Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seastreak Ferry Controversy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and council clash over SeaStreak ferry trial; council says company skipped zoning steps
Summary
A heated public-comment period and council debate focused on a proposed SeaStreak ferry landing ("C Street"). Residents called it a missed economic opportunity; council members and staff said the operator failed to file required permits and that zoning and coastal approvals are required.
John Barry, a Point Pleasant Beach alumnus who lives in New York, told the council the borough had "turned down a golden ticket" when it voted against allowing a SeaStreak/C Street ferry landing trial, saying the service would bring visitors and weekend spending to local businesses. "They said they'd come here and sell tickets," Barry said during second public comment.
Council members responded that the decision was based on municipal code and permitting requirements, not opposition to visitors. A council member said the landing site would be treated as a terminal under borough rules and thus required zoning approvals, variances and coastal permits. "They had to go to the zoning board," a council member said, adding that SeaStreak/C Street did not submit the paperwork the town requires.
The exchange exposed sharp differences about process and tone. Councilwoman Kitty Stilson criticized a mayoral social-media post about the prior vote, calling it "strategic and intended to intimidate" council members who voted no. Other council members and staff said the council's objections centered on the company's failure to follow the established permitting path and on protecting resident neighborhoods where the landing was proposed.
Town staff and the zoning officer told the meeting that a one-off "trial" where passengers would be deposited at a town dock is not a de-facto permitted use: excavations, dock modifications and ADA access can trigger site-plan and coastal permit requirements. A council member listed permits and approvals that would be needed, including a zoning variance and coastal/permit clearances.
Residents urged a pathway forward: several said they would support SeaStreak returning with proper filings and asked the council to work with the company on a path that would allow future service. Council members said they would not block a properly noticed, code-compliant proposal but reiterated that the company must file the required applications and secure zoning and coastal approvals before operating from the proposed site.
The public comment period closed without a reversal of the council vote; council members said they would point SeaStreak/C Street to the zoning and permitting steps required for any terminal or significant dock change.
