Recap of March 6, ‘23 Wildwood Planning and Zoning Meeting
Submitted 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.
Planning and Zoning Meeting Notes Date: March 6, 2023
Property Address: 444 W. Wildwood Ave. Applicant: Wildwood LJKQ, LLC
Attorney: Jeffrey Barnes Engineer: DeBlasio & Associates
Owner: Lawrence McKnight Consultant: (Architect) John Marshall
Site Plan: Number of Stories: ground floor garage with two stories above and a roof-top deck
Zoned: Low Density Residential (R-1)
Property frontage: Width: 40’ Existing Non-Conformity Depth: 70’ Existing Non-Conformity Area: 2800 sq.ft.
Variances: Use: yes (stacked duplex dwelling) hardship: yes (small lot) substantial benefit: yes
Front yard setback: Wildwood Ave. Required: 10’ Proposed: 10’ ground floor and 8’ bay window
Front yard setback: Susquehanna Ave. Required: 10’ Proposed: 10’ ground floor and 9’ bay window
Side yard setback: Required: 15’ Proposed: 10.5 ground floor and 8.5 Bay window
Back yard setback: Required: 15’ Proposed: 6.5’ ground and 5.5’ Bay window
Height: Required: 35’ Proposed: 30.8542’ However, they want to increase that amount for a top floor deck. It can be increased by 15%, making the height 40.25’ but they want 42.1458’.
Lot area coverage: Required: 70% Proposed: 62.5% Complies
Density Required: 3600 sq. ft. per unit Proposed: 1400 sq. ft. per unit
Parking: Required: 2 per unit Proposed: 2 per unit Complies
D-5 variance needed to allow an increase in the number of dwellings permitted on the small lot.
D-6 variance needed for height.
Proposal: The lot is vacant. The proposal is to have a stacked duplex built on a small lot.
Additional notes: This property and the one being built next to it on Susquehanna are sister properties owned by the same person. The lot is tiny with the area listed at 2800 sq. ft. The owner wants the density variance to allow for 7200 sq. ft., even though this is a low-density area. One Board member thought it was an overutilization of space with the house being tight to the edges. The architect said that whether the building was a single family home or a two unit home, the dimensions would be the same. No one on the Board questioned that statement. The architect also said the building was designed to look like a single-family home (Look at photo of proposed building.) and not look like other multi-family dwellings. The first floor will be an open garage that has an enclosed storage area in the back. One car can park in the garage while the other is in the driveway. The Board questioned the dimensions. The architect assured them that the driveways will be large enough to fit a car without intruding onto the sidewalk. Each unit will have a roof-top deck that has its own pilot house and a 42” barrier between the units. The HVAC will be located on the roof. During the voting time, the Board members all agreed that the building is beautiful. The people in the audience who spoke about the project had a different opinion.
Public Comments: Five people spoke who were not excited about the project. One person was a Board member who had excused himself from the Board for this project. The lawyer questioned whether or not he was going to speak as a Board member. Mr. Clark assured him that he was there as a resident of the neighborhood. He went on to say that the building matches nothing in the neighborhood, it is squeezing too much onto a small lot, and they used so many variances that not much was left. Two other neighbors also questioned the number of variances and said the neighborhood consists of single-family homes. Another person said the proposed building was an eyesore and didn’t need to be so high. I stated that I thought it was funny that the cars used in the rendering were small cars and easily fit in the driveways (VW Beatle). I also reminded the Board that this was a low-density zone that should stay that way while following the zoning plan. The rebuttal: It was agreed to lower the roof-line by shrinking the ceiling height on one of the floors. This brought it into compliance so there was no variance needed for the height. The lawyer said that the building does match the neighborhood since a similar group of buildings a block away has been in existence for a while. The driveway is 20’ to the sidewalk.
Motion: Yes 7 No 0 Motion passed unanimously.
Property Address: 3309 Susquehanna Applicant: Wildwood LJKQ, LLC
Attorney: Jeffrey Barnes Engineer: DeBlasio & Associates
Owner: Lawrence McKnight Consultant: (Architect) John Marshall
Site Plan: Number of Stories: ground floor garage with two stories above and a roof-top deck
Zoned: Low Density Residential (R-1)
Property frontage: Width: 59’ Existing Non-Conformity Depth: 80’ Existing Non-Conformity Area: 4720sq. ft. Existing Non-Conformity
Variances: Use: yes (stacked duplex dwelling) hardship: yes (across from electrical station) substantial benefit: yes
Front yard setback: Required: 10’ Proposed: 20’ ground floor, 18.5 at bay windows Complies
Side yard setback: Required: 15’ Proposed: 7.5’ at each side wall, 6’ to the bay window
Back yard setback: Required: 15’ Proposed: 20’ ground floor, 12’ deck
Height: Required: 35’ Proposed: 35.9375’
With roof top deck, the additional 15% brings it to 40.25’ Proposed: 46.1875’
Building coverage: Required: 45% Proposed: 37.9 Complies
Lot area coverage: Required: 70% Proposed: 54.8% Complies
Density Required: 3600 sq. ft Proposed: 4700 sq. ft. (The area isn’t big enough for two units.)
Parking: Required: 2 spaces per unit Proposed: 2 spaces per unit Complies
Proposal: This lot had a single family house that has been demolished.
Additional notes: At a concept meeting, the Board made suggestions for some changes and these were adjusted. No one mentioned what these changes were. The pilot house is set back, which improves the line of sight. (This could be one of the changes.) The parapet wall is 42” high and separates the space between the two units. The variance for height was discussed and the lawyer said there wasn’t any room for modifications. No one on the Board asked why. At over 46’, this house is virtually 4 stories, while 3 is the permitted height for this zone. Also discussed was the reason for the hardship variance, seeing that the property is across the street from the electrical station. The Board praised the owner for being willing to develop property that has such a detrimental element. Otherwise, there wasn’t too much discussion about this property as most of that occurred with its sister property at 444 W. Wildwood Ave. Those comments, etc. also applied to this property as per the lawyer’s suggestion and the Board’s okay.
Public Comments: While there were five people commenting about the property on Wildwood Ave., all except one left when this one was presented. In my opinion, this was the one that needed more community input. I asked why the height of over 46’ could not be reduced, since the height of the property on Wildwood was reduced to comply with code. I also pointed out that once someone is granted such a height, more and more people will want that height, pointing out that “it fits in with the neighborhood,” which is a common phrase of the lawyers. The lawyer, Barnes, was given a chance of rebuttal and he pretty much poo-pooed the idea that everyone will want that height. He also said that granting variances spurs development and gives people what they want. He did not answer my question about the height reduction. Unfortunately, the public is not permitted to speak after their initial comments. I was disappointed that the Board didn’t address the height issue.
Motion: Yes 7 No 0 Motion passed unanimously.
**********
Property Address: 321 W. Cresse Applicant: Deninno Properties
Attorney: John Amenhauser Engineer:
Owner: applicant Consultant: (Architect ) Brian Newswanger
Site Plan: Preliminary and Final Approval Number of Stories: ground floor garage with two stories above
Zoned: High Density Residential (R-3)
Property frontage: Width: 55’ Depth: 100’ Area: 5500 sq. ft.
Variances: Use: n/a hardship: n/a substantial benefit: yes (needed)
Front yard setback: Required: 10’ Proposed: 10’ Complies
Side yard setback: Required: 14’ Proposed: 6’
Back yard setback: Required: 15’ Proposed: 15’ Complies
Height: Required: 35’ Proposed: 37.7’
Building coverage: Required: 45% Proposed: 58.6%
Lot area coverage: Required: 70% Proposed: 69.1%
Density: Required: 7200 sq. ft. Proposed:
Parking: Required: 2 per unit Proposed: 2 per unit Complies
Proposal: The applicate intends to demolish the existing single-family home and to construct a three-unit building. The lot is undersized.
Additional notes: The original building was located at the property line. The new one will be centered in the lot. Victorian architecture was the inspiration for the design. One of the consultants said the actual building will have finishings that are upgraded from those shown on the renderings. The showers and ac unit will stick out in back. Parking is inside the garage and in the driveway. A waiver was wanted for contours, which had something to do with environmental impact and utility services. It wasn’t explained and I forgot to ask what it meant.
Public Comments: Two people spoke about the proposed side-yard setback being too small. No rebuttal.
Motion: Yes 9 No 0 Motion passed unanimously.
**********
Property Address: 3601-3615 Pacific Ave., and 3600 Pacific Applicant: 3615 Pacific Ave LLC
Attorney: Jeffrey Barnes Engineer: P&S Integrated Services
Owner: Architect: Jennifer Iannacone of BG Capitol
Site Plan: Final Approval for 63 hotel units Number of Stories:
Zoned: Tourism/Entertainment (T/E)
Property frontage: 3601-3615 Pacific Width: 480’ and 200’ Depth: 130’ Area: 27949 sq. ft.
Property frontage: 3600 Pacific Width: 170’ on E. Schellinger Depth: 200’ Area: 25270’ (Irregular lot) (The property extends to Lincoln Ave.)
Variances: Use: n/a hardship: no substantial benefit: yes (needed)
Front yard setback: Required: Proposed:
Side yard setback: Required: Proposed:
Back yard setback: Required: Proposed:
Height: Required: Proposed:
Building coverage: Required: Proposed:
Lot area coverage: (3600 Pacific) Required: 80% Proposed: 83.8%
Parking: will be valet Required: 74 Proposed: 80 stacked and 4 spots by hotel
Proposal: The 63-unit hotel will have ground floor commercial space. The proposed parking lot at 3600 Pacific is expected to have 80 parking spots. It will be valet parking that includes stacked parking. Four parking spots that are currently metered will be used for hotel check-in, etc. Also wanted are variances for ADA (4 required) and van accessible parking (1 required) to be changed to zero for both. Lot coverage and stacked parking waivers are also requested.
Additional notes: This meeting was primarily concerned with the parking for the hotel at 3601-3615 Pacific Avenue since most approvals had already been given for the hotel, but a few items were directed at the hotel. The four metered spaces on Pacific in front of the hotel were requested to be vacated for the purpose of hotel valet services and for the protrusion of the parking islands to be eliminated. This will allow for five cars to be in the queue. A ramp into the hotel will be ADA (Americans with Disabilities) compliant. Since parking is by valet only, the architect believes that this variance can be granted. Within the parking lot will be one space reserved for an ADA van. Four signs for the hotel will be located on Pacific Ave., two on Schellinger, one on Lincoln, and one behind the hotel. During the architect’s presentation she said the parking lot will have 81 spaces rather than the 80 listed in the paperwork. Three parking places will be at the hotel itself. The parking lot will be surrounded by a 4 or 6’ white vinyl picket fence with landscaping in front of it. Only hotel personnel will be permitted access to the lot. A Board member was concerned about the fence looking cheap and suggested that a two-foot masonry wall be constructed with an additional two feet of decorative fencing would look better that plain vinyl fencing. The architect was concerned that headlights in the parking lot could be disruptive, but finally agreed to the suggestion. A six-foot privacy fence would be put up next to the Dragon House and the residential areas.
Public Comments: A representative of the owners (an architect) of 218 E. Schellinger spoke first. He was stopped since a representative has to fill out paperwork and be approved. The representative said the owners were not in state and they just found out about the meeting the day before. Eventually, he was allowed to proceed. He was concerned with an egress to an electrical transformer structure that would be behind the wall. The reply for his concern was that the transformer location has not changed since it was first approved. An egress is not in place since the conversation was with the original owners, and these are new owners. The gas meter that was there was relocated. The door to the structure is 3’ from the property line. (I’m not sure which property line.) The next to speak was a resident who lives above the Dragon House. She stated that she was there for the Dragon House and herself. She was told that she could only speak for herself. The lady then proceeded to discuss the proposed fence and how it’s placement on the property line would cut off access to the utilities. The reply for her concern was that the fence would dead-end into the Dragon House, but a door for access to the utilities would be installed. Another resident thought it would be a good idea to push the parking lot back in order to install another queue on Pacific Avenue heading south. The Board replied that such a move involved relocating the sidewalk and would create less space for parking in the lot. It wasn’t a feasible idea. Another person was concerned that since the use of the property had already changed once, what was to stop them from changing the motel into condos. The Board’s lawyer stated that condo is a management style and if the owners wanted to do that, they would have to come before the Board again to seek a use change. The gentleman also wanted to know what stacked parking meant and he wanted to find out about the possibility of putting trash cans on the street. He was given a definition for stacked parking (cars parked close together in a line). As to the trash can issue, that is up to the Wildwood Downtown Redevelopment District to handle.
Motion: Yes 7 No 0 Motion passed unanimously.
Note: Some Board members left before all properties were discussed.
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
To join to our FREE email notification list, click here.
