Beach Haven board hears request to allow front porch encroachment at Belvoir Avenue; no vote in excerpt

The Beach Haven Land Use Board heard testimony on an application seeking a bulk front-yard setback variance to permit an open, covered porch and related exterior work at a corner property identified in the transcript as Belvoir Avenue.

James Raven, the attorney representing applicants Michael and Hillary Carmeloitz, told the board the project would add a full-width front porch, a detached garage, a rear pergola and other exterior renovations. "The only thing that's triggering the variance relief is the proposed porch," Raven said, noting the application included an HPAC resolution that had already been provided to the board.

For the record, the engineering witness identified himself as James Rosski, "a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at Horn Tyson and Yodor since 1997," and the board accepted him as an expert. Rosski testified that the lot is a corner parcel with about 75 feet of frontage on Belvoir Avenue, 100 feet of frontage on Beach Avenue and an area of roughly 7,500 square feet; the site currently contains a two-story single-family house and an inground pool.

Rosski described existing nonconforming conditions: the present stoop or landing off Belvoir Avenue has a setback of about 5.8 feet (where 15 feet is required for that front yard), and existing pool setbacks of roughly 5.0 and 5.4 feet where the code requires 10 feet. Under the proposal, the porch face would be 10 feet from Belvoir Avenue and the proposed steps would sit about 7.3 feet from the right-of-way; Rosski characterized the relief as a C2 variance and argued the porch would be an "aesthetic enhancement" to an older house in the historic district.

Raven also told the board that removing an existing fence and adding the proposed garage on the Beach Avenue side would create three conforming parking spaces where there are currently none. Rosski confirmed the porch would be an open covered porch "— no screens, no walls" — and said the applicant would need to return to the board if they later sought to enclose it.

Board members pressed for clarification about setbacks and the extent of the encroachment. One member noted that adding a five-foot-deep porch would "still now uncover more on that setback" and commented that the change "doesn't sound good," indicating some concern despite the applicant's argument that the modification represents a modest improvement to the existing landing.

The provided transcript includes no final board vote or formal decision on the variance application. Mr. Tenquist was asked to step down and abstain from deliberations because he resides within 200 feet of the property. The record in the excerpt ends after further clarification of the existing landing setback (confirmed at about 5.8 feet) and additional testimony about plan exhibits and renderings.