the building ordinance that was adopted in May 2020.”
Several speakers said Strathmere has changed already.
“The first big wave to hit us has been social media, and as you know, we’re no longer ‘Where in the hell is Strathmere?’” said Chris Storz. “Strathmerians are no longer the majority in this town from Thursdays to Mondays.”
Dennis White, a retired state trooper, expressed concern about traffic safety, stating it will be difficult to see at the corners. He was one of the few residents to offer any praise at all for the plan.
“I will say that I understand progress is inevitable. And I’ll candidly admit I like the design of the building,” he said. “It just doesn’t appear to me that much consideration was given to traffic and the size of that corner.”
John Dougherty said the application is smaller than originally proposed, but will still require a height variance.
“I think this application is a gigantic overreach and I’m asking you to vote this down,” he said.
“This proposed hotel threatens that lifestyle for all of us, but especially for those closest to the hotel site,” said Wendy Dougherty. “I am not opposed to the owner getting a return on his investment. But if that were the case, he would have completed simple repairs and opened. But he didn’t even bother to open it for the last three years.”
Several speakers suggested the owner just wanted to maximize profits at the expense of the neighborhood, and at least one asked about evidence of financial hardship if the application were not approved.
Zoning Board member Andrew Shawl said the board does not consider the economics of a project. He also stated that the decision on one application does not set a precedent for other applications.
“Each case stands alone,” he said. “If we do grant it, it’s not a signal that anybody can do whatever they want in Strathmere.”
Throughout the proceedings, Strathmere residents have argued that the proposal would destroy the quaint atmosphere of their seaside village. At one point, Richard King, an attorney representing the applicant, presented an image of the house owned by one of the speakers, a three-story building with a deck on Commonwealth Avenue.
In 2015, the home sold for $1.6 million and in the current market would likely command a much higher price.
“Is this your home?” King asked.
“Yes, it is,” the man replied.
“Would you describe that as quaint?”
“Yes, I would.”
Kelly Tjoumakaris said she and her husband came to Strathmere for the peace and quiet and the ecosystem, and primarily for the absence of crowds compared to other barrier islands.
“In the last couple of years, I really feel like the island has more than met its carrying capacity,” she said. “There’s not enough parking spaces for these people. The beaches are overcrowded. People have become very disrespectful with the way they park.”
Other speakers suggested the hotel would impact the environment and the wildlife that live in the area.
As proposed, the hotel would encompass the entire block, including a parking area to the north of the existing building. Parking is planned underneath.
The single building was designed to give the visual impression of several buildings. The applicant’s representatives argue that the design by architect Bill McLees would be a considerable improvement over what exists.