Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning board: Main Street redevelopment language allows like‑for‑like commercial tenant swaps without planning‑board site plan
Loading...
Summary
The Asbury Park Zoning Board of Adjustment found the Main Street redevelopment plan’s language exempts permitted nonresidential uses moving into existing nonresidential spaces from site plan review, rejecting the city zoning officer’s reading that parking triggers planning‑board review.
At its April 22, 2025 meeting, the City of Asbury Park Zoning Board of Adjustment ruled that the Main Street redevelopment plan’s plain language exempts a permitted nonresidential use occupying an existing nonresidential space from site plan review, meaning the applicant for 807 Summerfield Avenue need not go to the Planning Board.
The board’s decision resolves a disagreement between the property’s representative and the zoning office over whether a change of commercial tenant requires planning‑board site plan approval when the new use increases parking demand. The board voted 6–1 to adopt an interpretation that the redevelopment plan provides an “either/or” exception: a permitted nonresidential use placed in an existing nonresidential space need not undergo site plan review even if parking calculations differ.
Attorney Andrew Carris, representing Avenue 7 Summerfield Development LLC, argued the redevelopment plan’s language is clear. “If you have a non residential use going into a non residential space, you do not need site plan. It’s that simple,” Carris said, citing the plan’s Section 9, page 64, and an appellate decision his submission referenced.
Board planner Donna Miller described the zoning office’s practical concern: when a new use has a higher parking requirement than the prior use, the site can be noncompliant with the plan’s off‑street parking table and thus require a variance. “If the proposed use increases the parking requirement for the site that can’t be accomplished on‑site, you need a variance,” Miller said, explaining that the plan treats some deviations as C variances that planning boards may grant in conjunction with site plan approval.
Board members debated whether the redevelopment plan’s exceptions should be read disjunctively (as written) or read to incorporate the parking standard. Several members said they were reluctant to add language not in the plan; others urged caution, noting the plan explicitly includes parking and other standards that apply to development in the district. The board ultimately adopted the narrower, plain‑language reading for this interpretation.
The board’s ruling applies to the subject property at 807 Summerfield Avenue within the Main Street redevelopment area and, as phrased by members, to similar fact patterns where a permitted nonresidential use occupies an existing nonresidential space without site alterations. The zoning office may still evaluate tenant changes for compliance with other plan standards and require variance relief if a specific application triggers a deviation from the plan’s bulk, sign, façade or parking rules.
The motion that the applicant not be required to proceed to the Planning Board passed in a roll‑call vote: Daniel Harris (yes); Russell Lewis (yes); Jill Potter (yes); Natalie Passerini (yes); JJ Hall (no); Vice Chair John Scully (yes); Chairman Paul Abeloni (yes).
