Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asbury Park zoning board carries review of 1103 Drummond after hearing on as‑built deviations
Summary
The board carried the application for 1103 Drummond to June 24, 2025 after hearing testimony that multiple features — a privacy wall, shed, pool enclosures and artificial turf — were built or installed in ways that deviate from permits; the applicant agreed to submit remediation plans and installation evidence.
The Asbury Park Zoning Board of Adjustment carried its review of as‑built work at 1103 Drummond to June 24, 2025 after substantial testimony about deviations from permit drawings and multiple requested variances.
Attorney Mark Steinberg, representing the owner, said the matter has been before the board in various forms for about a year and framed the hearing as an opportunity to ‘‘proceed tonight as far as we can get’’ and then return with any additional contractor testimony and remediation plans. The applicant and owner said they relied on contractors and a series of plan revisions; inspections later revealed work that differs from the permits on file.
Board professionals and members cataloged several outstanding issues: a privacy wall and fence combination along a driveway that results in an imposing height from the street side, a 10‑foot shed placed close to a property line, an enclosure for pool equipment and an outdoor kitchen that encroaches on setbacks by inches to a few feet, and installation of synthetic turf across much of the yard. The board requested product specifications, laboratory reports and installation photos to confirm that the synthetic turf is permeable and does not increase impervious coverage.
Board members repeatedly said the panel must apply the variance standards even if the work already has been completed. One member cautioned bluntly: "Ignorance of what's happening is not an excuse," and several members urged the applicant to bring contractors or detailed documentation to explain the construction decisions. The applicant acknowledged that they had not supervised every revision directly and said they will attempt to secure contractor testimony and documentation.
Neighbors who testified included Amanda Brensinger (1611 Third Avenue), who said she found the property well maintained and urged remediation rather than heavy penalty, and Peter Boulos (1705 Fourth Avenue), who praised the aesthetic quality of the structures while acknowledging neighborly concerns about the driveway wall and fence combination. The planner and engineer recommended removing temporary screening mesh, providing photos that document turf installation, and proposing lowered fence/wall sections and other mitigations where feasible.
The board voted to carry the application to the board’s June 24, 2025 meeting and directed the applicant to renotice and submit revised plans, installation photos, lab specs for synthetic turf, and proposed mitigation steps. The carry vote was recorded affirmatively by the four eligible members present. No final relief was granted; the matter will return for further review with updated evidence.
