The meeting began with the board addressing a series of resolutions and applications that would shape the character of Belmar’s residential landscape. Among the discussed items was the demolition of an existing two-family home on Ocean Avenue Unit 5 to make way for a new single-family home with specific conditions, such as fire rating requirements and the installation of permeable sidewalks. Additionally, an application at 2081 16th Avenue sought approval for an addition to an existing two-family home. The board reviewed the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, utility meters, and the use of permeable pavers, underlining the need for revised plans to reflect application changes.

Further discussions involved the application at 101 9th Avenue Unit 9, which brought up issues related to garage use, window compliance, and structure height. The board engaged with the applicant over the nuances of property ownership within a condominium complex.

One of the more technical discussions of the evening revolved around a proposed construction project on 8th Avenue. The application plans to replace a non-compliant home with a seashore-style house adhering to zoning regulations, including setbacks and building height. The property, located in a flood zone, required careful consideration of flood-resistant materials and on-site stormwater management. The board explored the intricacies of constructing in a flood zone, from crawl space height to attic area compliance, and the overall design’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

In another detailed presentation, applicants Brian and Linda discussed converting their two-family duplex at 405 15th Avenue into a single-family residence with a two-car garage and a small apartment above. The board scrutinized the proposed two-and-a-half-story structure’s impact on building coverage and neighborhood character. The applicants debated the existing foundation’s condition and entertained the possibility of selling the property instead of renovating.

The board also navigated complex discussions about another property renovation, which included an expansion of a detached two-car garage and the creation of an additional living space. Members dissected the renovation’s adherence to zoning regulations, such as setbacks and structure height. The proposal’s compliance with conditions for an accessory dwelling, particularly regarding the addition’s use and its classification, was a central point of contention. The board required further accurate calculations before rendering a final decision.

During the meeting, the board grappled with the challenge of outdated survey information. The first applicant, represented by a contractor, faced scrutiny over a site plan dating back to 2003, which did not accurately reflect current conditions, including a garage and the absence of a driveway. The board’s insistence on updated and complete information prompted an adjournment of the application to allow for the submission of requisite data.

Another application involved a request for variances connected to building height and an existing pool. The discrepancy between the proposed 37 feet and the initially stated 38 feet of building height necessitated a deferral for corrections and updated plans.

Moreover, debates about attic height requirements surfaced, with members discussing modern trends in living spaces and the garage’s use for parking versus yard equipment storage. The necessity of flood vents and potential liabilities associated with structures near pools were also deliberated. The board underscored the importance of accurate documentation and the implications on flood insurance rates.