OCEAN CITY — City Council decided to delay sending a proposal for parking requirements for big rental units being constructed in the Second Ward to a state board and will instead refer it to the Planning Board for review.
Although council members in general agree with Second Ward Councilman Keith Hartzell’s measure to make sure certain units being built expressly to rent would also ensure adequate parking for all of their guests, they didn’t want to give up their home rule on the plan.
Hartzell has been working with city Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson since September on how to craft regulations to require specific types of construction to provide adequate parking.
Hartzell asked for the resolution they devised to be pulled from the consent agenda so there was more conversation about it.
The resolution authorized sending an application to the New Jersey Site Improvement Advisory Board for a special area standard for parking in the Second Ward, which has the most diverse zoning in the city. The advisory board rules on Residential Site Improvement (RSI) standards statewide, which supersede local zoning.
The ward, stretching from the south side of Fourth Street to the north side of 12th Street, would require that homes with four or more bedrooms with their own bathrooms, or with a “den” or “office” that also has a bathroom, be required to have off-street parking for the number of vehicles they would attract — at least one per bedroom/bathroom set.
Hartzell said it’s clear these units are being set up solely as rentals through portals such as VRBO and Airbnb and are making parking difficult to find in the ward.
McCrosson said this type of construction is part of a growing trend to house unrelated parties, unlike the old Ocean City vacation model in which related families would rent out entire homes.
To enact such an ordinance requires approval from the advisory board, which sets a maximum number of parking spaces rather than a minimum.
She told council that if they approved the resolution, it would turn the matter over to the board, which would make the decision to change the parking requirements.
“You’re not just getting an opinion, you’re getting them to act for changes in the Second Ward,” she said.
Hartzell said there is overwhelming support for the measure in his ward.
“No one in my ward said it’s a bad idea,” he said, pointing out the units are being built to be marketed as rentals. “I’m trying to anticipate the number of cars coming and ensuring there is (adequate) parking,” he said. “I want to see where this goes. The only way I can solve this is to have more parking for these types of homes.”
His fellow council members sympathized but wanted the Planning Board to review the proposal first and not give up home rule on the issue. Once it is sent to the board, the final decision on whether to implement it no longer belongs to the city.
“I agree with the idea but I hate losing local control,” Fourth Ward Councilman Dave Winslow said.
Asked by Third Ward Councilman Jody Levchuk whether the board would reconsider if the city changed its mind, McCrosson said she didn’t know how the board would respond to the city asking for the change and then asking to change it back.
Levchuk said he didn’t hear anyone disagree there’s a parking issue and that something needs to be one.
“I’d be lying if I wasn’t concerned about bypassing the Planning Board,” he added.
At-large Councilman Sean Barnes and First Ward Councilman Terry Crowley Jr., the council vice president, said they believed it should go to the Planning Board for review first.
Planning Board Chairman John Loeper and board member Dean Adams were at the meeting and both spoke. (McCrosson noted they were speaking as individuals, not representatives of the board.)
Loeper said he lived in the ward and did not have a parking problem, but didn’t “totally disagree” with what had been said about parking. He pointed out the ward was the most diversified in land use and having everything from the boardwalk to the bay covered by a blanket ordinance could be bad or good.
He added that the Planning Board routinely looks for ways to get developers to add parking. He said the board could quickly review the proposal and return a recommendation to council.
Adams said as a property owner in the ward, he didn’t see a parking problem but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in certain areas.
“What I don’t like,” he said, “is taking local control away.”
Adams added he didn’t disagree with Hartzell, but wanted city officials to looked at it for “unintended consequences” rather than turning it over to the state board.
Citizen Jim Kelly said this was an instance in which council could benefit from having its own counsel, its own “independent expertise” to guide it because there were variations in beliefs between council and the administration.
At the last meeting, Kelly called for council to have its own solicitor in cases in which council’s interests and the administration’s interests might collide. McCrosson acts as solicitor for both council and the administration.
McCrosson pointed out that she had been working for months with Hartzell to design the ordinance and there had been no pushback at all from the administration.
After council voted 7-0 to table the ordinance and send it to the Planning Board for review, Mayor Jay Gillian responded as well to Kelly’s comments, saying he commended Hartzell for researching and bringing up the parking issue in the ward.
“We might not always agree,” Gillian said, “but don’t think I’m trying to stop him.”
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff