Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brielle board approves rear‑porch variance for 821 Rathjen Road with drainage condition
Summary
The Brielle Planning/Zoning Board unanimously approved a C‑1 variance allowing a covered rear porch and hot tub at 821 Rathjen Road (proposed rear setback 35.7 ft vs. 40 ft required) after architect testimony that the lot is oversized and that drainage would not affect neighbors; approval included a drainage stipulation reviewed by the board engineer.
The Brielle Planning/Zoning Board on April 14 unanimously approved a variance allowing a covered rear porch and hot tub at 821 Rathjen Road.
Attorney John Jackson presented the application on behalf of owners William and Daniel Morris. Architect Marc Nemergut of N2 Architecture testified the property is in the R‑2 zone, sits on an oversized lot of about 16,500 square feet, and that the proposed open porch (roughly 15 by 17 feet) would create a rear‑yard C‑1 setback variance (40 feet required; 35.7 feet proposed). Nemergut said the porch would be about 16 inches above grade, include a privacy lattice, and the hot tub would sit at grade.
Board Engineer Alan Hilla told the board he was taking the architect’s drainage testimony at face value; Nemergut testified drainage would flow beneath the porch to the street with no change to rear yard contours. Board member G. Kevin Callahan confirmed the porch would remain open.
Chair Corinne Trainor said the application met C‑1 criteria given the lot’s characteristics and lack of impacts to other zoning standards. Mayor Frank Garruzzo, Councilman Eliot Colon and other members voiced support, noting the addition appeared consistent with neighborhood character and no neighbors had objected at the hearing.
Mayor Garruzzo moved to approve the application with the stipulation described by the board engineer; Councilman Colon seconded. Roll call was unanimous in favor.
The board’s action approved the required rear‑setback variance subject to the drainage approach represented in testimony; the board recorded no opposing votes and no public objections at the hearing.
