Beach Haven board delays vote on Queen City Marina subdivision after fire‑access and boat‑storage disputes

Tom Coleman, representing MIH Coastal Holdings, told the Beach Haven Planning Board the application before the board is for “the continued development of the Queen City Marina” at 2nd and Pennsylvania Avenue, including an amended site plan to recognize a previously approved restaurant and a subdivision carving roughly 27,000 square feet into five residential lots.

The application, Coleman said, reduces impervious coverage on the marina site from 100% to about 95.6% and would leave the complex with 138 parking spaces compared with the 86 required by the borough code for marina uses, the ship store and the approved restaurant. Robert Stout, the applicant’s design engineer, told the board the amended site plan otherwise “does not change” the previously approved layout and described additions such as EV make‑ready spaces and reconfigured dry‑boat storage intended to meet CAFRA and DEP permit requirements.

Why it matters: residents, the Marlin & Tuna Club and the fire department said the application presents unresolved public‑safety and operational questions. The board voted to carry the application to its May meeting to let the applicant and outside agencies (including the fire department and DEP/CAFRA) work through access, hydrant and winter boat‑storage details before the board acts.

Fire and first‑responder concerns were central to the hearing. A Long Beach Township fire official testified that removing an access gate on Pennsylvania Avenue would make the site’s northwestern corner harder to reach and require long hose lays from hydrants on 3rd Street. “One of the major concerns is the removal of the access to the site from Pennsylvania Avenue,” the official told the board, and he recommended either additional northern access or additional hydrants to reduce hose‑lay lengths and improve apparatus access.

Members of the Beach Haven Marlin & Tuna Club presented aerial photographs taken in February 2026 and said the real‑world winter configuration of dry‑stored boats — larger vessels parked at angles on trailers — does not match the neat grid of 26‑foot slips depicted on the amended waterfront plan. “That’s not reality of how those boats are placed or how they’re stuffed into areas,” Brian Casey, the club’s rear commodore, said, arguing that the plan underestimates space needs and could create safety problems near a dense cluster of fiberglass boats and fuel.

Applicant witnesses and experts pushed back on the idea that the plan is infeasible in principle. The project’s environmental consultant described changes made to CAFRA/DEP filings so rear yards would no longer be constrained as water‑dependent uses, and the applicant said it can relocate dry‑stored boats to preserve required slip counts and still meet parking obligations. “Our proposal to put in mobile bathrooms…can be disconnected and moved, including moved off the island,” Angela Marcus, co‑owner of Queen City Marina, said when defending the choice to use relocatable restroom units.

Technical testimony included a traffic analysis by a consultant who said the subdivision is a low traffic generator and would not materially change levels of service at nearby intersections, and a planning witness who testified that residential use is permitted by the borough’s master plan and zoning for the Marine Commercial district.

But multiple board professionals and objector witnesses said more work was needed. Objector counsel emphasized legal authority allowing denial on public‑safety or traffic grounds, and the club’s planner recommended that the board insist on a secondary access or a dry standpipe and an additional hydrant toward the north end of the property before taking action. The applicant agreed to work with the fire department and to provide revised plans addressing buffering, access and water/service connections as conditions of further consideration.

What happened next: after extensive public comment from marina users and nearby residents — who raised parking loss along Pennsylvania Avenue, master‑plan consistency and safety worries — the board voted to carry the application to its May meeting so the applicant can return with revised plans or confirmations from outside agencies. The board recorded the motion to carry and noted it expects follow‑up material from the applicant and, if available, any determinations from CAFRA/DEP.

The planning board’s action leaves the underlying policy questions unresolved: how to balance a marina’s operational needs and public safety with redevelopment pressures at waterfront parcels; what on‑site fire‑protection measures are required for tightly packed dry boat storage; and whether the borough’s master plan language on waterfront, water‑dependent uses requires additional analysis when a property’s context changes. The board’s next meeting will include a continued hearing on the application if the applicant files updated plans and agency responses.