Max Weinberg at Middletown’s planning board hearing Wednesday night. (Photo by Stacie Fanelli. Click to enlarge)
By DUSTIN RACIOPPI
Turns out you can break the ties that bind.
E-Street Band drummer Max Weinberg barely persuaded an apprehensive Middletown planning board Wednesday to lift a deed restriction it had imposed eight years ago to prevent him from further subdividing his 16.2-acre Navesink estate.
Using words like ‘hardship’ and ‘discrimination,’ Weinberg’s team of legal and planning experts argued that the deed restriction, which Weinberg agreed to at the time, had stuck him and his family with an unfair burden.
The driveway leading to Weinberg’s McClees Road home. (Photo by Dustin Racioppi; click to enlarge)
In 2003, with the planning board expected to increase the minimum lot size in the Navesink area to 10 acres, from five, Weinberg hastily sought to subdivide his then-37-acre estate into four unequal-sized lots, including one of 16 acres for his residence. The remaining three lots of about 6.5 acres each were to be sold for development.
The move drew sharp criticism from then-planning board member Judith Stanley Coleman, Monmouth County’s matriarch of land conservation, and other neighbors, who questioned Weinberg’s commitment to land preservation.
The board granted Weinberg’s request, but placed a deed restriction to prevent further division of the parcels.
The expected zoning law change, however, never came about, and Weinberg, who recently left his stool behind the drum kit of Conan O’Brien‘s Late Night and Tonight Show, now finds himself in a unique situation as a result, said his lawyer, Michael Steib.
Weinberg now wants to sell seven acres and maintain the rest for his residence.
“You have an applicant who has a 16-acre property in a five-acre zone, and is being discriminated against,” Steib said, noting that while owners of other properties smaller than 16 acres can subdivide, Weinberg cannot. “I think, under the circumstances, there has been change. Like I said before, Conan’s come and Conan’s gone. So do regulations. I think it’s time the burden be removed.”
Board Chairman John Deus didn’t buy the discrimination point, and like other board members, grappled with reversing a decision made by the body, expressing worry about setting a precedent for undoing agreements.
“What I’m having a hard time with,” Deus said, “is saying, ‘let’s have a do-over.’”
Recognizing that Weinberg was in fact put in a unique situation, board attorney James Gorman said Weinberg’s agreement to the restriction back in 2003 was a bit like playing blackjack at a casino.
“Sometimes you just can’t go back. That’s just the risks of the game,” he said. “I understand that it hit this owner particularly hard and in a particular way that it didn’t hit anybody else.”
He continued: “I agree they (Weinberg and his wife, Becky) kind of got stuck. I think there’s no question about that.”
Weinberg’s professionals argued the proposed additional subdivision would have no adverse impact on the McClees Road neighborhood, the environment or the township’s master plan.
The hearing followed testimony on a controversial proposal to build 342 homes in Lincroft, and by the time Weinberg’s hearing was ready, the chambers had cleared save for Weinberg’s team, a couple of neighbors who did not speak and a reporter.
Weinberg’s planner, Thomas A. Thomas, tried to put Weinberg’s appeal into perspective. He said what Weinberg proposes — a large and expensive house — is what municipalities wish for: ratables that pay for themselves.
When Deus asked, “why do we need another house there?” Thomas responded, referencing the Avaya plan, “why do you need another 325 houses?”
The point, Deus recognized, is that a 16-acre property is hard to sell these days. And that’s what Weinberg’s application boils down to, Deus said.
“Fact is, the economy doesn’t look well on 16 acres,” Deus said.
Still, Deus said he could not vote to reverse an agreement between the board and Weinberg.
“What precedent does this then set for any condition the board sets?” he said. “It’s a precedent for undoing agreements, and there’s an agreement here.”
“The board always has the inherent authority to say, nevermind, you’re right, we’re changing this,” said Gorman, just before the board took a vote.
Deus and two other board members voted against the separate deed request and application to subdivide the property. Both measures passed 4 to 3.
Weinberg’s request now goes to the governing township committee — and, potentially, a state court judge — for final determination.
Weinberg, 60, wearing khakis and a navy-blue sport jacket, said little at the meeting, except to thank the board for hearing the matter and to correct Deus on a point about the number of lots he was subdividing.
When approached by a reporter for comment afterward, Weinberg tapped Steib on the shoulder and walked down the hall.
This is plain old greed…. What is Mr. Weinberg’s net worth? How is this hardship and discrimination?
There are real people in Middletown facing real problems. Allowing the wealthy developers to subdivide properties in an already developed town is “shady” to say the least.
He agreed to this real estate deal now it is costing him too much and he can’t afford it. So…. let’s just sub divide and make more money….
this is insane…. check out his tax records
http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin/inf.cgi
Makes you want to cry for all of the people who are dealing with real economic hardship in America
This is nonsense. Max Weinberg knew that he couldn’t divide this piece of land when he bought it.
I guess rules don’t apply to you when you are part of a popular band or on a TV show.
I am disgusted at this ruling and sad to see that the wealthy can bully around a town by throwing expensive lawyers at a problem.
Max if you don’t enough money coming in I guess you can’t afford it. Like anyone else sell the house and property.
Hardship. Hahahahahahhaahahahaahaha!!!
while walking down the street a man sees another man fall out of a 5 story window bounce off of 4 awnings and land on his feet, unharmed, amazed he runs up to him and says “you are the luckiest man in the world”, the man simply replies “no, Max Weinberg is the luckiest man in the world”
GREEDGREEDGREED!!!!!!!This country is heading down the drain thanks to people like this.Wake up folks.STOP worshipping at the B@#%E alter.Don’t go to gigs or by the music.Let these guys feel what HARDSHIP really is.Stop drinking the brucejuice….oops koolaide.
Not sure what Bruce Springsteen has to do with this… as someone mentioned, the wealthy, famous or not, get their way because money talks.
I only ment it as the BOSS is his gravey train.
Maybe someone can clarify this for me: he’ll be selling off three 6.5 acre lots, plus another 7 acre lot, and keeping 9 acres for his own homestead? Does the 5 acre minimum mean only one house can be put on that 5 acre lot? When he sells a 6.5 acre lot, can the buyer build more than one house on it or can there be multiple houses?
Sorry, I meant to say can the buyer build ONLY one house on a 6.5 acre lot or can there be multiple houses?
One house on each five acres.
Even the 6.5 acres will allow one house.
My parents house was near there, and I hate to see that area cut up to end up as a subdivision.
Thanks, Alicia.
Then all they have to do is grow some tomatoes or some Christmas trees and get granted an agricultural exemption and pay only $300 a year in taxes
This is not greed, just common sense! If the Township Planning Board and the Governing Body changed the zoning to 10 acre lots back in 2003, Mr. Wienberg would not have been here with this request and would not have been entitled to this relief. Do not blame him, he did what anyone else would have done in the same situation.
Every split up of the property seems designed for a 1 acre area for a home and 5+ for a farmland tax rate. Just coincidental??? Great way to maximize sale prices, maybe Ellen Karcher wants to move there and sell a couple Christmas trees.
I think it is a bit hypocritical that Max Weinberg was/is on the Board of Directors of the Monmouth Conservation Society. Nothing is more oppositie of conservation than a subdivision. Who is buying he is doing this because he needs the money? I sure don’t. Greedy.
As a Middletown property owner, I am terribly disappointed in the board overturning a deed restriction that the Weinbergs agreed to! I believe if it was anyone else, they would have turned it down, as they always do, fighting people tooth and nail for applications that are not asking for too much, sometimes not even seeking variances and here they obliterate a deed restriction.