The application, initiated by New Jersey Prime Real Estate LLC, sought to address several issues related to the existing 10-unit apartment building on Yacht Avenue. The property, which was purchased in April 2021, was described as being in poor condition and in need of renovation. Key to the proposal was the enclosure of the ground floor, which currently accommodates five boat slips and parking spaces. This modification required a use variance because it would expand a non-conforming structure.

The project engineer, Mr. Chu, explained that the proposal involved enclosing the ground floor and installing garage doors. He emphasized that the changes aimed to improve the property’s aesthetics by reducing the visibility of parked cars and storage areas. The proposal was presented as moving toward conformity with local zoning standards and was said not to impair the zone plan or public good. Chu assured the board that the number of parking spots would remain unchanged despite the enclosure.

Parking was a point of discussion, with board members raising concerns about the potential reduction of available parking spaces. The existing condition of the parking area, which used clamshell material, was to be replaced with concrete to prevent clamshell displacement onto the roadway. There was agreement that this change, along with potential curbing, would meet city ordinances.

The meeting also highlighted confusion over the plans being referenced. Some members were working off older versions that did not reflect the latest revisions, dated April 16, 2024. This led to discussions about nonconformities, such as parking setbacks and the absence of a 5-foot landscape buffer. The engineer pointed out the need for compliance with the flood damage protection code and the provision of the first-floor elevation on the plan. Recommendations included construction details for new surfacing and grading to manage stormwater runoff effectively.

The use variance application also faced challenges related to the site’s location in a tidal flood area. It was noted that the construction office typically would not issue permits for bathrooms at that elevation due to flood risks. The proposal addressed stormwater management, suggesting water should be directed toward the bulkhead rather than the street, although this contradicted existing ordinances. The need for an engineering solution to manage stormwater runoff was emphasized, with agreement that the grading plan should address potential runoff issues.

Throughout the discussion, concerns about inconsistencies in the submitted drawings and information led to dissent among some board members. One member expressed reservations, citing too many inconsistencies in the plans. Despite these concerns, a motion to grant site plan approval and the necessary variances was recommended, contingent on conditions such as extending the paving into the public right-of-way and referencing the correct engineering plans.

In addition to the primary application, the board addressed issues related to a minor subdivision at 4446-4448 West Perry Street, which required renotification due to an oversight in notifying neighboring properties. This application was rescheduled for a future meeting.