I finally have been able to see ALL of the recommendations made by the Planning Board in reviewing the March Draft of the Plan. If you recall, the City's position is that the March Draft is what was adopted by Ordinance #2607. That Ordinance also addresses the various PB recommendations, either accepting or objecting each one. I could not ascertain whether the Ordinance addressed ALL of the recommendations. It is my undersstanding that the City was obligated to address ALL of the recommendations by either accepting them or explaining when a recommendation was object and not to be incorporated. I note that Ordinance #2607 contains nothing about C-8.
Here is what the PB recommends regarding C-8 --------------------- DWELLING UNIT DISTRIBUTION On page 77 of the Draft Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, the Dwelling Unit Chart indicates that on Block 176, 224 units are to be constructed. The true number of floors/levels should be included in the chart. 300 OCEAN MILE The board recommends that this structure be removed and therefore the 64 bonus units be omitted. In addition, the developer is to loose the previously agreed to bonus of 64 units for having redesigned the building facade. Parking requirements on Block 176 is to be adjusted according to the number of units to be built. ------------------------------ Now one of the main differences between the March and June versions of the plan is that these concerns/recommendations are ADDRESSED. In fact, it appears as if a compromise was reached and incorporated, in effect, being accepted by the City. Firstly, the number of stories (16) was added in the Dwelling Unit Distribution chart with the caveat that if demolished, the site would be subject to the height controls for Block 161 (3, 4 & stories). The City is OBLIGATED to address the PB recommendations. I don;t know if others were not addressed, but it is clear that if the City disavows the June version of the plan, then it cannot have validly adopted the March plan by Ordinance #2607 because it is silent on this recommendation. If the City wanted to object to it, it could have (but didn't) and explained it as it did with other recommendations in the ordinance. Whether Aaron is technically correct that the June version, because it does not adopt the PB rrecommendation in whole (outright demolition) would have to go back to the PB (Maybe it did) remains to be seen. But it is clear that the June version of the Plan was specifically created to address this recommendation. I suspect that John Clarke was almost ready to say so until Faiella kicked him in the shins and started speaking for him. I have given an ultimatium to the City to come clean and fire Aaron. If not, lawsuit and FBI time. Enough is enough. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
