That's not bad. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We started >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> My country to the >> All right. Uh this meeting, the uh land use board meeting February 17th, 2026
was advertised in the Anakin Gazette, the Atlantic City Press and right here in the municipal building on board. I would ask the secretary to add that to her minutes. And then Mr. Tina, you want to sign in? M. You want to swear in Mr. Dennis?
>> I sure would. The honor to Mr. Dennis, you want to >> raise sir? >> Yes. >> You know, you've done this a few times. I think I state your name. So, >> I >> I Edward D. Tennis >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear
>> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> And that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. >> And I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. and to the governments established in the United States
>> and and to the governments established in the United States >> and to this state >> in the state, >> county, >> and city >> and city >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully >> and that I will faithfully >> impartially and justly >> and partially and unjustly
>> perform all the duties of the office of >> perform all the duties of office of >> member of the land use board. >> Member of the land use board. Alternate number one. Is that correct? Okay. Very good. Sign that. Pass it back to you, sir.
This >> chair's broke for the record. Donna, roll call, please. >> Okay. Mayor Chimpetti. Mr. Walker >> here. >> Mr. McKenna >> here. >> Mr. Peterson >> here. >> Mr. Mulleno. >> Mrs. Torres
>> here. >> Mr. Frick >> here. >> Mr. Timbers >> here. >> Mr. Gart >> here. >> Mr. D >> Mr. Mr. Hut >> here >> and Mer. No. Okay. >> Okay. Can I have an approval motion for
the minutes of January 20th? >> So move. >> I'll second it. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> against. Okay. So, uh, new business. Ryan, you want to give us a a short little Sure. Um so the city
in reviewing its land use ordinance and trying to spur economic development uh came across a restriction in the city's current land use ordinance which requires a minimum spacing of 1,000 ft between fast food restaurants. Um the
city uh at this point has interest in removing that restriction uh as a conditional use requirement. uh in order to do so um they need to refer that matter to the planning board for consideration and um for recommendation of whether that would be consistent with
the city's master plan. So u I handed out this uh memo that we drafted that pulls a couple of sections from the city's master plan and current master plan uh just to provide some examples of you
know what the intentions of the master plan are. I mean generally it's to uh support economic development in the town um to support you know smart growth and to uh provide for you know adequate transportation light air open space all the the goals of the municipal land
staff um so the city uh believes that this requirement does not support um the objectives of the master plan um and sort of refer this matter here for you guys to consider whether it is consistent Um, so the the current
ordinance restriction does not support any of the objectives that we listed. Um, and we determined that removing uh any the restriction would not conflict with any of the city's current master plan objectives. Um, we knew this rule was kind of a dated um tool that used to
be fairly common. Uh, I think in the 80s um fast development patterns, you know, people weren't quarrely sure how things were going to go. There's a lot less variety. there's a lot less understanding of how to engineer sites, a lot less site controls. Um, so we don't we don't believe that this
requirement is necessary anymore. Um, so our recommendation to the board is that we believe that this making this change this the land use ordinance would be consistent with the city's master plan. Um, but it's ultimately up to you guys to to vote on whether you believe that is the case. >> So there'll be no restriction
whatsoever. Now >> well, so it's only in the highway commercial does this requirement exist. there is a 1,000 ft separation distance between fast food restaurants. City's proposing to just remove that restriction entirely. Um real world impact um there's only one
there's probably more than one restaurant or establishment that could be considered fast food. You can make an argument that Dunkin Donuts would be a fast food restaurant. um like Dominoes, something that you know, but uh realistically the the vacant parcel that's next to McDonald's, I think, is
the one that's probably comes to everyone's mind most immediately. Um but it it really just removes a cloud. The city's had discussion with numerous developers uh both about that parcel and others. And this has come up as a concern or as a potential uh conflict.
Um the the pad site that's over by Wawa, excuse me, there's a redevelopment plan for that site. um and that one of the uses permitted it includes fast food. So like that's within thousand feet of Dunkin Donuts. So there's there's other um other properties that this
requirement sort of clouds. Um so we just think it would be easier to work with developers um and they would have a much higher level of comfort if that was not in there. They just had to meet all the other there's still a whole bunch of other conditions >> just to be consistent with everybody everything else that's going on.
>> Yeah. Exactly. and and there are there are still conditional use standards that apply just to fast food restaurants. There's still there's still a minimum square footage. There's still parking requirements and other requirements that apply only to fast food restaurants. Um so it would just be striking that requirement from the conditional use
standards. All the other conditional use standards would still apply and if they didn't meet those conditional use standards then they would have to go for a use variance. >> So okay, you got something? >> Yeah. What about the area of say Philadelphia Avenue from the White Horse Pike to Deer Street or two along there?
>> So this is this is only in the city's highway commercial zone which extends no more than a couple hundred feet from the White Horse Pike in any direction. Um actually goes to to Atlantic Avenue is the farthest that >> so in other words let's say a restaurant wants to go Philadelphia Avenue to corner Argo wants to buy one of those
buildings and convert it. >> So that is in the retail commercial district. >> So they would have they'd have to get variance. Why wouldn't you include that in that highway commercial? >> So that that would be a larger the city's ordinance. We're not proposing to change the or the where the boundaries are or anything like that as part of this. We're just trying to remove the
the conditional use standard. >> What about from White Horse Pike to Atlantic Avenue? >> So a good portion of that is actually in the city's highway commercial zone. Now there's sections where the highway commercial zone extends all the way to Atlantic, but it's sort of inconsistent up and down the Route 30 corridor. So I
I don't have the zoning map in front of me, but there there's sections where it goes all the way Atlantic and there's other sections where it's only like half the block because there's some residential areas and other other sections where it's not highway commercial. >> The parcel behind Wawa. >> Uh so the the parcel behind Wawa is in the highway commercial zone. Highway
commercial extends, excuse me, down Philadelphia up to the railroad tracks there. >> What about between the teamsters and uh uh Dunkin Donuts that area? >> That that's in the highway commercial zone. >> So that's all included. the other side where Waw Wa is included.
>> Yes. Well, that technically that side is subject to a redevelopment plan as part of the Waw Wa project, but otherwise it would be a highway commercial zone. >> So, it's an overlap. >> Uh yeah, it's >> redevelopment plan overlaps, >> right? The redevelopment zone sort of overlaid on top of highway commercial.
>> So, if Burger King want to come in next, there's no concern. It's a 1,000 ft from say Dunkin Donuts that they consider to be fast. It would be permitted after we remove this. >> Correct. because right now it's less than a thousand feet from Dunkin Donuts and potentially other things that could be considered fast food. >> Sure. >> So,
>> what makes a place fast food? >> Well, that's uh it's tough to define now because it's there's a wide gamut. I think in the in the mid 80s, fast food was a little more clearly defined. You know, there were far less chains. Yeah. >> Um and it was, you know, McDonald's, Burger King, and a few others. So, I
think fast food has a pretty wide variety at this point. >> You got a W for lunch and that's fast. >> Yeah. Exactly right. Is is Wawa fast food? Um >> like a Garo type building, they're not considered a fast food. >> I don't believe so. No, >> just curious.
>> So Ryan, if if we did nothing, a developer could ask for a variance, >> correct? A developer would have to come in and ask for request a use variance. Um which as you know is always a much higher lift for a developer. There's a significant investment of resources up
front. Um, so if someone's going to buy the property and start to go down that path, no one wants to spend $10,000 to figure out if they can build a restaurant there. They want to buy the property and build a restaurant there because they know they meet all the conditions. >> It's what could actually scare them away by us leaving it in there. >> Yeah, actually growth.
>> We've had numerous conversations with other developers who have said that exactly like I don't I don't want to mess with that. I'm going to deal with that. It's not worth it. So Ryan, >> yes 1,000 ft is at least 100 feet longer than a football
field at some point. >> We got to look at this and say this is not reasonable. >> This is not three city blocks like you said. >> Say it again. >> It's 3 city blocks. >> If you take a 1000 foot from the center of the McDonald's, you're talking about avenue.
>> And then you're talking almost Halo Street. >> Yes. >> Real close to Halo Street. >> Yeah. Right. It extend all the way into Gallup. >> Well, whatever this ordinance was that got put in there, it wasn't put in there for planning purposes. It was put in there for political purposes. We're not
not political, but you know, >> foundations. >> Yeah. >> Right. Purposes that are not uh advancing goals of the master plan or municipal land use law >> uh and no longer applicable. So >> is there any instance where you can see
that there could be a conflict in that somebody comes in and if there's an area along the pike or something or a restaurant that comes in that wouldn't meet the criteria of a fast food restaurant or something. So I think the the bigger restriction
that development is going to have in like tight parcels next to McDonald's say is um highway access requirements from New Jersey Department of Transportation. So you're not they're not going to let you have a whole series of driveways all 20 ft apart. Um, so I I
think that um you know that working through that process they they may require like a shared driveway with McDonald's or a shared driveway with um the the uh strip mall or something like that. Um but I I don't I don't see a way that this would
create a conflict that another business type would not. >> But in in a corporate I mean the along the pike the biggest distance >> that you normally have is 150 ft. traffic can be can be moved to either the terrace >> or the main street. I mean,
>> even in Fsein where they're building all that at the old ball fields, >> they all that traffic really exits back on New Jersey Avenue and then goes to either the U-turn or to to to the other end. So, I mean, it's a little bit of an inconvenience for the people exiting,
but it's not a an impossibility. >> Sure. Yeah. There's there's definitely alternate ways to approach it. Yeah. And like I said, the Arbor City's pattern is very unique. Very few lots are wider than 150 ft. So most are very narrow and you have some depth to work with and access to multiple furnishes.
>> And and even the one next to McDonald's when that was approved, that's why that that area by McDonald's, the terrace was cut where the curb cut was put to to bring the traffic to St. Louis, >> right? >> I mean, it was always intended. So they
have that blocked off now, but but >> but that's what the intent was. >> So if a restaurant wanted to locate there, they would be able to use that driveway. >> That was the original approach. >> Get back out on on the St. Louis Avenue. >> Yes. They they would use that common driveway. If you also remember, well,
no, you wouldn't remember when the red light was put in at St. Louis Avenue, the city passed a an ordinance. Actually, the driveway that exits McDonald's was supposed to have been eliminated. That exit was that
at the red light there, there are no lefthand turns permitted in all of our ordinances. They're supposed to close that up just like they did in Hamilton. Their McDonald's closed off their exit onto the pike. They now go rack around and come out to the red light. And that's what was supposed to happen
there, Jack. All traffic was to be circulated back around. So, Ryan, that I'm maybe getting a little too far ahead here in anticipation that they might want to do something on that that property there, but uh would the state is there enough
highway frontage there that the state would allow a driveway into that that lot there in between and McDonald's? >> Yeah. So I would think at minimum they would allow an access drive to come into the site and then they would I'm sure encourage uh exiting the site to go either through the McDonald's property
or to come out to neighboring >> or they can go the other way and come out at the entrance to Inolingos. >> Right. That's what I said either either the McDonald's doesn't have anything to say about that. They can't hold that up. I mean, I don't think they would have the
ability to to fully block it, especially if their original site plan included the potential for so that that what would remember the owners of properties that time when they went to get the approval on both properties >> and they agreed to that.
>> Now, it goes back to the 80s, but I mean that was what was agreed to. Well, the rumor on the street is that there's a new buyer, a new owner of Incalingos that owns that both of those properties, the one that's developed and the one that's not developed. And I obviously
want he wants to do something there. >> I hope he does. >> So, I Yeah, I I don't know what the future plans are, but I I know that they took a portion of that and were able to add some parking. Um I don't know if he's trying to develop the rest or move the rest or or what, but it would be better than a vacant lot. So,
that's the idea. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? So, tonight you're looking for a motion to send it back to council. Is that what you're >> It would be a resolution recommending or
or finding that removing this requirement from the city's land use ordinance uh would conform with the city's master plan. >> I'll offer that motion. >> I'll second. Second. >> Okay. Ed. >> Okay.
>> Roll call. Don. >> No. Second. Um, first. >> Okay. >> Mr. Walker. >> Yes. >> Mr. McCann. >> Yes. >> Mr. Peterson. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Torres. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frick. >> Yes. >> Mr. Timbers. Can I vote on this since this is effective? >> Yes, you may. >> Okay. Yes. >> Mr. Gar. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis? >> Yes. >> And Mr. Hess? >> Yes.
>> Ryan, what document does this appear in? Is this in the city code? >> Yeah. City's land use ordinance um section 1705806 uh under A2A. So that that line minimum distance between fast food restaurants 10,000 ft
will just be deleted from the ordinance. Okay. Uh, any old business? >> Council report. >> Not at this time. >> Not at this time. All right. Comments from the public. >> I have a question. >> Question and comments from the board.
I think that reference a reliable news source is Facebook, but there have been a lot of Facebook posts about the Acme >> being an approved growth facility. >> So, they the city just um appointed a new redeveloper to that parcel. That
that redeveloper has expressed interest in cannabis cultivation, I believe, but they have not approached the city with any formal documentation on what their proposed use will be. I actually just spoke with their attorney today um to sort of walk him through the process again. Um so we're going to provide them
with the current redevelopment plan. They're going to draft the revisions that they're requesting and uh present that to city council for consideration. Whatever they do, whatever the city authorizes will have to come here for a site plan at some point.
>> I mean hopefully there's some progress in getting something in that building. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's the idea. I mean, it's it's been hard to attract developers there. So, if somebody's got a plan and shows up with money, um, >> it's not the same owner that has it right now. >> No, it is not.
>> He sold the building or he's going to sell it. >> So, Jim Mallion, I believe, is the current owner. I believe he's under contract with another um group. I don't I don't remember what the the group was called. I didn't deal with.
So, >> you know what's strange about this, Ryan, is that that parcel there >> with the existing paving >> and in I won't say it's move in, but there's no visits to the plan to the highlands or anything like that. >> Yeah.
>> You're not finding that anywhere in Atlanta County. >> Yeah. >> So, I I can't believe that somebody can't find it. Why doesn't marketing correctly? Just like you said, you could you could expand that building because the whole thing is impervious already. you just got to reduce it by what, one
square foot to make it >> so the the rules have changed a lot lately. Um they're they're kind of trying to get rid of that loophole. Um so now even the reconstruction as of January 20th, even the reconstruction of a quarter acre of asphalt requires you
to deal with stolen quality and stuff now. >> So I don't know how we're going to rebuild roads or do anything, but we'll figure that out, I guess. Um but yeah, to answer your question, part of the complication is that the the parcel is privately owned. So, if the city owned it, we could put out an RFP and try to
attract developers and things like that. Kind of like what we did with the tower site, um, where we seem we've made a lot of progress. Um, but because it's privately owned, same thing with the Better Build Door site across the street. If somebody wants to sit on it for 20 years and pay the taxes, that's their prerogative, unfortunately. So,
um, you know, we've tried to work with, that's changed hand numerous time. We've tried to work with numerous property owners. um when it's gone up for sale, we've tried to, you know, increase that uh level of awareness and let people know that it's out there and available. Um but I mean, it's been 20 years and
obviously we haven't got >> you look at you look at South Lake Harbor, but this old Peter Lmer, the massive building they were able to put there because it went over existing >> Sure. >> concrete. >> Yeah, that's that's always been a big
advantage. I don't know what the storm water runoff design would be for building of that size, but they put it up and didn't have to do anything. >> Yeah, it's it's a huge advantage having all that impervious cover there still even even with the change requirements, but um yeah, we still haven't had any
takers and I mean the price of that building has dropped and dropped and dropped. So, >> I don't know where it's at now, but at one point it was um about the price of a single family home. It's >> So, the the uh it's never been completed. Was that
>> that the construction that of the Acme building? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Gentleman that had it who was trying to do a used auto dealer wall was kind of working on it himself as he came into funds. Um did some work, did some facade work and then ran out of money.
So that's kind of how it sat. >> So where does that leave the city with any ability to enforce anything? Because you go on the Argo Street side and the sopets are still open and there's, you know, all those water getting in. I mean it all sides are not enforcement. Um so
that's a conversation department but >> whoever owns the partial is using that property. >> Yes, we I believe they have been citing for storage of vehicles and and other things uh at least once. Um because that another at one point another group came
in and and inquired about using it for um there's a company that does work with like the electric company where there's major travels the country right so they wanted to use it for like indoor maintenance uh in indoor storage and then they would stay vehicles outside we had some discussions with them but they
kind of backed out of it but around those discussions a bunch of equipment showed up anyway so um we conveyed to the owner at the time that none of that was permitted and it all had to be moved moved. I don't think they met the the time frames that were provided, but I think they were cited. So, >> but at least it keeps it neat and clean
because trust me, there's you got properties on 30 that time are horrible. It could be worse, that's for sure. But um but yeah, I do believe they were cited it. >> Well, the same rules would apply that nobody could open up anything without the building being completely done.
>> Yeah, correct. And and again, anyone who um advances development there has to come back to Landingport. Um and I think that the prior owner like ripped up a bunch of sidewalks and disturbed the site various ways. All of that would need to be restored. Um so and all of those would be conditions of any
approvals that they sought from this. >> So as far as we're concerned, the existing site plan was for these rental offices for the for the used car. Nothing has changed since that, >> right? There's been no um concrete
proposals back to the city at this point. There's been no action by the board. So that's still the approved use and site plan at this point. Uh but that's not what's being pursued at this time. So does not appear at least. >> Ed a different subject and I think
everybody has seen it. If you go past the inkingos every couple months the fence falls down. Supposed to be a permanent fence. >> It's not addressed. Pardon me. >> That's being addressed by the city administrator tangentially. >> If it's not, can he be brought back to
the planning board? Because that was supposed to be a permanent fence and all he did was take 4in blocks and screw the the fence into the blocks and it falls over. It's just it's a safety hazard. >> The block is is glued to the >> to the foundation blocks. >> Yeah. It doesn't last
>> with constru. No kidding. Well, listen, I feel bad for him because they put And that's an expensive fence, you know, and it wasn't two days somebody had backed into it, >> Jack. After the first time, I don't The guy went in, he tried a cheap way to do it, fix it, right, and be done with.
>> I don't know how you could fix it, right? >> Well, >> put regular fence and and attach it to the as I'd be in the next day, too. just drew a regular fence and instead of putting up a temporary >> I believe that an alternate fence material and type is being considered something that would be easy to repair.
>> Nothing that you put in that existing location is going to work until you stop the cars from being able to back into it. >> Well, I think I think he's trying to encourage the owner to install parking bumpers, too. >> There's parking bumpers there. When you get a guy with a pickup truck who's got
10 ft from the back wheels, that it needs to be angle parking. Uh Okay, that's possible. Correct. You'd have to you'd have to change the whole section. That's why I was asking about if it's the same owner and that owns the
McDonald's lot and when it comes time to do something with that would be something to address to straighten that out. >> I think they added on one side. >> Then you can't drive over it and you don't have your problem. >> But that didn't work. You got a block
wall. Somebody's going to knock it down. people are just don't >> I'm not deeply involved with that. I just know that they're he's been meeting with the the property owner. They're considering alternate fence materials. >> Well, like I said, the only thing you do is put a guardrail in in front of the fence. >> That would be the most visible cuz then
you can bang into it all day long. They're not going to tear down tear up. >> But anything else other than guardrail in front of a fence, >> it's way too narrow. That's the problem. Like you said, you have a pick pickup truck in there and you're going to pull when you back out. It is just going back to years ago when they approved anything.
>> It's Yeah, it's a small uh as far as I know, Don, from what I recall, we don't have like a a site plan on file the city's records. Correct. Able to locate anything. >> Well, for for the Inkling property, >> anything that includes the fence. >> Yeah, that's what we were having trouble finding.
>> So, angled parking definitely help that. >> It would, but you'd have to reconfigure all the drives or the stall depths are different. The drive aisle widths are different. just the parking circulation is different because when you have a parking it's on the oneway drive aisles. So that that would be like a major reconfiguration of the site plan
>> and it's mandatory that they have the fence. >> We can't find an approved site plan that that shows the fence, but it's kind of always been there. So apparently the owner wants to retain >> there was a fence from the stool that was there that they >> Right. I remember that was trans and
they cut that down and then put >> they left some of the foundation there and they just tried to >> try to mimic it in the same location. Yeah. >> Well, um yeah, I would say if you want to inquire on the specifics, reach out to the city administrator because he's he's dealing with that property. I just
worry that if it's mandatory that they put a new fence and they've already spent all that money in that fence and I've seen it go down two or three times already >> that they decide maybe they need to move the market elsewhere then where we're going to shop. We don't have very many places. So I mean you have to think
about that too. >> Sure. Understood. >> Ryan, a few months back we did have somebody come in for an application for cannabis on Atlantic Avenue and I think we approved it. Did they drop that? >> No. I actually got um their compliance site plan yesterday
>> um that showed a trash enclosure location that was like way too close to the wetlands. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We the city or we in our discussions, one of the conditions was that they provide a trash enclosure. >> Um so they sent a revised plan uh with a
proposed trash enclosure yesterday and then an updated one today. Um, so I still have to review it against the resolution, >> but they are they do appear to be. >> Okay. >> How about the grow in the industrial park? >> That one is still stalled. Oh, the
there's two >> right on Mos Mill Road. >> One is So that one is stalled. Um, from what I understand, that project is up for sale. We met with a prospective purchaser, I don't know, probably four or five months ago who was interested in
it at the time. Uh I haven't heard anything about that particular individual since but I do get occasional inquiries um from people who appear to be considering purchasing. >> Is this the one on wash mill? >> Yes. >> The the doctor group. >> Yes. Dr. John.
>> So he he still owns that but um he found another facility in but that was a building that was already constructed and started his operation there. So >> is Trucky growing yet? That is a matter of intention depending who you talk to. So I believe the city is investigating
whether he's growing because he does not have all the permission to begin growing yet. We don't believe. So I'm sure that's shocking. Um >> that would that be enforced by the state? >> Uh yeah, potentially. Um so we we have
no official word that he's growing, but we've gotten some indications that that operation has already started. So I believe the city is looking into that. >> So were the note three buildings were taken down last week? >> Yes. >> Two on Cincinnati Avenue and and the Old
Harbor Tavern. >> Yeah. The city started to pursue uh numerous buildings and the owner of them asked for the city to stop those proceedings and said that they would do it themselves and we haven't proceeded with that since.
jump in. >> Anybody else? >> Oh, yeah. I got a question. Has there already any been any more movement on St. Nicholas since he met here and gave, you know, >> everything they were going to do with the 104 unit? >> I can tell you from a realer's point of view, the property has been under
contract for two years. It's just put back on what is active last week for sale. >> Yeah. >> So, I heard he finally just decided to walk away. I don't I I so I I've been in communication with the the gentleman that's been here a few times. Um his name is escaping me at the moment, but
um as far as I know, he's still pursuing a project um in the city. He's been having issues with the dascese um about extending the contract andor what the price point is, I guess. Um so I don't know if he's fully severized, but I do believe that the contract was canceled.
>> Yeah. And it's active on the market for sale right now. >> Yeah. What what's it worth, George? What are they asking for? >> I I think they're asking for 75. Something like that. It's all city block.
>> I thought the highest and best use is tear it down and put eight high-end homes there. It would be perfect for the neighborhood. >> No one have a problem with that. >> Yeah, no one would have a problem with that except the guy who has to pay for it. >> The builders say they can't put enough there. Yeah, there's a lot of asbestous
and >> they need the whole block. They need the church and all. They need to take the whole block down. >> There's asbests, there's lead paint, there's lots of issues. So, >> we'll see. >> But that did come up here once before. >> It did. There was a gentleman who was
pursuing a project there for a lengthy period of time. He um >> he finally settled in on um >> some type of assisted living, wasn't it? Yeah, like an assisted living type facility, which would have been a conditionally permitted use in that zone because it's a residential zone. I we've
had numerous people approach the city with 50 unit condos and all kinds of stuff. Um, and we kind of tell everybody like, look, we be we'd be thrilled if you build eight houses there, but you're not going to make money doing it. Um, so if you came up with a reasonable proposal, we'd love to hear it. But, you know, there's a lot of space between
eight houses and 50 condos. So, >> any other comments? Motion to adjourn. So we >> I thank