New Point Beach Parking Plan Likely to Be Adopted March 5
Revised plan includes part of District 3, but plan in effect only from 12:30 to 4 a.m. this summer
Pdfs
A parking plan to include part of Point Beach's District 3 is likely to be adopted by a narrow majority of Point Beach Council members on March 5.
On Tuesday night, Council members Stephen Reid and Andy Cortes voted against the proposed plan, Council member William Mayer abstained and Council members Kristine Tooker, Bret Gordon and Michael Corbally voted for it, giving it barely enough support to move towards second reading and adoption next month.
The proposed parking plan would be in effect in most of District 4 and part of District 3 for those who are not residents or property owners from May 15 through Sept. 15. There will be a maximum fine of $250 for violations, according to the ordinance posted on the municipal website.
The parking plan differs in a few ways from the plan that was in effect during overnight hours in District 4 last summer, which sparked several lawsuits, most of which are still pending.
The new ordinance, if ultimately adopted, would be in effect from 12:30 to 4 a.m., compared to last year's which was in effect from midnight to 6 a.m.
Mayer asked for the restriction to end at 4 a.m. to benefit surf fishermen. Corbally agreed and that was ultimately part of the measure that was passed.
Also, Channel Drive is no longer included in the area covered by the plan and part of District 3 will be included.
Ocean County-owned roads, such as Baltimore and Chicago, still are not included in the parking plan because the county will not allow any parking restrictions on county roads in Point Beach, despite allowing much more onerous, 24-hour restrictions on county-owned roads in Seaside Heights.
Similar to last summer, there will be free parking in the Silver Lake parking lot from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The proposed ordinance describes the area to be restricted by the parking plan as:
"District Four Area shall be defined as that area of the Borough bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by the New Jersey Transit Railroad Tracks, on the north by the South side of Broadway and on the South by the north side of Arnold Avenue, with the exception that no portion of either Broadway or Arnold Avenue shall be subject to this Ordinance.
"District Three Area shall be defined as that area of the Borough bordered on the North by the South side of Arnold Avenue, on the west by the West side of St. Louis Avenue on the South by the South side of Forman Avenue and on the East by the West side of Ocean Avenue, with the exception that no portion of Arnold Avenue shall be subject to this Ordinance.
"Covered Area shall be defined as that area of the Borough defined above as the District Four Area and the District Three Area." (See attached PDF for map.)
Reid said he could have supported a plan that did not expand into District 3.
"I don't see anyone here asking for this," Reid said.
"There's also no one here saying they don't want it," Gordon countered.
Tooker said she believes that as media reports are published and news spreads of the proposed plan, residents will learn more about it and voice their opinions.
Cortes said he also could have supported a plan similar to the one established last summer.
"If it's the same, it will be easier for people to remember," he said.
Mayer said he was abstaining because he did not understand why it was being extended out into District 3 as far as it is and he had seen and/or received multiple versions of the ordinance and the accompanying map and still wasn't sure if he had the right versions of both.
He also asked his colleagues, "Does this ordinance help in the recovery of Sandy?"
Gordon said, "There are areas that have been severely impacted by Sandy and there is a concern about people going to uninhabited properties, so, yes, I think this does help."
The idea behind the parking plan is to help keep bar patrons off residential streets where for a few years, until last summer, they often were loud, disruptive as well as dumping trash and urinating on residents' lawns, according to many reports from residents and police.
Reid said he heard from many residents in District 4 who did not like the parking plan.
"We must be talking to different people," Tooker said, "because I haven't heard from anyone in District 4 who didn't love the parking plan. I also heard from a few residents in District 3 on Laurel and Trenton who want it on their streets."
Corbally said, "It's mind-boggling we're debating this. The quality of life improved."
A separate ordinance regarding parking meters and pay machines was passed unanimously on first reading and is scheduled for second reading and adoption on Feb. 19. To see that ordinance on the municipal website, click here.
Editor's Note: Regarding the proposed parking plan for this summer, the ordinance on the municipal website, based on an earlier version that had been considered, says, in one sentence, that the restrictions will be in place until 5 a.m. However, that was changed at the meeting to 4 a.m., which will be the time restrictions end, as Patch has confirmed with the municipal clerk.
outofthebeach4now
3:13 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Restricting parking in a summer resort town that was devastated by a storm is the most idiotic decision I have ever seen. Rather than restricting parking on the streets, they should make parking free during the week in Silver Lake for all of May June and July to attract people back to town. Tooker, Corbally and Gordon continue to support the ideas of this idiot Mayor. Vinnie, please resign!!!!!!!
Nick Carraway
4:11 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
It IS mind-boggling they're debating this, as Councilman Corbally said. Every other town in Ocean County is discussing flood zones, Sandy damage, etc.,, but not our Governing Body. Nope. They're too busy discussing reinstating a parking plan but...surprise...not even the same plan that they say worked last year. How great. The displaced residents of D4 and D3 will get back in their homes just in time to learn new rules on where to park. Oh and there's also the great Barrella-Martells feud, which was discussed on Tuesday, too. Please get a clue! You had 450+ people turn out for a FEMA meeting last night because that's what is the most important issue on residents' minds these days. Stop expecting people to find the time to attend your meetings to voice their concerns when there are so many other bigger priorities, and start really focusing on the problems people are facing. If you thought the old plan worked, then you should've kept it without any changes.
Mr. Happy
6:16 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Hi Nick- as we discussed earlier, it is a good plan made better. As to the meeting, the FEMA meeting last night was courtesy of the PPB council's initiative. It was so well attended because there were people from other towns there, because their own town didn't sponser the meeting. Kudos to PPB gov't for this service. It's sad that the Patch has been remiss in covering the meeting, I guess the parking plan and the feuds are better "copy."
Nick Carraway
9:40 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Mr. Happy, I know that you're a big fan of the parking plan. As Mr. Ward has posted in the past, there are many who simply "put up with it." In the past, the Council relied on the D4 parking plan referendum results to justify imposing the plan in D4. I find it curious that they seem to have completely disregarded the D3 referendum results when drafting their current plan. But, more importantly, I think many of our residents are overwhelmed by all of the Sandy issues. Residents are dealing with enough changes in their lives. If they really felt that it was necessary to bring back the parking plan, then they should have simply put back what they had last year. I can even understand removing the plan from certain streets. But, now was not the time to add streets. I think that many appreciated the FEMA meeting. Shame on those towns who haven't provided such a service to their residents. This is what our government should be doing. I thought it was only children, though, who needed praise for doing what they're supposed to do.
Mr. Happy
6:16 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
A good parking plan made better. Thanks to the Mayor and Council.
Note to the Patch: I know these political stories are entertaining to the Patch bloggers, but will the Patch be doing an article on last nights meeting at Antram school with FEMA? It was an overflow crowd and a lot of good info. was presented.
At the moment, I think people are more interested in getting accurate disaster relief information from local media.
D4 Resident
6:16 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Has it dawned on these four egotistical politicans (Barrella Gordon Tooker and Corbally) that the voters in District 3 turned the parking plan down. Have they asked the residents of District 3 if they want the parking plan? I have, and I haven’t found one who wants it.
Honesty instead of Corruption
10:25 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
It appears to me that the 4 elected officials you refer to are not connected to a political party with power bosses, don't have careers that they lend themselves to the personal benefits of by being hired or appointed by "special interests" for personal gain, and may only have the interests of the residents of Point Pleasant Beach in mind when making decisions. We may disagree with some of their decisions, but I believe their hearts are in the right place. You could have the Mayor of Belmar, or George Gilmore running our town. I'd rather not!
Ventura
9:03 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
These vague allegations of corruption are getting old, don’t you think? Like to show us some proof that Mayer, Reid, Cortes, or any elected official in PPB, past or present, ever gained personally from being elected? You may disagree with the decisions of Mayer, Reid and Cortes but there is nothing that even suggests any of their decisions have been motivated by anything other than what they think is in the best interests of the people of PPB---ALL the people
D4 Resident
6:16 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
And what is mind boggling, Mr. Corbally, is that you don’t recognize “that the quality of life improved” because of the increased specials. If the specials had not been cut there would have been no issue for you to campaign on. The parking plan is a lot of bad publicity for little gain.
What is also mind-boggling is that you lied to us to get it done. You told us you would not do this plan if the County would not go along with it. Then you pretended the County would approve the plan even after the told you no, not once, but twice, in writing. And then you implemented the plan even though the County did not approve. Sounds like you knew the increased special funding would do the trick and you wanted to make sure you had a parking plan in place to steal the credit. Pathetic.
PS Ms. Tooker --- I am a D4 resident and I have told you (as have my neighbors) over and over again that we don't want a parking plan.
Why don't we count as a person "you spoke to?" Or did you just conveniently forget about us?
nobody
7:53 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Tooker spoke to you the same way she spoke to the people about the cooks lane trailers.IN her own mind!! Tooker is no more than one of Barrellas puppets. They are hell bent on having a parking plan as Barrellas legacy regardless of what the residents want. Both Tooker and Corbally have been caught lying to the residents but some how keep getting away with it???
Ray Criptkie
7:35 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
District 4 resident here that does NOT want this absurd parking plan! I would like to thank all first responders and say Vinny is NOT welcolm anywhere I am either!
Jo Jo
9:39 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
The reason why the parking plan failed in district 3 and came close in 4 was because certain politicians lied to St. Peter's Church. St. Peter's believed their lies that spewed incorrect information. St. Peters should have never been involved. They are a non profit organization that pays zero taxes.
Nick Carraway
10:25 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
JoJo, huh? There wasn't a detailed plan put forth for the residents to review prior to the Referendum vote. The ballot question asked voters whether they wanted a townwide parking plan. There was a lot of misinformation as to what time the parking plan would start and end, which is what caused concern for St. Peter's. St. Peter's Church patrons park on town streets to attend St. Peter's services, and a parking plan on the streets surrounding St. Peter's Church that ended at 9 am or even 8 am could easily have affected the ability of patrons to attend mass. I don't see how its relevant that St. Peter's Church pays zero taxes. St. Peter's Church believed that their ability to serve its patrons would be affected by the parking plan, then I think St. Peter's Church had every right to advise its parishioners of the potential problems. Perhaps if the question had included a statement as to what time the plan was supposed to begin and end, that might've worked better. But, really, it didn't matter. The town voted down the townwide parking plan, but D4 got one anyway, and now it looks like parts of D3 will get one too.
jess
6:58 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Announcements were made in church...They announced the incorrect hours. D4 passed and D3 did not because of the incorrect hours that were announced at church. The church should not get involved with politics and really has no say. The school has been getting involved with politics, voting issues and should not either. They get the children involved that should not be burden by the town problems and issues on how it will directly affect them. The church should have not listen to the controlling teeny tiny republican club of this town. They could have easily checked the hours of this parking plan before they made an announcement. Restricted parking up to 6am would not have affected the church. They don't even have an early mass any longer because very little showed up that early. Could it be possible the reason the prior priest that ran the show left and a new priest is in charge. The only time a hundred people or so come out to complain in this town is if they truly oppose something. Obviously they don't have a problem with the parking plan that was in place or the new one. I am not going to count all the employees that are told to come out to support their boss. They don't live here and have no say either. I am not going to count the three that is for the PP and three that is against the PP. It has to be a substantial amount of people complaining or speaking out to take anything serious. Some residents no longer wants to get involved with this circus.
Ventura
8:25 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Jess. I am confused. Can you explain how the candidates chosen by the “teeny tiny” Republican club each got over 1100 votes in November when none of the other candidates received even half as many?
Nick Carraway
9:13 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Jess, I agree that the plan that was actually adopted last year, and if you notice, did not include any parts of D3, therefore no streets near St. Peter's, ended at 6am. However, at the August 2, 2011 meeting, a meeting held prior to the Referendum vote, this is what Councilman Corbally said: "If you are a taxpayer in town, under what I would propose, you would get five passes that you can use in any non-pay spot - parking limitations for non-residents/taxpayers would be from midnight until 8AM from Memorial Day to Labor Day." (It's in the Minutes from that meeting). I am only a parishioner at St. Peter's Church. I don't know enough about the operations of St. Peter's Church to know whether that plan would've interfered with St. Peter's, but I do think that St. Peter's knows that information better than I do. I heard the announcements and didn't think there was anything wrong with them. It was still up to me to decide how I wanted to vote.
Steve
12:35 am on Saturday, February 9, 2013
Ventura, I can't answer for Jess, this is how I see it. The people in this town has "teeny tiny minds" They are followers who believe everything they are told. They don't vote based on what they know. They base it on who they know and what they are told to follow. "Monkey see Monkey do is all they know. They get on a bandwagon of lies until the next election and believe the next set of lies.
Usually Quiet
7:44 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
If the mayor and council feel that district 3 parking is an issue, wait until they grasp onto the major financial impact that the Biggert Waters Flood insurance reform act of 2012, that passed and was signed by President Obama 7/12 that looms in the future for every single home that exists within a flood zone. This was not put in place because of Hurricane Sandy, but could be a sleeping giant that drastically effects every flood zone owned home throughout the US. If you are within a flood zone and compliant to new BFE's you are ok, but if you are not (like most) you should know the financial repercussions, either now if you have a mortgage or at time of sale, when a new buyer realizes they have to raise home to comply. And here we are worrying about a parking plan. Really?
Honesty instead of Corruption
11:27 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
We aren't, you are!
Part Timer
9:01 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
People are complaining that there are more important issues for the town council and patch to report on other then this parking plan, but those are the same people posting on here.
GET OVER IT.... It is a parking tag or a sticker and yes they changed the time but we/you are adults, not monkeys.
Mr. Happy
11:03 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Usually Quiet-You are right in bringing focus to the more important issues facing the town, yet the Patch continues to post stories about the PPlan and the feuding and ignores the meeting just held w/FEMA officials. To expound on the Biggert Waters Act for those that should know, this legislation removes the federal subsidy for second homes AND businesses on flood insurance. These are the two groups that will be hammered with increased rates if you are not in compliance with the new flood maps (and it seems nobody is, at the moment).
Part Timer
11:39 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
One thing I am starting to realize is that the residents of the beach are getting no help to protect our properties from future storms...Why,
1-Beach is privately owned. (has anyone talked to the BW owners to see if they will put dunes in place.
2- With all this sand being sifted, why not create a Berm around the lakes (Belmar started this 2 weeks after sandy hit.
3-Has the storm drains for these lakes been checked for the removal of sand and debree.
4 A higher sea wall along the inlet. (sorry fishermen)
These are all projects that when completed could lower our flood premiums in the future but no one is talking about them.
All we here is how WE have to rebuild, what about the towns responsibility with the above mentioned
Steve
12:37 am on Saturday, February 9, 2013
Part Timer, God for bid anyone in the town starts acting responsible or do what's right? Not that I don't agree with you. You do know this will start new political wars.