Welcome everyone. Today is Tuesday, March 24th, 2026, and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board. Uh, Vice Chair Scully, can you please call this meeting to order? >> Certainly. Thank you, Marie. Uh, this
meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meeting act, chapter 231, public law, 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the Coaster and the Aspberry Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulletin board and municipal website. All notices
are on file with the board secretary. Official action may be taken on the following matters before the board. This meeting is being recorded by APV. Roll call, please. Mary. Um, guys, I just closed out my uh Apologies. I
closed out my computer by mistake. Okay. Um, Wendy Glassman is recused. John Hall recused. Daniel Harris is absent. Natalie Paserini >> here. >> Jill Potter is recused. Peter Bulos >> here. >> Carrie Dim >> here. Vice Chair Scully >> here >> and Chairman Avalone recused.
>> Okay. So, the first order of business is the resolution for 807 Somerfield Avenue, block 251, lots 2 and three. Mr. Caris, >> good evening.
Car 807 Summerfield Development LLC. >> Did you see the updated resolution? >> I think I did. >> When did I Marie? Did you circulate that? to just Natalie and John. >> Natalie and John. >> Yeah.
>> I can print the copy for Andy really quickly if we need if we need. >> Yeah. If you just so I know we're working off the same document. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Was that this week or last week? I can. >> That was Friday. >> Friday. >> It feels like it was like >> Yeah. You and I talked Wednesday, Thursday, I guess, about it. >> Okay. Um
>> Yeah. So, I think I think you had pointed out that there was a there was a and instead of an or. That's the big issue. When you look at the actual redevelopment plan, it has an or which makes it disjunctive, >> right? >> By putting in and a and d, what you're
doing is making it conjunctive and you change really what the requirements are, >> right? um where it states in here, prior to the issuance and reading from the redevelopment plan, prior to the issuance of a building or zoning permit, site plan review and approval shall be required for all new construction,
development, redevelopment, or expansion of the following uses. And it says all non-residential use except when non-residential uses proposed in existing non-residential space. Then it has an or. So, it's a period of
stop right there. That's one section. Then in a sense you read it again that the uh prior to the issuance of a building zoning permit site plan review and approve shall required for only construction development redevelopment or expansion of the following uses when the establishment of the non-residential
use does not alter any site conditions. So it's either it's number one when all non-residential use except when non-residential use proposed an existing non-residential space if that condition exists you don't need cycling review the
other circumstance when the establishment of the non-residential use does not alter any site conditions separate and apart if that situation exists you don't need site approval it's an or as the disjunctive which is critical >> yes and I think Jeff and I
>> I think what we changed should address that. >> Yeah. >> So, I think Yeah. So, I think once you take a look at it, I I think we we've addressed that and fix that. Um, >> you don't necessarily need uh Marie for the um
she's coming back. >> I just say >> Yeah. >> Was it p was it page three, Jeff? Where that was? I think it's on page three. >> Oh, yeah. Right. Between three and four, >> right?
>> It was Yeah, it was actually a reference to three and four. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This still has This is incorrect. So when we go to page two, the now therefore be it resolved states that the board finds that no site plan approval is required by the city planning board
for an application for a change of use from existing site existing non-residential use permitting the main redevelopment plan to a non-residential use permitting a main street redevelopment plan existing building as long as there is no alteration of any
site conditions. That's incorrect. It's again the or so it's either one non-residential use going into a non-residential space or if there's no alteration to any site conditions. >> So you're talking about number four.
>> Um I don't see number four. >> Oh, on page three. Sorry. >> I'm on page two then therefore be it resolved. >> Yeah. No, I see that. But I'm saying when you're where you're you're saying that that it's it's the non-residential use or the
>> correct >> the the change to the site plan >> any circumstance if you fit into either bucket you don't need site plan approval. >> Can we go back to what was decided because this is this was exactly what
was present. This was the issue and so we did decide on it and so my if there's a typo is that what we're that's what you're testing. That's the way it's written. >> Can you see it? Cuz I actually >> unless I'm looking at the wrong >> I think you're looking at the wrong paragraph that we we were talking about.
But >> I think it's I think it's I think it's this paragraph. >> So we had an end right here. We put we change that to an or >> right >> proposal of any site building condition which are permitter sorry proposed alteration to the site
plan or the site conditions of the building or you're saying or exterior space within within the property development within which there is permitted non-residential use. >> Right. So so what I I and you didn't look at the next page Andy. So, in the
main street redevelopment zone, the zoning officer may issue a zoning permit without sight plan review by the city of Asbury Park Planning Board under the limited circumstances when one, there is an existing non-residential use permitted in the main street
redevelopment zone. Two, an applicant is requesting authorization to change the existing permitted use, waiting permitted non-residential use to a new non-residential use. also permitted in the main street redevelopment zone. And
three, the existing and change uses are in an existing building and in an existing space within the building located in the main street redevelopment zone or there is no proposed alteration of any site conditions of the building or exterior spaces within the
property/development within which the new permitted I'm sorry within which the permitted new non-residential use is proposed. So that's that >> that's the paragraph I thought you were looking for us to make the modification. >> Yeah, because I think that paragraph
gives you what you want. You could you can do whatever you want within the building as long as you don't change the exterior that then changes the the site plan >> and and the yeah the issue that came up had to do with park and that's why that order is critical because even if under
the redevelopment plan your parking for X use now is more intensive doesn't matter >> right and and we didn't address the parking >> because of that right because we because of that issue that you just brought up is that we didn't want to go down that
that >> you don't have to. Correct. As long as you find the ore, >> you don't have to. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> Let me just double check this. Yeah, this is this is correct. But I think what we got to do is just then
correct that page too. So >> now therefore be it resolved that the board finds that no site plan approval is required by the city planning board for an application for a change of use from an existing non-residential use permitted in Main Street redevelopment zone to a new non-residential use permitted in the main street
redevelopment zone in an existing building. As long as there's no alteration of any. >> That's the issue. >> Technically, that's a correct statement though. >> No, because it says as long as there you're combining the two and you can't combine the two. >> No, I have but I haven't com this is
this is just relating to the no alteration of site conditions. This has nothing to do with the other part. The other part's in that. >> Yeah, but you're still making Let me see that again. You're still making reference though. alterations, but it's still a true it's
still a true statement. I agree with Jeff because it's still a true statement. >> As long as, >> right, you can do what you want as long as there's no alteration to any site conditions, which we all agree upon. I think that if there's any changes to the site conditions, you got to you got to come back.
>> No. No. If Yeah. Number one, if a non-residential use is going to non-residential space, then you don't need site plan, >> right? Yeah. >> Or um when the establishment does not
alter any site condition. So, it's either. All right. So, if you're going you're non residential use, you're going into an uh you're have another non-residential use going into existing non-residential space, you're good to
go. That's all you need. You don't have to come in for site plan. >> So, you're just saying that these two paragraphs contradict each other. >> They do. They do because you're combining in that there now. Therefore, you're combining these two provisions which you can't do. Jeeoff, is that how
you read it? >> That's not how I was reading it. I was reading that as a completely separate paragraph related to when you uh make an alteration to the site plan. And the other paragraph was kind of combining basically what's what it says in the
ordinance when you have this or that. You don't need a site plan. >> So, what we could do is probably mark up that first paragraph >> probably just to remove that because that other paragraph addresses your concern. >> It does. >> All right. So, So we would just take so
we would take the we would take that uh now therefore and we would just >> we would just stop it after existing building and take off and take out the as long as there's a there's no alteration and I would just say as long as colon
just take out actually it probably should say when there is no alteration >> cuz really they're two separate they were he's right they're two separate issues. >> Yeah. Actually, when would work, right? Because then then you're sort of combining them because you're saying,
"Okay, if it's non-residential to non-residential, but when you do have a site a site change plan, then you do have to come back, >> right? If you if you alter the interior, >> it's not it's not a it's not a requisite to have that." No. No change. >> You can alter the interiors, but it's
not condition. Correct. >> Yeah. You just can't. Yeah. >> All right. So, so are you comfortable putting when there is no? So, take out the as long as and put in when there is no alteration
to any site conditions. No, I I still think it has to be or when there's >> I think we basically have to take out that >> that whole paragraph and just rely on that lower paragraph, >> which I'm fine with. >> Yeah, >> I think that makes more sense. >> Okay. So, we're just So, we'll end that paragraph after existing building in the
last full sentence and take out as long as there is no alteration to any site conditions. >> There's no alteration. Yeah, I think just say or when. So change right right in an existing building take out as long as and put or
when there is no alteration of any site conditions. >> That works. >> That's what it's not Yeah. If it's not not non-residential non-residential like you said, >> right? >> That works. >> All right. That works for you. Okay. >> Yep. Or when. >> So I'll make that change and I'll send it over to you. It's just going to say
we're in there. >> Yes. >> All right. So, can we approve it or do we have to wait for the change, Jeff? >> No, no, we can we can approve it. >> Amend it and then I'll find it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution for 807 Summerfield Avenue, block 251, lots 2 and three
with the additional language of changing. This is the last full paragraph on page two. We're going to take out as long as an insert when >> or when. >> Right. >> Okay.
>> I second. >> Natalie Pasarini. >> Yes. >> Scully. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. >> They're going to change the ordinance. I know they've been talking about clarifying that, but >> they're going to have to come to me for
a significant benefit. >> All right. Next up on the agenda, we're gonna >> They want to deal with me on that. >> We're going to carry five uh 515 4th Avenue, block 3503, lot 15. Uh do we have a date on when we're carrying it? >> I think the 20 28th, 2027,
>> without notice. >> Uh there's no there's no notice required on this one because >> Oh, that's right. It's just an interpretation. Um, but you know, it's it's been dragging on a little bit because of the issue of having and I know we've had a quorum, but uh, Mr. Carris would obviously like as many
members available as possible, and unfortunately Dan couldn't make it tonight. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> So, that Yeah, that'll be carried. Um, and I don't even know if there's a time frame required for that, but you'll consent to time frame requirements. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Do we need a motion to carry it?
>> I'll make a motion to carry it. >> Second. Okay. Uh Natalie Pasarini, >> yes. >> Peter Bos, >> yes. >> Gary Dan, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Scully, >> yes. >> And I will make a motion to adjourn. >> Second.
>> All right.