Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beach Haven board carries Neimoth family’s variance request to preserve historic ‘Pinky’ cottage at 223 Pelum
Summary
The Beach Haven Land Use Board on June 1 carried the Neimoth family’s application for multiple variances at 223 Pelum to Aug. 3 so the applicants can revise plans to reduce floor area and address board concerns; the family emphasized preserving a small historic cottage called “Pinky.”
A June 1 hearing of the Beach Haven Land Use Board was carried to Aug. 3 after the Neimoth family asked for time to revise plans for 223 Pelum, an undersized lot where the family hopes to replace a front duplex with a single‑family home while keeping a small historic rear cottage known locally as “Pinky.”
The Neimoths, through attorney James Raven, told the board they are seeking two D variances and multiple C (bulk) variances, including relief for a floor‑area ratio of 54.4% where 50% is permitted and relief tied to lot area, lot width, building coverage and parking requirements. "The variance relief we're seeking is really driven by the existence of this historic cottage," Raven said in opening remarks. The board was told the family has owned the lot since 1978.
Applicant Timothy Neimoth, sworn as a witness, gave extended testimony about the cottage’s origins and family history. "Pinky remains nestled in the rear of the property…This gem is irreplaceable," Neimoth said, urging the board to allow the family to retain the structure while constructing a modest 1,830‑square‑foot single‑family home in the front.
Architect and planner Robert Larson described the proposal as one that reduces overall density (from three units on the lot to two) while preserving a structure the applicants and some preservation guidance treat as historically significant. Larson said the project advances municipal purposes including flood‑safety upgrades and historic preservation while acknowledging technical deviations for coverage and setbacks tied to the cottage’s footprint.
Board members raised multiple technical questions at the hearing: how FAR was calculated, whether additional curb cuts would require a variance, and whether the new house could be reduced in size to avoid or reduce requested relief. Public commenter Jim Lambert urged the board to avoid setting a precedent and said the new house could be made smaller to comply with the town’s master plan standards.
After discussion and a short recess requested by the applicants to consult with their professionals, the Neimoths asked that the board carry the application to its Aug. 3 meeting to present amended plans. The board agreed and carried the matter; no final votes on variances were taken at the June 1 meeting.
What’s next: The application will return Aug. 3 with revised plans. The applicants waived additional public notice and extended the board’s time to act so the matter may be considered without a new legal notice.
