The most notable discussion centered around the variance application for Russell Kurts’ property on Fifth Avenue. The project aimed to extend a two-and-a-half-story dwelling by approximately 825 square feet. Key variances sought included a side yard setback that did not meet the required five-foot standard and a roof height increase to 36.25 feet. The proposal also included a matching dormer at the rear, aligning with the existing architectural style. Architect Donald Cashman presented the design details, highlighting efforts to maintain the historical aesthetics of the house. He explained that the new addition would provide a master bedroom suite and an expanded living area, improving functionality without altering the original footprint.

The plans initially included a rear balcony, which sparked considerable discussion among board members. Concerns were raised about privacy issues for neighboring properties and the visual impact of the balcony. The applicant explained that the balcony was intended to provide a view of the ocean from the property, albeit acknowledging that the view was partially obstructed by a nearby school. The emotional significance of the balcony was noted, as the owner had long envisioned it as a space to enjoy the ocean breeze with his late wife. However, given the board’s historical reluctance to approve rear balconies due to privacy concerns, the balcony proposal was ultimately withdrawn.

Attention then turned to the technical aspects of the roof design. The existing roof was already above the 35-foot height limit by approximately 1 foot 3 inches. The applicant argued that altering the hip roof design would compromise the building’s aesthetics, asserting that from the street, the height discrepancy would be imperceptible. Discussions also covered the introduction of a new dormer that would match the existing structure.

The board deliberated on the implications of the proposed changes, particularly the height variance’s impact on neighborhood character. They emphasized the need for comprehensive review, noting that while the additional structures would expand the house’s footprint, the main body remained compliant with local regulations. The board voted in favor of the application, acknowledging the improvements as beneficial for the neighborhood’s visual landscape.

The meeting also addressed broader administrative topics, including a new law affecting public notices. Starting in March, the responsibility for publishing notices will transition from official newspapers to the municipality’s website. This change raised questions about the continued necessity of designating official newspapers and the potential impact on applicants. The board recognized the need to prepare for this transition, highlighting concerns that the existing Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) had not been amended to align with the new statute, which could complicate local governance.

In addition to the public notice changes, the board discussed the status of the fair share housing plan. There was a sense of urgency to finalize aspects of the plan by the year’s end to ensure a timely handoff to the council. Board members expressed frustration over delays in scheduling a technical review meeting with state representatives, stressing the importance of having a solid document ready for submission. The dialogue underscored the need for improved communication and collaboration among board members and with the affordable housing attorney to navigate these challenges effectively.