Board denies Queen City Marina subdivision after safety, traffic and planning concerns

The Beach Haven Land Use Board on Aug. 3 denied an application from MIH Coastal Holdings to subdivide part of Queen City Marina into five single-family lots, concluding the record left material concerns unresolved. The roll-call vote failed 3–6 after more than three hours of testimony and public comment.

Tom Coleman, attorney for the applicant, said the project meets applicable zoning and engineering standards and that the applicant had already obtained waterfront and DEP permits. "Every one of those permits was issued appropriately," Coleman said in closing, defending prior event permits and the engineering revisions the team submitted. The applicant’s engineer, Bob Stout, testified the revised plans provide the required 93 off-season parking spaces, add a wet fire line and hydrant, and reduce impervious coverage from about 100% to approximately 90.4%.

Opposition counsel Ray Wenn, representing the Beachhead and Marlin Tuna Club, told the board the parcel is already used intensively for events and boat operations and that evidence (photographs, OPRA permit records and witness testimony) showed frequent large gatherings and operational uses that conflict with adding residences. "You're doing too much on the same property," Wenn said, arguing the combined intensity of events and upland boat storage could harm public safety and neighborhood livability.

County Fire Marshal Dennis Allen testified about a letter of concerns sent to the applicant and confirmed many items had been addressed, including the added hydrant and a dedicated 20-foot fire lane; he nonetheless reiterated that storage may not occur within required fire lanes. When asked directly, Chief Allen said plainly: "It's safe," referring to the applicant's changes, but board members still cited unanswered questions about seasonal boat storage, traffic under peak summer conditions, and the compatibility of upland boat-working activities with adjacent new homes.

Board members who voted to deny pointed to uncertainties in the record: whether large boats could be practically accommodated on-site after the subdivision; inconsistent or incomplete testimony about off‑season storage and stacking; and the broader question of whether the change would undermine the town's Marine Commercial District as reflected in the borough master plan. The board chair reminded members that denials must be tied to specific ordinance noncompliance or material safety deficiencies in the record; several members said they were not satisfied those issues were resolved.

The board’s denial applies only to the subdivision request heard that night. The applicant’s separate requests for restaurant/site-plan approvals were explicitly continued to the board’s September meeting and will be noticed and heard separately.