CNBNews

William E. Cleary Sr. | CNBNews

GLOUCESTER CITY, NJ (December 20, 2024)--The Gloucester City Planning/Zoning Board gathered for an important meeting on Wednesday, December 18, held in the spacious council chambers of the Police Administration Building at 313 Monmouth Street. The absence of a meeting in November was attributed to a scheduling conflict with the League of Municipalities event in Atlantic City. During this meeting, the Board considered several Applications for Development, each with distinct implications to Gloucester City:

1. **Sullivan’s Towing LLC** – Located at 425 Jersey Ave. & Fifth Street, this application involved a Minor Site Plan Review concerning Block 85, Lots 20, 24, & 33. Charles Wiggington, representing the applicant, provided detailed testimony regarding the minor site plan review, emphasizing that Sullivan’s Towing LLC now owns the property. Mr. Mancini, a professional engineer, supplemented this presentation by addressing concerns raised in a letter from Greg Fusco directed to the board. Community resident Lisa Hunter, residing at 402 Hunter Street, raised pertinent questions about the proposed lighting and security measures around the site, highlighting the need for community safety. After a motion was made to conclude the public discussion, the Board unanimously approved the site plan and granted the necessary variances and waivers, allowing the project to proceed.

2. **Dalton Dunn** – The next application concerned Dalton Dunn's proposal for 301 Nicholson Road, specifically Block 232 Lot 1, seeking a D Variance (Use Variance) for converting a charming but underutilized church into a single-family home. Charles Wiggington and Dalton Dunn passionately testified about their vision for this conversion. The church sits within a low residential zone, and the applicant is eager to purchase the property, contingent on the approval of this application. Importantly, no changes to the existing structure's footprint are planned, preserving the church’s historical integrity. This transformation promises to create a new tax rateable for the city. Ultimately, the application received the Board’s approval, moving it one step closer to realization.

3. **Fort Nassau Kitchen** – Situated at 155 South Burlington Street, Block 59.01 Lot 4, this application was briefly discussed as the applicant opted to table their proposal, delaying the meeting for further consideration until the end of December. Interestingly, no additional public notice will be required for this rescheduled discussion.

4. **Quan Long Huynh** – The final application was for 3 East Thompson Ave, Block 214 Lot 19, which sought C Variances for a bulk variance site plan. The proposal aimed to extend an existing garage, bringing it alarmingly close—within just one foot—of the property line, along with exceeding the allowed bulk coverage limits. Unfortunately, the applicant was absent from the meeting, resulting in the Board being unable to proceed with the application. Some concerned neighbors were present and voiced their objections to allowing the applicant to proceed with his plans. Despite their passionate concerns being heard, they were informed that their statements would not influence the outcome, as the applicant would need to reapply due to his failure to attend.

Among the concerned residents was Mike Pollitt, who lives on North Stinson Avenue and whose property is adjacent to the applicant’s garage. He expressed deep-seated reservations, stating that the proposed additions would consist of a “man cave” and an apartment, which he believed would raise significant concerns regarding safety and structural integrity. Pollitt warned that the structure would be dangerously close to his property line and lacked the necessary foundational support. His wife, Karlie Pollitt, vehemently disagreed with the applicant’s claims, accusing him of misleading the community about the nature of his construction plans. North Stinson resident Tom Gigante added that the aging garage was so disrepair that it was unsafe for human habitation, urging the Board to consider the potential impacts on the neighborhood before any approvals were granted.