The Planning and Zoning Board considered three applications at its July 11 meeting.

1. The first application was for a minor subdivision. The applicant owned two adjoining properties, one at 435 20th St. and the other at 455 20th St. One of the properties was 70-feet wide, the other 50-feet wide. The applicant sought to change the property line by ten feet so that each property would have a 60-foot width, making them both conforming. Since changing the property line would not result in a need for any variances, the Board approved the application.

2. The second applicant was seeking a number of variances needed to build a single family home at 890 21st St. The property in question has not only an irregular shape but also a considerable portion of the property is marsh land, thus prohibiting Applicant from meeting various setback requirements for his planned home. Applicant posited that the requested variances could be granted under the Cl criteria, i.e., for exceptional hardship, and under the C2 criteria, i.e., that the benefits in granting the variances outweighed the detriments.

   Applicant’s expert testified that Applicant has a CAFRA permit to build a bulkhead on his property, which would alleviate some of flooding on 21st St. He also testified that the views and open space of other property owners in the area would not be impaired. Because the setbacks sought were less than required, the house would be constructed of higher-grade fire retardant materials and commercial fire protection systems and alarms would be used.

   After considerable discussion, the Board approved the requested variances subject to numerous detailed conditions that the applicant agreed to.

3. The third application was to widen a required 20-foot curb cut into a 30-foot curb cut, which would result in the loss of one street parking spot. The property in question is located at 5024 Ocean Drive. Applicant contended that widening the existing curb cut would make it possible to add two more parking spaces on his property. Additionally, Applicant’s expert believed that widening the curb cut would make it easier for drivers to maneuver more safely front-first onto Ocean Drive. The Applicant argued that the loss of one street parking spot, would be offset by the extra off-street parking spots and the potential safety..

   The Board was not convinced that Applicant’s claimed benefits were realistic, and the Application was denied.