Planning board backs allowing ferry service in MC zone but says ordinance's process provisions are inconsistent with master plan

Point Pleasant Beach's Planning Board voted at its June meeting to recommend that the borough amend the Marine Commercial (MC) zone to permit ferry/commutation services but found the ordinance's licensing and temporary-permit language inconsistent with the borough master plan and current land-use procedures.

Board members said they were not opposed to ferry service in principle but raised repeated concerns about the ordinance's process changes, which would allow the administrator and a small panel to grant licenses without the standard site-plan review the board normally undertakes. "We review whether the ordinance comports with the master plan," a staff speaker explained during the hearing, urging the board to focus comments on consistency with the master plan rather than on specific parcels.

Residents who live along Inlet Drive and nearby streets testified at length about perceived public-safety and traffic risks if large passenger vessels begin operating from a narrow neighborhood street. "If there's 200 people . . . where are you going to put them? We don't have any street parking," Marie Lauleta, an Inlet Drive resident, told the board, urging a feasibility study, traffic controls and clear parking plans. Dave Calano, a resident and commenter, argued the ordinance "undermines the master plan," citing site-plan protections and warning that the ordinance's temporary-license language could be used repeatedly without adequate review.

Other attendees disputed whether passenger embarkation is already a permitted use in the MC zone; one commenter pointed to long-standing charter and water-taxi operations as precedent, while others said the code and master plan do not clearly allow passenger disembarkation and that a change should be explicit. Borough legal input and a written comment attributed to Borough Attorney Michael Collins were entered into the record questioning whether the ordinance and fast-tracked schedule provide adequate safeguards.

After deliberation the board bifurcated its recommendation: it found adding a ferry/commutation use to the MC zone would be consistent with master-plan goals to encourage waterfront-compatible uses and multimodal transportation, but it recommended the governing body revise or reject the ordinance's process and temporary-license provisions as currently drafted. The board asked the council to require site-plan review, include sunset and monitoring criteria for any temporary license, and clarify application contents, capacity limits and enforcement measures.

The planning board directed staff to report that the use amendment is consistent with the master plan while the ordinance's process sections are not, and noted that the governing body has final authority and must state reasons if it adopts the ordinance despite the board's recommendations. A public hearing on the ordinance is scheduled before the council next week.