Recap of Aug 1, ‘22 Wildwood Planning and Zoning Meeting
By Kathy Fulginiti
The City of Wildwood Planning & Zoning board meets the first Monday of every month at 6 pm in the City Hall Commissioner’s Meeting Room, 4400 New Jersey Ave, Wildwood NJ 08260. View agendas and plans beforehand at city hall during their business hours (M-F 8 am - 4 pm). Members of the public are allowed to attend and offer public comment on most agenda items. Zoom attendance is currently discontinued.
We are trying a new format. Since the preview notes were already typed, rather than retyping them, we kept them at the top of each proposal with the notes from the actual meeting in italic print below.
3601 Hudson Hudson Storage Tim McGregor, owner
The lot is 195.35’ x 40’ and covers 7,852 square feet. The owner proposes to build a three-story storage unit facility. A minor site approval is sought, as well as variances for hardship, benefit, and use. The use variance is needed because the area is zoned light industrial. The building will take place in two stages: the left side, then the right side. 22 parking spaces are required, but only 8 are in the plans. Those spaces will be included within the building. The height will not exceed the limit.
The use variance was eliminated because the Board discussed it and decided that it fit into Light Industrial zoning. The existing building is intended to be used as a base from which to build the new structure. The idea is to make it floodproof through the use of floodgates and the waterproofing of the walls. The first floor will be two feet above grade, meaning that if the flood waters do get through by more than two feet, whatever is on the first level will get wet. Also, no climate control is being put into the building. There are some windows, but the majority of the 49 units have not have them, so ventilation is limited. No windows are on the back of the building.
The building is being done in two phases because there is a tenant currently occupying the Lincoln Avenue side of the building.
The 8 parking spaces are for loading and unloading only. There are no other parking spaces on site. The Board wants the garage doors to be 18’ wide.
An office will be placed on the first floor, but it will not be staffed. Because of public comment, operational hours will be from 7am -11pm.
There are no setbacks. The building borders the sidewalks. A wall that encroaches slightly onto a neighboring property on Lincoln Avenue will be torn down and adjusted to fit on the property line.
The building will have a metal roof and vinyl siding. It looks like a vast improvement over what is currently there.
The Board wanted the lots consolidated, if they weren’t already.
The height of the building was indeed over the limit by four inches. The architect said it would be scaled back to comply with the 35’ limit.
Three members of the public spoke. One was concerned about people pulling in and out during the night, street parking, the possibility of people using the interior parking spaces as boat storage areas, the flooding situation and how bad it is in that particular block, especially since the Cedar Avenue street level was raised, and the blocking of the fireworks. Another spoke of flooding, the problems of mildew in a non-climate controlled building, and asked about a bathroom. Another asked about lighting. The responses were to limit the hours of operation, add more lighting on all three street sides of the building (emergency lighting of low-intensity already on plans), and to say that there was no bathroom on the premise.
During the voting section, Commissioner Mikluski requested that a dumpster be provided for trash. In reality, there is no room for one since the lot coverage is close to 100%.
Motion passed unanimously.
440 W. Lincoln J&C Building Concepts
The property is currently two lots that the owner wants to make into three lots with a total of 8 residential units. This is the second time this has come before the board. 9 units were requested previously. On this go-round, one lot will have two 3-bedroom townhouses and the other two lots will contain two 3-bedroom flat-style units and a 3-bedroom townhouse each. Variances are needed for use and benefit. The owner also wants a waiver from requirements for environmental impact. A landscaping company was in the existing concrete building, which has been demolished.
There were a couple major differences between the first presentation of this project and the second incarnation. The number of units was reduced by one and the western side yard set-back was taken from 6’ to 10’. The owner also agreed to move the fence two feet over from the property line and fill the rest of the two-foot buffer with gravel. This allows the people to back out of their garages on the 3700 block of Susquehanna without knocking into the fence. The builders/owners took in what the public had to say and incorporated some of the ideas into their plans. The overall footprint is a little smaller because of the changes. There was a lot of talk from the architect (at least I think he was the architect) about the density of each lot. They are still over what is allowed. However, one of the Board members said that if this was one big lot, the density wouldn’t be an issue; the division into three alters that and puts the numbers over.
The garages are large enough to accommodate three cars, but only 2 spots are needed according to code. The doors are 9’ wide.
The finished height will be 34.66’, which is below the max of 35’.
Eight members of the public spoke about the project. There was still concern over soil contamination from the landscaping company, density, drainage, and parking/garages. One person didn’t think stacked parking was allowed. The builder was praised for his willingness to compromise and speak to the people. A man called him late at night and never expected to have the builder answer, but they ended up talking for a while and the man felt like the builder was of good character. Another man wanted it written or deed restricted that the fence being two feet from the property line be guaranteed into perpetuity. The Board said that was not in their jurisdiction, but he could discuss it with the builder.
A couple people were concerned that too many of the rules and regulations regarding setbacks and density were not being followed, not only in this instance, but in other proposals as well. If variances keep being granted, buildings will end up overcrowding each other. A lady thought she received the wrong notice (she didn’t) and then went on to talk about the demolition fiasco. During the demolition, the last section standing fell onto the driveway of the Susquehanna condos. When the lady arrived at the scene, she was a bit frantic and couldn’t get any of the workers to give their names or the name of the insurance company. A man said that his air conditioning unit was damaged and the garage door had caved in from the rubble. The demo company was hired as a third party and was not part of the J&C Building Concept team. The builder gave out the insurance information and the repairs are well on their way being corrected.
Motion passed unanimously.
323 E. Oak Capital LLC
The lot is 100’ x 100’. Variances are sought for use and benefit, and a conditional use or approval is needed. The proposal is a three-story multi-family residential only building containing 9 units. Parking will be at ground level for 18 cars. In the proposal it was stated that the city wants a denser, higher urban core. Maybe that is why the side and rear setbacks are only 5’. Also, it said the buildings to the west were three story residential multi-family buildings. That isn’t true. The property immediately to the west (321 E. Oak) is a two-story building that has short term rentals. The one next to that may be summer rental units, but I’m not sure. The one by the post office does short term room or apartment rentals.
The plans for the building are beautiful, however.
The height of this structure will be 41.6’. In this area, up to a 12-story building could be constructed. Since this is a residential building, a variance was needed to exceed the 35’ maximum height. The extra height is needed to accommodate the infrastructure that is required to support the building above the parking area. Ample parking on the first level will alleviate the need for street parking, unlike the other buildings on 300 E. Oak that have no parking at all for their guests.
The use variance was needed because the ground floor of buildings in this area are supposed to have commercial space. The architect pointed out that other similar buildings in the area have no commercial space, so this design is in keeping with the neighborhood. He also discussed how the setbacks are like those of the other buildings, but pointed out that some have no setbacks between the buildings at all.
(This is when I learned that multifamily residential units can mean anything: condos, rooming houses, townhouses, duplexes, Air BNBs, apartment buildings, etc. Condo is a management style. I got the feeling that the word ”condo” is not going to be used as much since it has such a negative connotation for many people in the area. The upcoming P&Z meetings will test my theory.)
During the public portion, I spoke about the importance of sticking to the proper setbacks, even if the buildings around have similar setbacks to those proposed here. Since the buildings are so close together, if a fire starts in one of them, it will spread to the others. I corrected the statement of the existing buildings on East Oak not having parking. Two have limited parking, with enough room for a few cars. Lighting in the parking area was also a concern since there will be a small wall around the area. The architect said there will be lighting in the parking section.
The motion for approval passed unanimously with a Board member saying that he hopes other architects take note of how beautiful this building looks.
278 W. Lincoln Daniel McVey
The owner wants to move the steps from the right side of the building to the left.
Moving the steps to the Lincoln Avenue side of the property opens up the driveway to the garage and allows for two off-street parking spots. The Board wants sidewalk detail and a site plan.
No public comments.
Motion passed unanimously.
328 E. Glenwood Margaret Clark
The owner wants to construct a parking lot in this vacant area that holds 15 spaces. The parking area would be used for the 3-story apartment building owned by the applicant.
Mrs. Clark owns a 7-unit apartment building. This lot is adjacent to the apartments and will be used solely for those customers. She will put up signage indicating so.
A 2C variance is needed since the lot coverage will be 92%, as opposed to the allowed 70%.
The configuration of the driveway for the lot will allow for two metered spots on the street.
The Board wanted the lot consolidated with the apartment building and to have a deed restriction in place to keep the lot as parking for the building’s customers only.
Motion passed unanimously.
314 E. Glenwood B&B Contractors, Inc.
The owner wants to build 4 condo unit in a “quad” style. Many variances are needed: density, bulk, front yard, side yard, building coverage, and lot coverage.
The lot on which this will be built is currently a public parking lot.
A D5 variance for density is needed. The attorney stated that the lot density and other needed variances are similar to those already enjoyed by others in the area. Lot coverage is requested to be 70.8, and 70% is required. It was agreed to revise the plans to comply with the 70%. The front yard setback is 4’, but the building is actually 21’ back. The deck overhangs the front area. 6’ is requested for the side yards.
The garage doors are 8’ width, but the inside space of 21’ is shared.
Revised plans will be submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
The City of Wildwood Planning & Zoning board meets the first Monday of every month at 6 pm in the City Hall Commissioner’s Meeting Room, 4400 New Jersey Ave, Wildwood NJ 08260. View agendas and plans beforehand at city hall during their business hours (M-F 8 am - 4 pm). Members of the public are allowed to attend and offer public comment on most agenda items. Zoom attendance is currently discontinued
Disclaimer: The non-italic notes are the preview minutes of the meeting, and the italicized body text are our unofficial notes. While we have taken every precaution to ensure that the content of this summary are both current and accurate and does not infringe on any rights of any person or entity, errors can occur. We assume no responsibility for errors/emissions.
To join to our FREE email notification list, click here.
