The Neimoth family’s proposal was at the center of the meeting, as they sought to replace an existing duplex with a new single-family home while preserving a historic cottage dating back to 1917. The application requested multiple variances, including D variances to allow two separate single-family homes in an area zoned for two-family dwellings within a single building, and to permit a floor area ratio of 54.4%, exceeding the allowed 50%. The bulk variances requested relief from standards for lot size, lot width, and parking requirements.

The historical significance of the cottage, named “Pinky,” was emphasized by the Neimoth family, highlighting its recognition by the Long Beach Island Preservation Commission. The Neimoths, who have owned the property since 1978, expressed a desire to preserve the cottage as part of their family heritage and the community’s historical landscape. They proposed to demolish the existing duplex, construct a new 1,830 square foot single-family home, and maintain the cottage for family use.

The applicant’s legal representative underscored the property’s unique challenges, particularly the presence of the historic structure, which complicated compliance with current zoning regulations. Board members discussed the necessity of separating the votes on the D variances from the bulk variances, as the approval of the former would influence the latter’s relevance.

Tim Neimoth provided a narrative on the property’s history, detailing the cottage’s journey from the era of Beach Haven’s houseboats, its relocation in 1958, and its role in the family’s legacy.

The board also heard from architect and planner Robert Larson, who detailed the proposed development. Larson explained the transition from a two-family home below the base flood elevation to a new single-family home elevated six feet above this level, addressing flood risk concerns. He described the design as “reverse living,” with main living areas elevated for better views and usability. Larson argued that the proposal aimed to reduce dwelling density on the site, from three units to two, aligning with community goals of historical preservation and improved safety.

Public comments reflected both support and concern, with some individuals questioning the impact of exceeding lot coverage and floor area ratio limits on the borough’s master plan and future applications. The board reiterated the principle that each application is assessed on its own merits, emphasizing that granting a variance does not set a precedent for future cases.

The meeting also addressed another application from Carmine and Lisa Timary, involving impervious coverage variances for their condominium on Street. The couple sought to reduce impervious coverage from 68.8% to 67.6% by removing pavers. The board discussed the implications of structures like a swim spa and pergola, which were closer to property lines than permitted, and the necessity of a variance for their continued existence.

The Timinaries’ situation highlighted the complexities of evolving land use regulations, with the board debating the classification of impervious surfaces and the impact of ordinance changes on existing structures. Despite their efforts to reduce coverage, the board narrowly rejected the variance request.