By BILL BARLOW/Special to the Sentinel
STRATHMERE – After five lengthy – some might say grueling – meetings running from early fall into spring, the Upper Township Zoning Board on May 13 rejected a proposal for a new hotel in Strathmere, despite a last-minute reduction in the proposed height.
In a 4-3 vote, board members rejected the use variance upon which the application depended. The property has been in use as a motel since 1959, but there is no zone in the beachside community that allows hotels or motels.
Board member Larry Trulli, who voted against the variance, made reference before voting that his decision could tie things up. But even a 4-4 split would not have been enough to approve the variance, which required five votes to pass.
Some board members, including those who voted no, described the proposal for 513 Commonwealth Ave. as a good-looking project. In the end, a majority sided with the residents and property owners who argued that it would be too big and too intense a use for the site.
Over the course of multiple meetings, more than 100 speakers railed against the project, arguing that it would fundamentally change the nature of Strathmere, which they described as a sleepy seaside village of cottages.
On Thursday, attorney Richard King sought to deflate that image, saying it does not reflect the reality of Strathmere today, and is certainly not the Strathmere of the future. Speaking on behalf of owner Stephen Maloney, he said construction on the barrier island will continue to get taller and stronger to weather rising sea levels and stronger storms.
“What is there now is not going to stay there,” he said. “It’s going to be a bigger building.”
It’s too late to go back to the way things were, King said, telling the board that his client became the scapegoat for a much larger societal change.
“And it is unfair to inflict all of that disappointment on a single landowner who wants to do with his hotel what hundreds of people have already done to their cottages in Strathmere,” he said. Originally built in 1923 as a private home, the existing building is in poor shape, he said.
King cited the advice of township planner Tiffany Cuviello, who told board members earlier in the meeting not to compare the proposal to what exists on the site, but rather what could be built there. According to King, the current owner could build a single-family home just as tall as the proposed hotel, or a bar or restaurant, which he described as a far more intense use than the proposed hotel.
To drive home his point, he showed board members a series of images of large-scale recent development in Strathmere, the air quotes clearly audible in the virtual meeting as he called each one “cottages.” They were each large, multistory dwellings. There were about 40 images taken from Google Earth, the last 10 of properties owned by objectors who spoke at the earlier meetings.
“They’re all lovely homes, by the way. I’m not insulting anyone’s homes. They’re lovely homes and I’d be glad to own them,” he said. But he said the hotel proposal was repeatedly described as an imposition and an abomination on a village of quaint cottages, a description he said is just not true.
“It’s not the future and it isn’t even the present,” King said.
There was no additional input from the public at the meeting, which board member Matthew Unsworth, who led the meetings on the application, explained to one resident who got on the call with additional questions. Still, about 100 people stayed through the meeting.
But attorney Ray Wendt, representing neighbors who objected to the proposal, did have a chance to sum up before the board vote. He focused on the size of the proposal, and the fact that every speaker over the course of multiple meetings opposed the plan. He said many literally begged the board not to allow the proposal.
“It’s just massive,” he said.
The plans show a building about three times the size of what exists. He said some of the new private homes are also large, but argued that they fit in the community.
“Now you’re talking about slamming that thing down in the middle of the neighborhood,” he said. He also raised issues of the expanded septic system – Strathmere has no municipal sewers – and suggested that once the project was completed, it would serve as apartments or condominiums rather than function as a hotel.
King, who got the final word before the board’s discussion, said his client was willing to include a deed restriction that would prevent the project from becoming residential units. He added that the question of septic lay outside the board’s purview. The project would need to get approval for the septic plans, but not from the Zoning Board.
King told the board that the objectors had a good point when they discussed the beauty of Strathmere and the seaside ecosystem.
“There was talk of the beauty of the birds and the beaches. I don’t disagree. They’re beautiful. But those resources are not for the exclusive enjoyment of those who can afford a million-dollar home in Upper, or are fortunate enough to inherit one,” he said.
He said there have been hotels in operation in Strathmere since the 1800s, and that the existing use served as a hotel for 65 years.
Some board members were convinced.
Board member Andrew Shawl said he heard what the residents said, and respected it, but supported the use variance that would allow the project to move forward.
“It’s not that much bigger than what could be built there as a single-family home if somebody chose to do that,” he said.
Board member Richard Mashura called the design attractive.
Unsworth said the applicant did a wonderful job on the presentation, and also thanked the members of the public for their patience through the process and thoughtful presentations. He said the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the detriments, and voted against the variance.
Before the meeting ended, King said he did not know if there would be an appeal, but requested the board vote on the other variances requested in case his client decided to file one.
The project also required variances for setbacks and a height variance. The proposal was slightly under the 35-foot maximum for a Strathmere roof, but because the roof line was curved, it was counted as a flat roof, which has a lower height limit.
At the start of the meeting, township staff said the plans had been amended, dropping the overall height by less than a foot so it would require a different class of variance.
The board voted on the first variance request, which would allow signs on each side of the building, with the same result. King did not insist on a vote on the preliminary and final site plan approval, which board attorney Jeffrey Barnes described as irrelevant without the use variance.
Shawl, Mashura and Sherrie Lisa Galderisi voted in favor of the project, with Unsworth, Karen Mitchell, Christopher Phifer and Trulli voting no.