(Atlantic) Atlantic City Administrator John Lund reported to the City Council on Wednesday that the stand-alone garage ordinance is ready. Lund says the Planning and Zoning follows a special protocol. He says it takes three readings to pass, with the first reading scheduled for the next meeting in September.
The Planning & Zoning Commission has been working on a Stand-Alone Garage Article to be added to the Zoning Ordinance since April of this year. During their August 11, 2026 meeting, they unanimously approved the drafted language.
City administrator John Lund says Atlantic’s current Zoning Ordinance defines a garage as an accessory building that is subordinate to and located on the same lot or group of lots as the main building. Under the current ordinance, a garage on a vacant lot is not allowed.
Lund says the same-lot rule is not unique to Atlantic. General zoning guidance commonly treats accessory uses and structures as subordinate to a principal use and located on the same zoning lot unless an ordinance specifically provides otherwise.
According to John Lun,d some vacant residential lots may be economically nonviable for new home construction because of the surrounding real estate value. A tightly regulated garage use could provide more value and better upkeep than leaving the property vacant.
The proposed Stand-Alone Garage Article was based largely on the R-G Residential Garage District found in Watertown, South Dakota, which has a population of 22,655.
Lund says there are both positives and negatives to the proposal, along with responses to those concerns.
Potential positives include:
- It responds to actual market demand rather than idealized demand.
- It can improve the maintenance and appearance of vacant lots.
- It can incrementally raise the valuation of empty land.
- It may be politically easier than large-scale neighborhood clearance or subsidized infill that the market will not support.
Lund says the potential negatives and responses:
Negative 1: It could lock in low-intensity use on lots that might someday support housing.
Response: There are two “ifs” here. Yes, it is a lower-intensity use, but the policy includes a maximum lot size. A half block of land, for example, would not qualify.
Negative 2: It could create nuisance problems if not tightly written, including outdoor storage, hobby businesses, vehicle repair, noise, appearance, stormwater issues, and de facto habitation.
Response: Those possibilities were taken directly into account by the Commission as it developed and refined the proposed language to ensure those issues do not occur.
Negative 3: It may produce only modest fiscal gains compared with the long-term infrastructure burden.
Response: This is in the same spirit as the first concern. Nearly $0.00 generated by adjacent land to support built infrastructure is far worse for all of the other built property than a less-than-ideal property value.
