Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Remand topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board upholds denial after court remand in 491 South Edge Drive case
Summary
After a court remand asking the board to apply the correct legal standard, the Ocean Township Zoning Board voted to deny the variance request for 491 South Edge Drive, finding concerns about increased lot coverage and impacts on the neighborhood outweighed applicants' hardship claims.
The Ocean Township Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 16 declined to overturn its prior denial of a variance for 491 South Edge Drive after reconsideration ordered by a court.
Attorney Jennifer Crimco, representing the applicant, told the board the judge remanded the matter so the board would “reconsider the merits and demerits of the application under the appropriate legal standard,” and argued the record established a C1 property‑related hardship. Crimco said expert testimony and the site’s unusual configuration — an undersized, oddly shaped lot with limited depth and lake encumbrances — supported relief, adding, “the hardship is related to the property not the proposed development.”
Board members focused questions on the negative criteria: whether granting the variance would cause a “substantial detriment to the public good” or substantially impair the zoning plan. The board noted that the existing house already exceeded permitted building coverage (about 28.14%) and the proposal would increase coverage to roughly 33.01% while the ordinance permits 25% of lot area. Several members cited concerns about the three‑dimensional massing — notably front‑yard massing and increased street wall — as potential harms that weighed against approval.
After deliberation, a motion to deny the application (a “negative resolution”) carried on roll call: Mr. Ashkenazi, Mr. Delommo, Mr. Chamora, Mr. Laneski, Vice Chairman D. Janeiro and Chairman Fuller voted in favor of the negative resolution; Miss Litman abstained. The board’s vote memorializes its determination on the remand and preserves the opportunity for affected parties to seek further review if they choose.
Because the court’s remand required the board to consider the application under the correct legal standard, the board’s minutes and the transcript will be the record for any future appeal. The denial was on the record at the meeting; the board did not authorize the variance.
What’s next: the applicant may seek further judicial review. Any subsequent filing would rely on the transcript and the board’s updated findings from tonight’s reconsideration.
