Brickwall Tavern Pulls Plan For Little Silver's First Pub

2028

LITTLE SILVER – A two-year-long saga over the borough’s first potential pub crawled to an unexpected conclusion last week when the developer withdrew its application.

The project, which proposed the construction of a two-story Brickwall Tavern with two bars on the first floor and a third bar with an outdoor balcony on the second floor, was unanimously dismissed by the planning board without prejudice.

The developer, Kelly 29, LLC, could potentially re-submit the application at any point in the future, but would be forced to start the application process from square one.

Though that potential exists, according to members of a resident opposition group that organized to fight the project, this withdrawal still feels like a win. “It’s a much better result than the alternative, which would be to have the application continue, so in that sense it feels like we accomplished something. Now we just have to keep our fingers crossed that the application never comes back,” Tom Kennedy said.

Kennedy and a number of his neighbors living in the Townhomes of Little Silver, a development located off Oceanport and Sycamore avenues adjacent to the proposed site of this project, 51 Oceanport Ave., had questioned several design and operational choices for the tavern.

Noise pollution from patrons and musicians taking the party to the outdoor balcony of the second story bar, hours of operation that would see the last of the tavern’s customers departing at 2 a.m., and an exit point for vehicles that would potentially lead to an influx of vehicles through the Townhomes of Little Silver development were just some of the points raised since the hearings began.

A group of 15 townhome residents hired attorney Jeffrey B. Gale of Hazlet to represent them in the matter. Gale said the most egregious design flaw was the size and scope of the proposed project on the 0.63-acre lot.

“The testimony I thought was most prohibitive to the application was when their own professional said the lot was an appropriate size for a 2,000-square-foot Dunkin’ Donuts. What they were proposing was more than 11,000 square feet,” Gale said, referring to testimony provided by project engineer James Kennedy at a Feb. 7 hearing.

The developers planned to build an 11,480-square-foot facility with seating for 250 patrons.

By ordinance, a project of this scale would require 230 parking spaces. The site plan proposed just 36 spaces contained on location.

At that February hearing the developer’s attorney, Jennifer Krimko of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. in Ocean, supplied a letter of intent from NJ Transit that outlined terms for an agreement that would allow Kelly 29, LLC to direct overflow traffic into the nearby commuter lot for the Little Silver train station.

Gale speculates that since the NJ Transit letter was introduced, something went awry with the agreement.

Krimko did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

During an April 4 meeting, planning board chairman John Chimento said simply, “We won’t speculate on why the application was withdrawn, but I will say, I think (Kelly 29, LLC) got the picture,” referring to the public outcry.

“It just wasn’t a good fit for that part of town,” said homeowner Kennedy. “The only other business in Little Silver open that late is the 7-Eleven. You’re talking about having live music late into the night. It was going to be too much.”

Though the withdrawal was in their favor, Gale said, in situations like this, his clients don’t truly win.

“In zoning matters, when you represent the applicant, they have the potential of winning and making a lot of money. When you represent the objectors, the only thing they win is the opportunity to maintain their property and quality of life. They simply maintain the status quo.”

Though the application has been withdrawn, the question remains: What will happen to Little Silver’s first and only liquor license – currently held by Kelly 29, LLC – now that the Brickwall project has been shelved?

On Wednesday, Mayor Robert Neff said the borough council may take action on the matter at its next meeting, scheduled for April 15.