Neighbors voiced opposition to the dormitory portion of the applicant's plan, citing concerns about potential changes.

Several groups came out for the Planning and Zoning Board meeting Wednesday, April 17, in response to controversial agenda items. The first items drawing opposition involved two of three applications by DDK Properties LLC, David Dailing representing.

DDK applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing a variance to the existing B-2 (General Commercial) zoning in order to build a dormitory style residence as housing for seasonal employees of a principal allowable business. Neighbors voiced opposition to the dormitory portion of the applicant’s plan, citing concerns about potential changes. Their objections included road alignment that would move it closer to their houses, possible noise from parties in the dorms, and an adverse impact on their property values.

Dialing also requested a change in existing zoning on approximately ten acres which carries two different parcel numbers and two different zoning designations. Part of the area in question is zoned B-2 and part is zoned R-1 (Single Family). However, there is no record of the parcels ever being separated. Dialing explained in the application the purpose of combining the parcels under the neighboring B-2 zoning would allow a recreational vehicle park on the entire ten-acre property. Seasonal RV parks are an enumerated allowable business in B-2 areas. A decision on this CUP was tabled for consideration as Old Business at the next meeting.  

After public comments, the Board voted to move the items to old business and table them until the next monthly meeting since there was opposition to them. The applicant invited those neighboring property owners bringing concerns to meet him in the outer corridor so he could address their specific points.

A second application drawing strong opposition requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a business out of an existing home in a R-1 (single family) neighborhood. The applicants, David and Barbara Griffin, have sold used appliances out of their garage and conducted an ongoing garage sale trading in used items for years. When asked why the Griffins were applying for a CUP now, Mr. Griffin said it was in response to complaints. 

Those homeowners who voiced concerns listed increased traffic on a dead-end residential street, unsightly conditions in the applicants’ yard, and the erosion of R-1 zoning protections for property owners nearby. The Board again voted to table the item until next month since there was opposition. 

The one item of old business from the March meeting involved a request for CUP to allow two existing single-family homes to be combined by building a breezeway between them giving the homeowner increased living area without the expense of tearing one down and remodeling the remaining house. The applicant’s representative, acting as the general contractor for the project, described the solution as “creative” when presenting the application last month. The board voted to deny the CUP and cited concerns that the approval of this solution would set precedent causing others to request approval for projects that stretched the zoning definitions.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Camden County Planning and Zoning Board will be held on May 15.