By Kathy Fulginiti

This recap is of the May 2022 meeting. Minutes from the April meeting are below and also available to view here.

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 8am - 4 pm). Members of the public are allowed to attend and offer public comment on most agenda items. Zoom attendance is currently discontinued.

May 2, 2022 Recap

400 and 404 W. Poplar Avenue               Anthony DeStephano, owner     

The owner intends to subdivide his two lots that are 30’ x 90’ and 50’ x 90’ into two that are equal.  The existing house does not comply with setbacks.  It was recommended that variance relief be granted.  There is a shed on one lot that he plans to demolish.   If additional parking is required, he will comply with it.  The single-family home will stay as is.  He has no plans to build anything.  

Motion was passed unanimously.       

412 W. Lincoln Avenue                      Scott Peter, owner

Before this one got started, the Board attorney said that someone had called city hall to complain about not receiving a notice.  The Board moved this project into the second slot to enable the person who called a chance to make an appearance.  By the time Peter made his presentation, that person had not shown up.

The owner is looking for a minor subdivision to turn a 140’ x100’ lot into three lots.  Two lots would measure out at 50’ x 100’ and the other would be 90’ x 100’.  The larger lot would retain the warehouse that sits there now for use again as a warehouse or storage facility.  The other two lots would contain two townhouses each that are attached. With the five bedrooms that are planned per unit, parking requires three spots.  Two cars have spots in the garage (tandem style) and the driveway makes the third spot.   At 32 ½‘ tall, the buildings will be under the height limit.  One member of the public spoke in favor of the project, saying that it will improve the area.

Motion passed unanimously.    

4601 Atlantic Avenue   Cork and Bottle                 Steve Delmonte, owner

The owner of this liquor store wants to build an outside patio bar that attaches to the existing building, which will see no changes. They already have a liquor license.  A D3 variance is needed for conditional use.  The bar will be constructed in the side parking lot. The lot currently has four parking spots that will be eliminated.  There was a discussion about adequate parking in the area and it was decided that there is enough street parking and parking lots in the area for this not to be a problem.  The patio will face Atlantic Avenue, have a 5’ landscape buffer, be fenced in, and have signage for “Cork Yard.” The 20’ sign, which is in the form of an archway, also needs a variance.  Because the liquor store has no seating, a variance for the number of allowed seats outdoors is a moot point.  The yard complies with setbacks.  There are two employee parking spots off Burk Avenue that have enough room for trucks to get by to empty the garbage and recycling.  The owner is expected to have acoustic entertainment, but no food.  A couple members of the public spoke, affirming that the idea was a good one and the owners are good business people.   

Motion and variances passed unanimously.     

440 W. Lincoln Avenue              JC Building Company

The existing building (which will be demolished) has most recently been used by a landscaping company.  It is situated on two lots that the owner wants to subdivide into three lots.  Each lot would contain a townhome and a “top and bottom,” making three units per lot.  Each unit has two parking spots.  A D5 density variance is needed. Front and back setbacks are 10’ and 15’ respectively.  Side yard is 6’.   The buildings would have 12’ between them.   

There was a lot of public comment and concern about this project from the condo owners who live on the 3700 block of Susquehanna.  Not everyone received notification about the plans.  It turns out that only the principal condo owner has to receive a notice.  That person is then to notify the rest, according to New Jersey law.  About a half dozen people appeared to protest this development. The principal said he was representing 19 others.   One concern had to do with the side yard setback and the fence that is planned on the property line.  The garages for 3700 Susquehanna are in the back of the building with a narrow driveway that runs the length of the complex.  Not all the garages are the same size; some require the maneuvering of the vehicle back and forth several times to clear the garage doors, the AC units, and the end of the driveway.  If a fence were to be constructed on the property line, the cars backing out of driveways would constantly be hitting the fence.  To successfully back out of the driveway, the backs of the cars must hang over the property line.  Another problem was the 6’ side yard setback.  The person reminded the Board that a side yard setback is 10’ for a reason and to consistently reduce that amount will put buildings too close together. He cited the recent fire and the closeness of the buildings as being a contributing cause to all the structures in the vicinity having fire damage.  Another person talked about density and the problems of flooding in the area.  Too much density would tax an already bad flooding situation.  He doubted that the drainage system the builders install would be up to the task since the overflow would only run onto an already flood-prone Lincoln Ave.   Another person had questions about the soil being tested since unknown chemicals had been used and stored in the building.   The owner and lawyer had a chance to respond to the comments and glossed over issues and affirmed that drainage plans met the city’s requirements.  The lawyer said he would talk to the owners about a compromise concerning the fence.

Because this project required a D5 variance, at least 5 votes were needed for it to pass.  There were four yes votes and two no votes, so the project was denied.

146 and 156 E. Taylor             Sciarra Properties LLC

This area is within the Pacific Avenue Redevelopment Plan.  Even though the address is Taylor Avenue, the property is surrounded on three sides:  Rio Grande, Pacific, and Taylor.  The proposal is to make this a year-round destination resort for families and to preserve and show off the property.  Accommodations will be for the short term.  The historic house at 156 E. Taylor will serve as the anchor.  It will be renovated, but still retain its historic charm (and stained glass). It will have six bedrooms after renovation.  In addition, there will be six compact cottages with two bedrooms each that are 27’ in height.  Other amenities such as a pool, beach storage, 17 parking spots, and green space that covers 35% of the property will be included.  The wall surrounding the property will stay.  A gated access will be from Pacific Avenue.  

A variance is needed to consolidate the lots.   Consolidation means it meets the requirements for lot coverage and does not require a variance for that.  Density will be less than that allowed.   Because the property is less than a quarter acre, it will comply with the 10-year storm requirements.  No part of the property will be treated as a back yard.

The concept design looks beautiful, but the house at 146 W. Taylor does not appear to be part of it.

Motion passed unanimously.    

Disclaimer: The above are not the official minutes of the meeting. 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.

The following is the verbatim minutes of the previous meeting, April 2022.

Planning/Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting, April 4, 2022

The meeting of the Wildwood Panning/Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order on April 4, 2022 by Chairman Kieninger at 6:00 PM at Wildwood City Hall, 4400 New Jersey Avenue, Wildwood, NJ.

Chairman Kieninger led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Kieninger read the Open Public Meetings Act.

Roll Call:  

Present:   Phil Swetsky, Rich Gilson, George Clark, Todd Kieninger, Krista Fitzsimons, Jason Hesley, Carly Sicilia, Nick Fluharty

Absent: Brian Evans, Joseph Spuhler, Krista Fitzsimons, Steve Mikulski 

Also present: Mrs. Kate Dunn (board secretary), Mr. Robert Belasco of Stefankiewicz & Belasco, LLC, Mr. Raymond Roberts of Remington & Vernick & Mr. Anthony Chadwell of Remington & Vernick.

______________________________________________________________________________

New Business:  

Applicant: Dennis Conn 09-22

Attorney: Doreen Corino, Esq

Engineer: William Parkhill, Mid Atlantic Engineering Partners

Doreen Corino represents the applicant Dennis Conn. The property is located at 4100-4104 Susquehanna Ave., Block 122, Lot 28.02 in the R-2, Moderate Density Residential Zoning District.

Ms. Corino gave an overview of the application. He stated that Mr. Conn is the contract purchaser of the subject property. She stated that the property is located in the R-2, Moderate Density Residential Zone.  The property is currently 10,000 sq ft. and the applicant is seeking to subdivide the lot into 2 lots, 1 lot will be 40ft x 100ft and the other will be 60ft x 100ft. The 40ft x 100ft lot will have a single-family home that is existing and will remain.  

William Parkhill, P.E. from Mid Atlantic Engineering Partners was sworn in.

Mr. Parkhill went over the existing conditions. The 40ft x 100ft lot has an existing 5-bedroom single family home with 3 off street parking spaces. 

Mr. Parkhill stated that the proposed 60ft x 100ft lot will be constructed with a semi-detached new duplex that will need a variance for side yard set backs and maximum building height. 

Mr. Parkhill doesn’t believe there will be any substantial determent to the public good or zoning ordinance and that the benefits outweigh any determents.

Anthony Chadwell reviewed the Engineer’s report.  

No member of the public spoke on the application.

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application.

Jason Hesley made a motion to move forward with the vote.  Nick Fluharty 2nd the motion.

The application was approved with 8 Yes votes.

Applicant: Jeffrey Woloszyn 10-22

Attorney: Jon Batastini, Esq.

Applicant: Joseph Maffei, EDA

Jon Batastini represents the applicant, Jeffrey Woloszyn.  The property is located at 221 W Glenwood Ave., Block 224, Lot 21 in the R-1, Low Density Residential Zoning District. 

The applicant is proposing to covert the single-family dwelling into a two-family stacked dwelling unit.

Matthew Hender, P.P from Engineering Design Associates was sworn in.

Jeffrey Woloszyn, owner of the property, was also sworn in. 

Mr. Hender stated that the property is located at 221 E Glenwood Ave., located at the corner of Park Blvd. and New York Ave. and is a currently a single-family home. He stated the property previously was a duplex and the previous owner of the property converted it to a single-family home about 10yrs. Ago.  The applicant is now looking to convert it back to a duplex.  

Mr. Hender noted that there are several existing non-conformities including minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage/width, side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks, maximum building height and parking requirements. 

Mr. Hender noted that a duplex is permitted in the R-1 zone but a stacked duplex is not permitted.  He stated that duplex is consistent with the neighborhood and there other stacked duplexes in the area.  There will be no changes to the exterior of the structure. 

Mr. Hender noted that the application will require a D us variance and a waiver for parking. All other variances are pre-existing.  

Mr. Hender stated that he doesn’t believe there will be any determent to the neighborhood or zoning ordinance if the board were to grant the relief for the increased density.  He believes it is reasonable to approve the parking waiver because the house is over 100yrs old and there is nowhere on site to provide parking.  

The applicant will comply with the conditions on the Engineer’s report.

After a question from the board, Mr. Hender stated that there will be access to the 2nd unit from an exterior stair way. There are 2 entrances in both units and there are 2 existing kitchens.  Each unit will consist of 3 bedrooms. The top unit, the owners will use for themselves and the bottom unit will be rented out.  

Anthony Chadwell reviewed the Engineer’s report.  

No members of the public spoke on the application.  

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application.

Phil Swetsky made a motion to move forward with the vote.  George Clark 2nd the motion.

The application was approved with 7 Yes votes.

Applicant: Mark Daley 11-22Z

Attorney: Jeffrey Barnes, Esq.

Engineer: Brian Murphy, P.E.

Richard King (for Jeffrey Barnes, Esq) represents the applicant, Mark Daley.  The property is located at 207 W Bennett Ave., Block 21, Lot 1 in the R-1, Low Residential Zoning District.

Mr. King gave an overview of the existing conditions.  Currently there are 2 principles uses on the property.  The applicant is proposing to demolish both structures and construct a new duplex.  

Brian Murphy, P.E. is sworn in.  

Mark Daley, owner of the property is also sworn in.

Mr. Murphy also described the existing conditions stating there are currently 2 structures on the site, one being the A-frame structure across from CVS and behind it is a single-family dwelling.  

Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures and replace it with a new duplex with parking on the ground floor.  Each unit will 4 off street parking spaces, 2 in the garage and 2 in the driveway. The building will meet all the current flood regulations. 

Mr. Murphy describes the variances that are being sought with the application including: minimum lot area, lot frontage and width on Park Blvd., minimum lot depth, minimum front yard set back on Bennett Ave., minimum rear yard setback, maximum principal building coverage and maximum density.  

Mr. Murphy believes this will be a significant improvement to the property and there are similar properties in the neighborhood so he believes the project fits in with the neighborhood.  

Mr. Murphy believes that the project will advance several purposes of Zoning including safety, the appropriate density and promotes a desirable visual. He does not believe there will be any substantial determent to the neighborhood or zoning ordinance.  He believes that the lot can accommodate the units as proposed and the applicant agrees to comply with the comments on the Engineer’s report.

After a question from the board, Mr. Murphy stated that the setbacks off of Park are consistent with the neighborhood.  The HVAC will be on side.  

Anthony Chadwell reviewed the Engineer’s report.

Members of the Public:

Veronica Nabazio from 5107 Park Blvd Unit 200 was concerned about the parking.

Malkit Gill from 5105 Park Blvd. was also concerned about the parking.

Robert Nabazio from 5101 & 5103 Park Blvd stated that there is a high volume of traffic in that area and was concerned about parking. He also believed the project is too big for the lot.

Ken Marzullo from 5100 Arctic Ave was also concerned about the parking and the project being too big for the lot.

Public comment is closed.

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application. 

Nick Fluharty made a motion to move forward with the vote.  Rich Gilson 2nd the motion.  The application was approved with 6 Yes votes and 1 No vote.

Applicant: A&V Investments, LLC 12-22

Attorney: Ron Gelzunas, Esq

Architect: Matthew Sprague

Ron Gelzunas represents the applicant A&V Investments, LLC.  The property is located at 227 E Maple Ave., Block 218, Lot 9 in the R-3, High Density Residential Zoning District.  

Mr. Gelzunas stated that the property is currently occupied by a 3-bedroom single family home in the front and a 1-bedroom dilapidated cottage in the rear.  The applicant is proposing to demolish the cottage in the rear and construct a new cottage.  

Matthew Sprague, R.A., was sworn in.  

Addison Valencia, principal of the LLC was also sworn in.

Mr. Sprague also described the existing conditions of the property.  He stated that the cottage in the rear is in poor condition and very close to the property lines. He stated that the cottage from was approximately an inch from the east property line and 1.5ft from the rear property line.  

Mr. Sprague stated that the existing house in the front has 3 bedrooms and was historically used as a multi-family.  The applicant is proposing to construct a new efficiency type structure in the rear with a living room, bathroom, kitchen and a small porch.  The new structure will be built to the current flood and code regulations.  

Mr. Sprague stated that the proposed structure would approximately have a side yard set back on 4.1ft to the east and 5ft on the west side. It would have a rear yard set back of 4.1ft.  Although those setbacks don’t meet the regulations of the zoning ordinance, he feels it would be an improvement from what is currently there.  

Mr. Sprague reviewed what variances the applicant would need including: a use variance to construct to 2 principal uses on the same lot, minimum side yard setbacks, minimum rear yard setbacks, maximum principle building coverage, minimum front yard setback, minimum lot frontage/width(existing non-conforming) and maximum density.  The applicant requested a waiver for parking and site plan approval.  

Mr. Valencia stated that he has owned the property for about 9 months now.  He stated that it was originally a 7-bedroom rooming house that had locks on the doors and the cottage was also existing.  The renovated the main house and will use it as a summer rental.  He intends to use the rear structure for himself and his family.  As for parking he stated that there is a driveway apron on the right side with 2 parking spaces that he uses although it belongs to the neighbor.  

Mr. Sprague stated that he believes this will be an improvement to the neighborhood and he doesn’t believe there will be any substantial determent to the public good or zoning ordinance.  He believes that the project fits in with the neighborhood as several others have rear cottages. 

Raymond Roberts reviewed the engineer’s report.  

Members of the Public:

Gary Thompson from 220 E Glenwood Ave distributed 7 photos listed as exhibits A1- A7. They were pictures of the rear cottage. He stated that the structure in the rear has been used as a storage shed for years and the previous owner failed to maintain it.  He believed the project was too big for the lot and was concerned with parking.

Elaine Pollach from 221 E Maple Ave stated the project looks nice but the front house was never used as a rooming house and was also concerned about the parking.

Louis Valorio from 214 E Glenwood Ave stated he lives behind it.  He stated that there have always been issues with the property and it has always been a shed. He believes this would be a disaster for emergency services.

Robert Serafini from 219 E Glenwood Ave was concerned with safety as well.

Public comment is closed.

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application.

Jason Hesley made the motion to move forward with the vote.  George Clark 2nd the motion.

The application was denied with 4 Yes votes and 3 No votes.

Applicant: Carlo Rosauri  13-22P

Engineer: Rami Nassar, SNS Consulting Engineers

Carol Rosauri represents himself and is sworn in.  The property is located at 3101 Pacific Ave., Block 209 Lot 1 in the PARZ, Pacific Ave Redevelopment Zone.

Mr. Rosauri stated that the property is currently a parking lot that he bought 5yrs ago. In the past, he rented the parking lot to the Atilis Gym. However, the gym no longer needs the parking the lot. He stated he would like to now pave the parking lot and use it for public parking.  

Rami Nassar, P.E. was sworn in.  

Mr. Nassar stated that the property is located at Pacific and Maple Ave. and is a vacant parking lot that is 8100sq ft.  A letter from ACIA was received stating that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.  

Mr. Nassar believes it is a good use for the area.  There will be 24 parking spaces and there will be an attendant on site.  There will be 2 lights for the parking area. No landscaping is proposed. There will be an entrance to the parking lot on Maple Ave and an entrance/exit off of Pacific Ave.

The applicant will need a variance for maximum lot coverage, maximum allowable driveway curb cut access, masonry wall buffer and automated signals. 

The applicant agreed to comply with the comments listed on the Engineer’s report. 

Anthony Chadwell reviewed the Engineer’s report.

No members of the public spoke on the application. 

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application

Nick Fluharty made a motion to move forward with the vote. Phil Swetsky 2nd the motion.

The application was approved with 8 Yes votes.

Applicant: JC Building Concepts, Inc. 14-22

Attorney: John Amenhauser, Esq

Engineer: Vince Orlando, EDA
______________________________________________________________________________

John Amenhauser, Esq represents the applicant JC Building Concepts, Inc.  The property is located at 3120 Pacific Ave., Block 208 Lots 2.01, 2.02, 6.03 & 10 in the PARZ, Pacific Ave Redevelopment Zoning District.

Mr. Amenhauser distributed exhibit A-1 which is a proposed rendering of the project.

Matthew Hender, P.P. from Engineering Design Associates was sworn in.  

Thomas Pape, R.A. was also sworn in.

Mr. Hender gave an overview of the existing conditions.  The property is located at the corner of Pacific and Pine Ave and is currently occupied with a large multi-use vacant building that is about 20,000 sq ft.  Behind the building is vacant. 

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 3 lots. There will be 2 lots on Pine Ave. that are 5400 sq ft and each lot will contain a 3-unit property.  The 3rd lot will be on Pacific Ave. which will be 9100 sq ft. and will have 2 proposed structures, each with 3 units. 

Mr. Hender stated that no on street parking spaces will be removed.  

ACIA provided a letter stating that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.  Mr. Hender reviewed the variances being sought with this application including: minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, minimum lot frontage, minimum side yard set back and waiver for off street parking spaces.  The applicant agrees to comply with the comments on the Engineer’s report. 

Mr. Hender stated that the project will advance several purposes of Zoning including a desirable visual and being the appropriate density.  He doesn’t believe there will be any substantial determent to the public good or zoning ordinance. 

Mr. Paper stated that there are 4 proposed buildings, all with 3 units.  There will be 2 stacked units and 1 townhouse in each building.  He stated that the buildings on Pacific Ave will have a rear driveway entrance.  Each unit will have 3 bedrooms and 2 car parking on the ground floor along with storage on the ground floor.  

Raymond Roberts reviewed the engineer’s report.  

No members of the public spoke on the application

Robert Belasco did a recap of the application.

George Clark made a motion to move forward with the vote.  Jason Hesley 2nd the motion.  

The application was approved with 7 Yes votes.

Memorializing Resolutions:

The resolution for Scott Mackin, Mary Mackin & John Parrish 01-22 was approved with 5 Yes votes. Joseph Spuhler and Nick Fluharty abstained from the vote. 

The resolution for M.W. of Wildwood, LLC 02-22 was approved with 5 Yes votes. Nick Fluharty and Joseph Spuhler abstained from the vote.

The resolution for Anothny Marchione 04-22 was approved with 5 Yes votes. Nick Fluharty & Joseph Spuhler abstained from the vote. 

The resolution for Thomas Gerace 08-20 was approved with 5 Yes votes. Nick Fluharty & Joseph Spuhler abstained from the vote. 

Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the March 7, 2002 & March 8, 2022 meetings were approved with 8 Yes votes. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:24 PM

______________________________________________________________________________

The preceding minutes are a summary of events that occurred during this meeting on the above-mentioned date in compliance with New Jersey State Statute 40:55D, 2-7-6. These minutes are not nor are they intended or represented to be a verbatim transcription taken. 

To join to our FREE email notification list, click here.