The most discussion centered around the application for a property on C Street submitted by Lisa and John Cronin. The board highlighted inaccuracies in the application, specifically regarding impervious and building coverage, which had initially been presented as not requiring variances. During the previous hearing, the board was informed that no variance was necessary, but subsequent reviews revealed two additional variances were needed. The chair emphasized the necessity for accurate information, stating, “We can only go by the truth of your word.” This resulted in the decision to table the resolution, as the board members recognized the impropriety of adopting it under these conditions.

Board members discussed the implications of these inaccuracies, noting that professionals risk losing their licenses if discrepancies are reported. The application was postponed to allow for re-noticing and to provide the necessary proofs for the variances. The board stressed the importance of ensuring all information is accurate, especially if the composition of board members may change in future meetings. The need for diligence in presenting data was underscored, with a consensus that the application needed to be rescheduled to ensure all board members were fully informed of the variances required.

Another matter addressed was the status of a rear structure at a different site. Testimony during the public hearing revealed that the structure, initially claimed to be a guest house, lacked air conditioning and heating, and was assessed as a shed according to tax records. The board expressed reluctance to recognize any pre-existing non-conforming use without legitimate justification, emphasizing the significance of such property rights. It was concluded that there was no basis to classify the rear structure as a dwelling unit, and it was mandated that it be used strictly as a shed or storage area. The applicant was required to modify the plans, reduce building coverage by 38 percent, and remove plumbing from the structure. Additionally, the board stipulated that the building materials used for conversion should aesthetically complement the existing home, and any outdoor shower details should comply with municipal zoning regulations.

The Belmar Zoning Board also addressed scheduling issues, as three of the four scheduled applications were postponed due to notice problems. Applications for properties at 10312 Avenue and 12 Avenue were not moved forward because they had not been properly noticed. An application for 508 13th Avenue was rescheduled to January 30 to allow the homeowner to obtain legal assistance, without the need for re-noticing. Attendees were informed that the application would be considered at the new date, and interested parties were encouraged to be present.

The board reviewed a new application for an addition to a single-family home on Bri. The applicant sought approval for a 4-foot addition to the front porch, which complied with the front yard setback regulations. The request included four variances, three of which related to pre-existing conditions, with a new variance for a rear yard setback. The board engaged in a discussion about the configuration of the lot and existing structures, including plans to extend the rear of the home for a home office and play area. However, confusion arose concerning the existing structure’s configuration, particularly regarding a habitable third floor not adequately represented in the submitted plans.

Board members emphasized the importance of accurate documentation, as the presence of a habitable third floor could affect zoning calculations, including the floor area ratio. Concerns about potential parking variances were addressed, with the applicant confirming that no new bedrooms would be added, maintaining compliance with parking requirements. Due to inconsistencies in the documentation, the board decided to carry the application to the December 19th meeting, allowing the applicant to provide updated plans. The motion was made to carry the application without further notice, with the stipulation that any new variances would require additional notice.