Ventnor Ave & Troy Ave Redevelopment — Why I’m Sharing Information. Jan 28 2026
I’m still hearing from many residents who are asking what is happening with the former Ventnor Ave and Troy Ave school sites and the approved redevelopment plan to demolish the building and construct 33 townhomes.
While the redevelopment plan for this site has already been approved, I believe it is still important for residents to be informed and remain engaged as this project moves forward. Projects of this size and density can have a lasting impact on Ventnor’s character, infrastructure, and quality of life.
The purpose of these posts is to share information, raise awareness, and encourage civil discussion.
Community Update: “No Variances Required” — What That Really Means.
UPDATE JAN 25, 2026.
Throughout the public hearings, members of the governing body and Planning Board repeatedly stated that “no variances are required” for this project. While that statement is technically accurate, it does not tell the full story.
The reason no variances are required is because the property was designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment. This designation allows the City to set aside the existing zoning requirements and replace them with new standards contained in the redevelopment plan.
Without this designation, the current proposal would have required multiple variances to be approved.
Editor’s Note: ‘Area in Need of Redevelopment’ is code for SPOT ZONING ?
Here are several examples of how the redevelopment plan differs from the prior zoning:
• Residential Density & Location
Previously, multi-family housing was only permitted along Ventnor and Winchester Avenues. The approved plan now allows residential units on a newly created interior street running from New Haven to Troy Avenues — a change that would have required variances under the former zoning.
• Retail & Restaurant Uses
Under prior zoning, restaurants and retail uses were not permitted in the existing buildings. The redevelopment plan now allows both retail and restaurant uses in the Ventnor Avenue school building, which again would have required variances.
• Lot Size, Area & Bulk Standards
The zoning ordinance required specific area and bulk standards, including a minimum lot size of two acres. The approved plan allows the property to be subdivided to accommodate 33 townhomes, eliminating the need to comply with those requirements.
In effect, the redevelopment plan eliminated the need for any “D” variances by replacing the zoning rules that previously applied to this site.
At the public hearing, I raised concerns about permitting restaurants in the Ventnor Avenue school building and asked whether the local business community had been consulted to determine if the current market could support additional restaurant capacity.
I was told the plan has been in development for some time and that there had been ample opportunity for input. However, based on the number of residents and business owners who have since asked what is going on, it appears that many people were unaware of the scope and implications of this project.
While residents do share responsibility for staying informed, I believe the City could have done more outreach in the interest of planning responsibly for the community’s future.
I also questioned why restaurants are now being permitted here when restaurant use was intentionally prohibited in a variance application less than a block away. Initially, I was told that was not the case.
After following up with the actual resolution, that misinformation was corrected. The explanation given was that the other project lacked parking and the developer did not want a restaurant.
Two points are worth noting: very few restaurants in town have dedicated parking, and developers typically do not seek fewer permitted uses, as doing so generally makes a project less financially viable.
I agree that the marketplace should determine which businesses succeed. My concern is that, in this instance, the City is taking affirmative action to introduce new restaurants that will compete directly with our existing local establishments — many of which already struggle during the shoulder and off-season.
To be clear, I am not suggesting anything unethical or illegal occurred. This process took place over a long period, multiple meetings were held, and all legal requirements were followed.
The Planning Board was correct in stating that no variances were required — but I believe the public deserves to understand why that is so.
Whether you support or oppose this project, this situation highlights the importance of all of us staying engaged, closely following what our City is doing, and providing meaningful input before decisions are finalized.
UPDATE: November 23, 2025 ·
Let me start by admitting it: yes, I know I’m a dinosaur.
On Tuesday night, Ventnor City approved a 33-townhouse development on the old Troy Avenue School site. Many residents believe this project is far too dense for an already crowded area, will intensify our existing parking issues, and may negatively affect the small businesses nearby that depend on accessible parking.
A lot of people are angry and feel the planning board and the city simply “don’t care.”
I don’t believe that. I believe they do care — they just have a very different vision for Ventnor’s future.
Several years ago, voters elected officials who then appointed planning board members that openly embraced a more upscale, “bougie” direction for the city. The variances they’ve granted and the tax-abatement strategies they’ve championed clearly support that vision. Many of us feel these policies are slowly erasing the character of old Ventnor — our neighborhoods, our lifestyle, and the charm that made this town special long before the teardown boom began.
This doesn’t make them “wrong.” It simply means their idea of progress isn’t shared by everyone.
But at what point do we stop and ask: When is enough… enough?
With every teardown and every cookie-cutter box that replaces a home with history, we lose a little piece of our soul. And with every variance approved, the issues of density, noise, parking, and overall quality of life only deepen.
So to my fellow “dinosaurs” who still value the Ventnor we grew up with — hang in there. Ventnor is still a wonderful place to live. But it’s okay to speak up when you see the heart of your hometown slipping away. However, be respectful and civil
RIP old Ventnor — but not without an effort to preserve what’s left.
As a couple who grew up in Ventnor and now live in Margate, who also lived in many municipalities in between, it is hard not to agree with what Tim is talking about for both Margate and Ventnor.
Both communities could do a better job of communicating with their constituents in matters that affect everyone.
It is also noteworthy that Tim points out that we need civil discussions rather than today’s discourse environment which seems to call for highly adversarial discussion. It seems the rule of the day in both cities is “ratables” and a bias to the “development” community as opposed to what “dinosaurs” call charm, livability, and quality of life.
Tim is spot on regarding this Ventnor Avenue School development decision. Hopefully, both communities can learn from this whole process. Voting is just one part of good citizenry, it is also keeping the fox out of the hen house.
Your point is well stated. But then if there is a need to raise taxes significantly to sustain the charm, livability and quality of life you reference – don’t whine about it. Older/smaller properties have lower assessments and taxes – and will likely face increases to offset infrastructure and service increases.