Longtime Avon restaurateur Rob Fishman, owner of the Avon Pavilion, went to Borough Hall on Monday to show officials new blueprints for rebuilding the boardwalk mainstay.
He left without a restaurant.
Fishman said he sat down with Tim Gallagher, borough administrator, to talk about his new plans to rebuild the pavilion after Hurricane Sandy destroyed the restaurant that stood at 600 Ocean Avenue for 23 years.
Gallagher was grim, Fishman said. He had just received a resolution by fax to be added to Monday’s Board of Commissioners meeting. It revoked the lease for the Avon Pavilion.
“I was stunned,’’ Fishman said. “I was excited that I had found a better way to use the space. I had been working with the borough for the past three months on plans for the rebuild.’’
At the meeting Monday night, the Board of Commissioners — Avon’s governing body —- voted 2-1 to revoke the Pavilion’s lease. Mayor Robert Mahon and Commissioner Frank Gorman voted in favor. Commissioner Robert McGovern cast the lone vote against.
Repeated calls to Gallagher were not returned Thursday.
“It’s pretty devastating and shocking,’’ said Sari Perlstein, a pavilion manager of more than 20 years who runs the boutique behind the restaurant. “I don’t even know why this is happening. I’ve spent the last few days just canceling orders.”
The commissioners’ move has shocked scores of Pavilion supporters, who have rallied to support the boardwalk fixture. An online petition was hastily created aimed at demanding the commission reverse its decision.
People have signed on in droves. By late Thursday afternoon, the petition had garnered more than 1,000 signatures.
The Avon Pavilion’s Facebook page also encourages people to call or write borough officials to get the decision reversed.
Fishman, of Bradley Beach, said he’s simply befuddled.
“I can’t think of anything that we did wrong,” Fishman said. “Whenever we were called on I thought we were there 100 percent.”
Fishman, who also owns the Exit 98 store on the Belmar boardwalk, said Avon’s decision is exactly the opposite of Belmar’s approach, which is honoring the leases of all its boardwalk businesses.
“I mean, I had no idea there were any problems, any issues,’’ Fishman said. “If there are problems, don’t you come and talk to your tenant first?’’
Fishman said he smells a rat and is considering legal action.
“I believe there’s another agenda here,’’ he said. “There’s a backstory. I just don’t know what it is.’’
Meanwhile, Perlstein said she is just going to try to figure out what’s next for her.
“I guess when my heart isn’t as broken I’ll figure out what I’m going to do,’’ Perlstein said.
jerseyswamps
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I agree. There is another story behind this one. Let the corruption begin. Someone is going to come forward with a "better" proposal.
Cathi
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Wow, this is sad. If GREED had a smell, this is what it would smell like. After the tragedy of Sandy you pull the rug out from under a SUCCESSFUL, local, NJ business? Way to go. Maybe there is more to the story but it just seems wrong and motivated by greed. What ever happened to "Do the right thing". You know what they say about Karma. What goes around, comes back around.
SoylentGreen
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Follow the money.
Steve Marx
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Obviously there is another agenda here. You can bet that a "relative" of some
"politically connected insider" will announce plans soon
Patricia Morris
9:03 am on Monday, February 4, 2013
exactly!! and if not a relative another what? fast food chain?, I hope not. Shame on Gallagher's office! The Pavillion was one of the best places on the shore.....Mother's Day will never be the same...... I will boycott whatever it's replaced with........
AndyOnTheCarphone
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Just goes to show you that Belmar is doing things right. Unfortunately many towns will most likely use the Sandy rebuilding as a long sought after chance re-make themselves into high end, residential-only beachfronts.
Janice Friedman
1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Is there a personal agenda here ? How do you turn away a thriving business that brings people to your town? Something doesn't sound kosher here!!
bob franke
3:48 pm on Saturday, February 9, 2013
Bet that someone related to one of the decision makers will come along " with a better proposal" Typical small town cheap ploitics
Katie Kennedy Bettencourt
1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Is it even plausible that they did not give a reason
John W. Burke
1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Oh no!!! The Pavilion is a fixture and I know that Beth and Leslie, are not going to allow this to happen. Go get em' guys!!! I've got your backs!!!!! This is an outrage, it is absolutely unthinkable!!! What kind of a jerk doesn't like the pavilion and what it does for the town? C'mon, stop the nonsense. The pavilion will be back!!!!
D K
1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Our whole family loved to go to the Pavilion for breakfast and dinner every so often. What a wonderful spot to sit out and take in the ocean views. Hopefully, there will be enough pressure to overturn their decision.
Karen kaplan
1:38 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
What is happening to the site? It sounds like there is some kind of "brother-in-law" deal going on here and someone else is getting the lease or space. That should not be allowed...everyone needs to be active in trying to prevent this from happening!
Greg
2:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I'm sure the Avon taxpayers would like some transparency around the terms of the lease. I guess we will learn more at the Feb 11 meeting.
Nicholas Loffredo
3:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Folks, for more on the lease and ownership's response, click here: http://patch.com/A-18kj.
Jerry Belle
8:50 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
That link was great for seeing the State law on leases -
"46:8-7. Buildings on leased premises totally destroyed by fire or otherwise; lease terminated
Whenever any building or buildings erected on leased premises shall be totally destroyed by fire or otherwise, without the fault of the lessee, the rent shall be paid up to the time of such destruction, and then, and from thenceforth, the lease shall cease and come to an end. This section shall not extend or apply to cases wherein the parties have otherwise stipulated in their agreement of lease."
Now we need to see the lease Avon has with the Pavillion owner to see the language it contained. Unless we just accept the lawyer's opinion, which wouldn't seem objective.
John Anderson
4:29 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Before you get all upset be patient and know all the facts surrounding the lease. Im sure the governing body has Avon's best interest in mind, and from what I have heard about the lease in the past its wasn't in the taxpayers best interest for this prime location. I am sure more info will be put out shortly and all sides will know the truth behind all this.
Dame Bridgid
7:18 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
A legal agreement is a legal agreement. Sorry, but as legal representatives of Avon they cannot just decide to fling the laws of our state aside. If this town just violates their written agreements no one can do business with them & expect it to be honored.
Belmarchick
9:21 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
So kick them while they are down & take advantage of Sandy? BS! Stupid is as stupid does....
Belmarchick
10:27 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Really? Then re-negotiate. Don't just kick them to the curb after so many years. It's insulting & disgusting. Taking advantage of Sandy is horrid. Glad Belmar has Mayor Matt & not a mayor who is taking advantage of a tragic storm. Disgusting if you ask me...
Lisa Hosley
3:43 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
re: John Anderson.....Why are you so SURE the governing body has the best interest of Avon at heart? Are you aware of what the "Avon snack bar" was like when Rob Fishman first started operating it? And are you aware how much blood, sweat, and hard work he and his staff have invested into creating the Avon Pavilion that exists today?
Dame Bridgid
7:12 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Just impeach them if they refuse to honor this clearly written legal agreement. Failure to honor it will make the town of Avon's governing body pariahs. It will have a negative effect on the whole town by making other towns reluctant to deal with any of them. If they can do this; how can anyone trust their word, or documents drawn up by them.
J
8:52 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Pretty sure you can't "impeach" board members, but (if you're an Avon resident) you can vote them out of office next time.
Dame Bridgid
12:10 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Too bad Avon cannot impeach them :( It would have been appropriate.
John J. Stypa
4:30 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Has there been any plans concerning a new boardwalk in Avon? Do any drafts exist? It looks like most of the pilings are intact, and appears as if some might need to be replaced. It seems odd that they wouldn't want to rebuild the Pavilion and the multi-purpose structure as they were. If they are planning a new Pavilion, why not give the previous tenants first dibs on the space? As a landlord, it's been my experience that if you have a good tenant, that consistently pays their rent on time, is clean, and cooperative, you would want to hold onto them.
I sense something funny here, but I don't want to speculate at this time. The town holds meetings on the first and third Mondays of the month, and I'd like to hear the Board's reasoning behind this terrible decision.
Avon4lyfe
9:31 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Everyone should actually research the facts and other sides to the story before making ignorant comments that bash Avon's mayor and Board
Belmartian
12:19 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
If the town is going to stick to the lease that is their prerogative. I think the argument here is why they won’t renew the lease. At the very least they should give the owners first crack at leasing the property. To just flat out say "no" raises suspicions as to who is going to get the lease. I can tell you one thing, whoever does get the lease is going to be scrutinized as to why and how they got it. In the wake of the storm and everything that everyone has gone through you would think the Avon council would be honest and decent to its residents and businesses. It just seems they are taking advantage of the disaster and the mayor and council should not have the power to control someones business and livelihood.
Barney
12:39 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
I guess you can look at it this way. One guy works for the NJ school system and another works for NJ transit. Those are two well run organizations now aren’t they.
jerseyswamps
6:51 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
Hey Patch, what's going on? There was a very interesting post here from "Avon4lyfe". He had a link to a very detailed piece he wrote about what he says is the real story behind the lease. It involved forged wills, allegations of unethical behavior by politicians from other towns, etc. it read like a novel. Why did you yank it?
Belmarchick
7:15 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
Did you happen to read all of his blogs? I did the other day. Reads like a nutcase & the guy should be in a mental institution. I believe he said he was bringing down Microsoft Executives next. Shame his parents didn't leave him money to put him away...
jerseyswamps
4:43 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
See today's , 2/5, APP on this? Avon is now saying the lease was illegal. At the least it sounds like there were some very questionable items and history here worth exploring. Then again that might mean there some political corruption going on around here. That never happens, right?
jerseyswamps
4:45 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
And since when did Patch start removing posts from nut cases? If that was there policy they'd be removing half the comments posted. This guys comments were totally erased.
Come on Patch, we deserve an explanation.
jerseyswamps
4:49 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
their, guy's
Dembones
3:19 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Listen to the 3 minute blurb from Mondays meeting. Mayor says he didn't sign the lease in 2001. That's true. Then he goes on to say that the lease is illegal. Last time I checked, he was mayor after the lease was drawn up. If it was so "illegal" why did he wait so long to do something about it? He goes on to say that Fishman is a great tennant and would like to see him run the pavilion again. I'm not getting it. Just leave well enough alone.