Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Wildwood Crest commissioners on dog‑park signage and seek ordinance to require construction plans before demolition
Summary
A resident asked the commission to remove 'no dogs' signage from a borough lot near the elementary school rather than pursue a petition to create a dog park; another commenter urged an ordinance to require approved construction plans before any exterior demolition after several stalled projects. Officials said the governing body will review the issues.
During public comment at the Wildwood Crest commission meeting, residents raised two distinct community concerns: borough signage and use of a vacant borough lot near the elementary school, and a proposed ordinance to require approved construction plans before exterior demolition.
Resident Lisa Ripo said she walks near the elementary school and finds a large borough‑owned lot marked "no dogs allowed," while other locations have dog‑waste dispensers. "Why don't we just take the one dog sign off and let people come out then instead of bringing a whole bunch of people together and getting everybody all worked up?" she asked, saying the neighbors could raise objections if issues arose.
Commissioners and staff responded that the lot is used for staging and emergency management/debris staging and that neighbors had opposed prior changes; they explained that altering the borough code to change leash or access rules would require formal consideration by the governing body.
Later in the public comment period, commenter Joi proposed an ordinance that would require an approved construction plan before exterior demolition begins, saying the change would prevent partial demolitions that leave eyesores and protracted unfinished work. "If you're going to do a partial demolition… you would need your final construction plan approved," Joi said.
Construction official Rick (speaking in his official capacity) replied that the borough's code allows "like‑for‑like" structural repair without a full construction drawing in some cases and that litigation and appeals can complicate timelines for projects already before the planning board. He and other officials said the borough will review practices and coordinate internally on lessons learned.
No formal motion was presented during public comment on either topic; commissioners agreed to take the concerns under advisement and to pursue internal review and potential next steps.
Next steps: commissioners said they would consider a record request/official letter to review signage, public use and related ordinance language, and staff indicated they would collaborate with planning and code officials to review construction‑permit procedures.
