Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves D1 variance to allow two-family at 191 Bridge Avenue
Summary
The Red Bank Zoning Board approved a D1 use variance allowing 191 Bridge Avenue to be converted from a single-family to an owner-occupied two‑family, subject to plan revisions and conditions including no garage expansion, attic limited to storage, engineering review of drainage, and building-code compliance.
The Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment on Feb. 5 approved a D1 use variance to allow 191 Bridge Avenue to be used as an owner-occupied two-family home, despite the property’s single-family zoning.
Applicant Paul Renault told the board he plans to live on the ground floor with his wife and create a one-bedroom apartment above that could be rented when family members visit or to provide supplemental income. "We're looking to move down here on a permanent basis," Renault said, adding that he and his wife are over 65 and wanted flexibility for visiting children or a tenant.
Attorney Daniel O'Harn and architect Joseph Donado presented revised plans that withdraw earlier proposed work to the detached garage and keep the front façade and overall height largely unchanged. Donado described the layout as an owner unit of two bedrooms and a separate one‑bedroom unit above; the team said they will provide two garage stalls plus three gravel stalls on the rear lot for a total of five spaces.
Planner Kristen Shepard testified the site is "particularly suited" to the proposed use, arguing that Bridge Avenue already contains a mix of two‑ and three‑family houses and that the conversion advances municipal land‑use goals for modest infill and reinvestment. Shepard also said the plan eliminates a prior nonconforming sideyard by moving a rear addition into conformance.
Board questions focused on technical items: building height (testimony indicated about 32 feet), attic configuration (storage only, not habitable), basement egress, the size and maintenance of a proposed gravel parking area, and screening for HVAC units. The applicant agreed to revise plans to show precise attic square footage to confirm it does not exceed one‑third of the second floor and to label all walkways, driveway repairs and drainage measures.
Board counsel Mr. Kennedy outlined conditions the board said should be included in the approval: compliance with testimony and submitted commitments, conformance with the board engineer's review, confirmation that the attic remains nonhabitable storage, no structural expansion of the garage, required grading/drainage details, screening for HVAC equipment, adherence to building and fire‑safety codes, and a 24‑month period to obtain permits.
The motion to approve carried with the five affirmative votes the statute requires for a use variance. The board attached the conditions summarized above and instructed staff to require revised plans that reflect the withdrawn garage work and the drainage and walkway clarifications before permits are issued.
The ruling allows the owner to proceed to building-permit review; any material change to the plans will require return to the board.
