Seaside Heights Enforces Zoning, Denies Three Buildings On One Lot

308-310 Sampson Avenue (Credit: Google Maps)

Seaside Heights land use board members this week denied the application of a property owner to maintain three structures on one oversized lot, with members frankly stating that zoning ordinances are on the books for a reason.

The owner of the property at 308-310 Sampson Avenue had been seeking board approval for more than a year to knock down two bunaglows at the front of his 5,052 square foot lot and rebuild raised structures in the same footprint. Simultaneously, a third structure on the same lot – a two story, four unit home – would remain at the rear of the lot without being raised. The plan would normally require 12,000 square feet of area to meet the code in the low density residential zone in which it is located. Technically, the property is divided between two legal lots, though they would have had to be combined as part of the application. A standard lot in Seaside Heights for a single-family home in 20-by-100 feet.

After hearing testimony for about an hour, board members opined that while it is a noble goal to improve one’s property, the plan in question would call for continuing to squeeze three structures on the same lot – which is no longer legal – while sacrificing two on-street parking spaces. For their part, the owner and his representatives said the reconstruction of the two bungalows into raised single-unit homes would represent an aesthetic improvement and would add four off-street parking spaces since two cars would be able to park under each of the raised properties.

---

Get Daily Island News Updates Your email address:* Please enter all required fields Correct invalid entries

“I do think the site is particularly suited because this use has existed for so long,” said Thomas Ricci, a professional planner hired by the property owner, testifying that the lot had been configured for three structures going back to the 1950s.

Board members disagreed.

“You want to make compliant the two in the front, but leave the one in the back,” said board member Sal Irizary. “It’s two lots – it’s for two houses per the new zoning. How would that even look nice with what we’re trying to accomplish in this town? I can’t wrap my head around it.”

Anthony Pagano, the attorney for the property owner, argued the application represented an improvement.

“What is proposed is to alleviate some of the parking issues, because right now there is no parking – that’s one of the benefits to the town – and to give it more curb appeal,” he said. “The alternative is that it will just stay the way it is, nothing changes. The benefit is more curb appeal and you’ll alleviate some of the parking.”

Board member Christopher Vaz, who also serves as borough administrator, said the borough’s zoning for the low density residential district avoids scenarios where there are so many buildings on a single parcel of land. Instead of spending money to reach the goal of the zone, he said, the property owner would be paying for new structures that continue to violate it.

“I really think this is an opportunity, if the owner wants to do something on the property, to make it more conforming rather than less conforming,” said Vaz. “That’s why I’m having a hard time getting my head wrapped around this as well. Right now, there is just no intention of following the standards of the low density residential zone.”

The board denied the application in a 7-0 vote, but encouraged the property owner to return with a plan that better conforms to the zone.