The conversion of the bed and breakfast into a single-family residence sparked considerable debate. The application’s presentation led to questions about the property’s layout, the number of bedrooms, and the ownership structure of the LLC involved. A board member noted the lack of clarity in perceiving the property as a single-family home. The conversation revealed that the building coverage exceeded the permissible limit, which raised concerns over approving another non-conforming property. Due to the complexities and need for further discussion with the client, the board opted to carry the matter forward.

In addition to the conversion topic, another critical discussion centered on a proposed addition to an existing garage structure. The board was concerned with the non-conforming nature of the property and the need for a use variance. The applicants emphasized their commitment to improving the property’s aesthetics and articulated the necessity for the proposed modifications. However, the board stressed the importance of professional planning testimony to justify the grant of the variance. Due to these requirements, the board decided to postpone the application, allowing the applicants time to obtain a professional planner and submit additional materials. A new date was set for the application to be heard, with a deadline for the submission of new materials at least 10 days before the meeting.

The meeting also involved discussions about various other property-related matters. The board deliberated on a proposed development project, focusing on setback considerations, driveway construction, and drainage plans. They examined the impact of proposed setback adjustments on neighboring properties and scrutinized the dimensions of the driveway to ensure compliance with imperious coverage regulations. The placement of the garage relative to existing structures was also debated, as was the design and setback of a porch in relation to the neighborhood’s aesthetic.

The board engaged in a review of two proposed ordinances. One ordinance pertained to electric vehicle supply service equipment, highlighting the need for regulations in line with state mandates, particularly concerning electric vehicle charging stations and the impact on parking spaces. The other ordinance related to amending stormwater management regulations. Board members expressed concerns about the practicality and implications of these regulations, especially in a beach resort area like Bradley Beach. The possibility of requesting additional time to review consistency reports was also discussed.

The first application reviewed at the meeting involved proposed additions and renovations to a single-family home. The applicants sought variances for driveway setback, porch location, and side yard setback, prompting a discussion about compliance with setback requirements. The applicants’ representative provided details about the proposed changes, including the use of sustainable materials, energy-efficient appliances, and the installation of solar panels. The board suggested potential adjustments to the plan, such as the rotation and relocation of the garage, to address concerns about its size and proximity to the house and other structures.

They also considered the basement height and the relocation of the washer and dryer, highlighting the comprehensive nature of their review process.