A condominium association and one individual have filed a lawsuit in attempt to overturn a planning board decision that allows for the reconstruction of Hooks Bar & Grill in Seaside Heights.
The lawsuit, filed by the Ocean Villas At Seaside Heights Condominium Association, asks a judge to reverse the approval of the construction of a new restaurant and several residential units, declare the board’s approval null and void, and cover the plaintiff’s legal fees. Ocean Villas is located directly across the street from Hooks. While the lawsuit, a copy of which is embedded below this article, centrally focuses on an outdoor patio section, residents at meetings primarily complained about the height of the building, and their belief that it appeared too “boxy.” Neither of these objections were cited in the complaint, however, which was filed at the end of September.
Instead, attorney Ronald Gasiorowski, representing the Ocean Villas homeowners’ association and one individual – Peter J. Wilcox – focused on parking lot size and the fact that the proposed new restaurant includes outdoor seating.
The board, in July, approved the proposed development of the site, which calls for the legendary watering hole to be replaced with a mixed-use complex that would include a parking deck and 22 condominium units, a pool for residents, some outdoor space, as well as a reconstructed restaurant with a modern design. The new “Hooks” restaurant and bar would include a 4,800 square foot dining area. The residents’ parking deck would include 40 spaces, while a customer parking area would include an additional 29 spaces. The board granted a variance to allow 29 spaces instead of 48, citing the availability of street parking and nearby municipal lots. The building would stand at 54-feet, 6-inches, where 41 feet are normally permitted in the zone. The board, however, routinely grants height variances to businesses and newly-developed properties due to flood concerns.
Gasiorowski wrote that the Retail Business Zone, where the majority of the Hooks property is located, allows restaurants where patrons are “seated at tables and chairs in a dining room.” This language in the zoning ordinance prompted him to argue that the restaurant should not be allowed since outdoor patio seating is not expressly listed as a permitted use.
“Because [Hooks] proposes substantial ‘outdoor’ seating that is not in a ‘dining room’ that is enclosed by walls, this portion of the proposed restaurant and bar is not a permitted use in the R-B Zone and an additional use variance was required but not noticed for, considered, or granted by the Planning Board,” the complaint states.
Gasiorowski adds that the 952 square foot patio is “functionally integrated with the interior dining room area” and, if allowed at all, should require more parking to be added to the site.
He also alleges that the applicant did not detail the differences between the existing restaurant and the proposed restaurant “including hours of operation, noise levels, lighting, its location on the lot and the location of people gathering to wait for a table or leaving the restaurant along the streets and sidewalks,” which precludes “an informed decision by the board.”
The complaint also accuses the board of “refusing” to respond or engage with residents who voiced concerns, though the meeting included a mandatory public comment period during which several speakers addressed the dais. Wilcox, one of the plaintiffs in the case, spoke at the meeting, the record shows.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that Hooks did not meet a complex state standard known as the “Medici criteria,” which sets forth a rubric of positive and negative criteria that must be met when variances are requested in certain planning board applications.
In an answer written by Board Attorney Steven Zabarsky, the board holds that “the record of public hearings speaks for itself” with regard to public participation at the meeting, and Gasiorowski’s complaint “sets forth legal conclusions and questions of law to which no response is required,” leaving the plaintiffs to their proofs. The borough has asked that the case be dismissed with prejudice since the plaintiffs are alleged to have failed to comply with the state’s Tort Claims Act and failed to exhaust all administrative and judicial remedies prior to filing the litigation.
Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson is presiding over the case, with an initial discovery period set for 450 days.
Read the Complaint: