65 Ocean Ave Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750-1349

revised through February 20, 2025 consisting of two (2) sheets (A-2); Landscape Architectural Plans prepared by Edward Clark, consisting of two (2) sheets revised through March 6, 2025 (A-3); Aerial Map with color rendered overlay prepared by InSite Engineering, dated March 25, 2025 (A -4); Zoomed in Aerial Map with color rendered overlay prepared by InSite Engineering dated March 25, 2025 (A -5); Title Policy with Endorsement dated May 22, 2018 (A-6); License Agreement recorded on June 26, 1972 (A-7); Corrective Deed dated October 30, 2019 (A-8); Engineering Review letter prepared by Greg Gitto, P.E., C.M.E. dated March 20, 2025 (PB-1); March 25, 2025 hearing 3. The Applicant’s Attorney Jennifer Krimko introduced the application and indicated the applicants seek variance relief for rear yard setback, side yard setback, lot coverage and building coverage for the proposed pool and deck. Edward Clark, licensed landscape architect was sworn and qualified. He testified as to the existing conditions at the property, including the 2-story residence with detached garage and outdoor shower. He noted that the proposed additional building coverage is due solely to the proposed pergola. The proposed rear deck paver patio is to replace the existing deck, which is in deteriorating condition. The pool is proposed at 6 feet in width by 13 .5 feet in length and will be flush with the rear deck. Next, Patrick Ward, P.E., P.P. was sworn and qualified as Applicant’s engineer and planner. He testified in support of the application. Mr. Ward described the subject property and reviewed the exhibits submitted into evidence. He pointed out that the site is in the A zone; the property consists of 5,575 square feet of lot area (where 15,000 square feet is required) and 50 feet of lot width (where 100 feet is required. He noted that another existing non-conformity is the side setback of the residence at 1. 4 feet from the south side yard where 12 feet is required. Mr. Ward asserted that the deficient lot dimensions and configuration result in “hardship” (C-1 criteria) underlying the request for relief at issue. He also asserted that the “benefits exceed the detriments” rationale (C -2 criteria) could apply to the relief at issue alternatively. 4. Mr. Ward testified that the proposed pergola is open and provides open space, light and air, while creating an attractive and desirable visual environment.