Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Interpretation 301 Eighth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board continues interpretation of rooftop-deck permit at 301 Eighth Avenue to April 8
Summary
The Asbury Park Zoning Board continued an interpretation hearing on whether proposed decking and railing at 301 Eighth Avenue would expand a nonconforming use. The board requested additional construction-permit records and set the next hearing for April 8, 2025.
At its Jan. 28, 2025 meeting, the Asbury Park Zoning Board of Adjustment continued an application seeking a zoning interpretation for 301 Eighth Avenue, Unit 3, after debate about a 2005 zoning permit, a 2004 master deed and whether the zoning permit—if issued—remains valid.
Andrew Karas, attorney for Karen May and Sheila Veil, told the board he had obtained documents from an OPRA request showing a zoning permit application dated May 23, 2005, and a zoning permit issued June 20, 2005, described in the file as “build deck and rail at rooftop.” Karas also called the board’s attention to a master deed filed in February 2004 that notes roof rights for Units 3 and 7 and—he said—describes a rooftop deck and a door providing access to it.
Board attorney Jack Serpico explained the board’s role in an interpretation: "Understand that this is not an appeal; it's purely an interpretation," he said, describing that the board must take the proposed facts and apply the ordinance language and the planner's report to decide whether variances are required.
Board members questioned whether the 2005 zoning permit ever resulted in completed construction and whether a permit that old remains valid. Board member Daniel Harris pressed for the specific text in the master deed and asked where the deed references a door to the roof area. Karas said the deed’s diagrams and a photograph in the OPRA file support his view that a door and the roof area existed.
The board discussed whether a permit for zoning work expires under the municipal land-development code and the construction code. Participants cited municipal language (recorded in the meeting as “Land development regulations, 3045.2, zoning permits c.”) and discussed case law standards on abandonment, including a cited McDowell decision, emphasizing that abandonment requires an intent to abandon the use.
Board members and counsel concluded they did not have sufficient construction-file documentation to determine whether the 2005 permit remained valid or whether the project had been completed. The applicant was asked to subpoena or obtain the construction-file records, including any building permits, inspections or certificates of zoning compliance. The hearing was continued to April 8, 2025, at 7 p.m. for further evidence and testimony.
No formal determination about variances or nonconforming-use expansion was made at the Jan. 28 meeting; the board explicitly treated this session as an interpretation-only proceeding and reserved decision until it reviews additional records.
