The most notable discussion revolved around Carney’s Inc., located at 411-419 Beach Avenue. The establishment sought a relief variance and a waiver of site plan submission requirements to relocate its entrance further south. Mr. Sandman represented Carney’s, and Mr. Carney himself testified that the changes were strictly confined to repositioning the existing seating without increasing capacity. The board inquired about the apartments on the second floor, where Mr. Carney resides, confirming no changes were planned for these units.

Architect Dave Schultz elaborated on the architectural modifications, emphasizing the intention to improve the building’s visibility and appeal by replacing an existing wall with operable windows for a more inviting entrance. The proposed design was inspired by traditional Irish pubs, aimed at enhancing the building’s connection to the beachfront and improving the guest experience. Schultz assured the board that the changes would maintain the existing footprint and foundation, noting an aesthetically pleasing design that complements the area’s traditional aesthetic.

The discussion included aspects of safety, with Schultz indicating improvements in path clarity and visibility. Enhanced lighting was a feature of the new design, providing a more inviting environment. The board’s queries about the front yard setback variance were addressed, with Schultz clarifying that enclosing the entryway necessitated the variance but did not alter the structure’s footprint. Throughout the testimony, an emphasis was placed on maintaining the historic character and community standards while meeting business needs.

In another significant agenda item, the board deliberated on a property on Beach Avenue, which required a C1 hardship variance due to its non-conforming status. The applicant referenced a prior 1996 approval allowing modifications that resulted in a 208-seat capacity. However, the current application revealed a discrepancy. This issue was resolved by confirming the previous seating number. The board also reviewed the parking requirements, calculated at 56 spaces, and noted the consistency in employee numbers with the 1996 approval.

The applicant requested a variance to set a new door 6.3 feet from the property line, rather than the required 10 feet, emphasizing that strict zoning adherence would cause undue hardship due to necessary structural modifications. The alterations were limited to facade changes and minor entrance adjustments, with negligible impacts on traffic and noise. Waivers for certain requirements were supported based on the project’s nature, with the board confirming the completeness of the application.

The meeting also addressed a proposed renovation project involving a vertical expansion of a tower, part of an existing structure. The project required a front yard setback variance due to the vertical expansion along an existing 0.9-feet setback. This expansion was noted as a Victorian architectural enhancement, important to the structure’s design. Public comments included support from adjacent business owners, who believed the renovations would improve the area without disrupting current operations.