Beach Haven board rejects variance to retain swim spa, pergola and added pavers at 2356 Street, 5–4

The Beach Haven Land Use Board narrowly rejected an application by the owners of 2356 Street Unit A on June 1 after board members expressed concerns about impervious coverage and unpermitted accessory structures.

Owners Carmine and Lisa Timinary said they bought the unit in 2018, plan to convert it to year‑round use and had applied for a building permit for a small addition late in 2025. The owners testified they removed a hot tub and some pavers and proposed a net reduction in impervious coverage from 68.8% to 67.6%, but that remains higher than the borough’s current 60% limit. "We are voluntarily reducing the impervious coverage on the site…we're bringing that down to 67.6%," Carmine Timinary told the board.

Engineer and planner James Bzowski presented a permit plot plan dated Aug. 7, 2025 showing a permit condition that, unless relief were granted, the property would have to be reduced to 60% coverage to close the permit. Bzowski testified that the swim spa and an 11x13‑foot pergola were installed and, under the present ordinance, require setback variances because they sit considerably closer to property lines than now permitted. He described the northeast corner of the lot as heavily buffered by mature plantings and argued the modest net decrease in impervious coverage was a community benefit compared with the alternative of removing large paved areas.

Several board members focused on the self‑created nature of the condition and the practical implications of forcing the owners to remove roughly 820 square feet of pavers to meet 60% coverage. Concerns included potential effects on parking circulation and stormwater infiltration. Board counsel emphasized the regulatory framework for flexible C2 variances when a condition is self‑created.

A motion to approve the application was called and the votes recorded: Mrs. Bow Miller—no; Mr. Jenna—yes; Mrs. Leonard—yes; Mr. Lefredo—no; Mrs. Mason—no; Mr. Tinquist—yes; Mr. Winganger—no; Miss Parker—yes; Mr. Jello—no (motion resulted in five 'no' and four 'yes' votes). The motion to approve therefore failed and the requested relief was not granted.

Neighbor Jason Gross spoke in support of the Timinaries during public comment, saying the owners are "good neighbors" and he had no objection to the requested relief. The board also approved an unrelated Resolution 20262 concerning real‑estate services later in the meeting.

What this means: If the Timinaries seek to keep the addition and the existing site configuration they will need to either reconfigure the site to reach 60% impervious coverage or return with revised plans and supporting evidence that the board should exercise discretion to permit the current layout.