The focal point of the meeting was the approval of the site plan for the professional office building, which included a series of variances the applicant sought due to the lot’s irregular shape and constraints. The proposed structure raised concerns about its size, especially given the lot’s limited area and the building’s height. Board members debated whether the tallness was appropriate for a two-story building and discussed alternative solutions like an external staircase enclosed in clear glass.

One of the more contentious aspects of the project was the signage for the new building. The applicant sought relief to have one sign on the front and one on the side of the building, which exceeded the sign ordinance’s limits on area and color. In a compromise, the applicant proposed eliminating a freestanding sign in favor of a directory sign behind the building, coupled with variance relief for a second facade sign. The board’s deliberations centered on balancing the need for adequate signage with maintaining aesthetic standards and ordinance compliance.

The board also scrutinized the parking layout and its impact on the site. There was an emphasis on fire safety measures, with the board considering the placement of entry doors relative to potential fire hazards. The applicant assured the board of their willingness to comply with fire safety recommendations and building code issues. Moreover, the board evaluated a traffic analysis report, which concluded that the office building, projected to generate seven to eight trips during the peak hour, would not affect traffic operations. The site driveway and parking were designed to comply with ordinance requirements.

Concerns were also raised about the septic system and the building’s compliance with the Ocean County Health Department regulations. The board queried the applicant on the calculation of the septic system capacity relative to the projected occupancy. Additionally, the need for sprinklers within the building and the potential inclusion of electric vehicle parking spaces were discussed.

The board’s engineer pointed out a discrepancy in the square footage of the proposed building, which was subsequently addressed by the applicant’s engineer. This attention to detail was mirrored in discussions about landscaping and lighting plans, which the applicant submitted without the need for further variances. Moreover, review letters from professionals, including fire and landscape departments, were addressed, with a commitment from the applicant to comply with their comments and recommendations.

During the public cross-examination, a member of the public raised concerns about the hardship of the variances, questioning the applicant’s acknowledgment of zoning laws and the size of the building exceeding allowable limits. The applicant responded by emphasizing the difficulties posed by the lot’s dimensions and the non-self-created nature of the hardship.

As the meeting progressed, the board addressed issues such as the consolidation of multiple lots into one, still not meeting area requirements, and the requirement for buffering along the property lines. Additionally, the lot numbering on the maps and plans was discussed, with the applicant agreeing to make necessary corrections.

In terms of aesthetics, the applicant confirmed that the building would be of a neutral gray tone, addressing board inquiries about the building colors. The provision of an elevator was deemed unnecessary by the applicant, who did not see enough benefit to warrant its construction for a professional office. However, the issue of signage remained partially unresolved, as the applicant did not provide a definitive response regarding the ground sign.