Subdivision stalled by definition of rear lot line

Submitted plan defined line as perpendicular
to front of property

BY SHERRY CONOHAN
Staff Writer

Submitted plan defined line as perpendicular
to front of property
BY SHERRY CONOHAN
Staff Writer

MONMOUTH BEACH — The proposed subdivision of an Ocean Avenue lot with a distinctive pink house on it is headed back to the drawing board.

The plan was put forward by Simon Zarour, whose parents own the property across from the municipal beach club. It ran into trouble when Peter Fitch, chairman of the Planning/Zoning Board, pointed out that the frontyard and backyard setbacks building envelope too small to erect a house on. The board also found that the measurements of the proposed new lot were inconsistent with those in the site plan.

The hearing was continued to Jan. 27 while everyone awaits clarification from T&M Associates, the board’s engineering firm, and Charles C. Widdis, the engineer for Zarour, on the questions raised at the Nov. 24 meeting.

The proposal hearing drew a large group of neighbors and other residents interested in what will become of the property, 32 Ocean Ave. It is located in a triangular wedge of land between Surf Road and Valentine Street. There are several houses at the rear of the property on Seaview Avenue.

Zarour has proposed slicing off the northern portion of the Ocean Avenue plot on the Surf Road side, where tennis courts now stand, and selling it as a building lot. He said the new lot would measure 15,567 square feet, which conforms to the requirements of the zone, and will front Surf Road.

His lawyer, Jeffrey Resnikoff, of Long Branch, said no variances would be needed for bulk dimensions.

The applicant’s engineer, who also is a real estate broker and whose office is in Long Branch, said the proposed new lot would have insufficient frontage on Ocean Avenue to face on that street which is why it is proposed to face Surf Road. He also said all setbacks would comply with the ordinance requirements.

Fitch asked where the rear lot line is on the property. He said he presumed it was the line between the new lot and the lot with the pink house. In that case, Fitch said, the new lot would have to have a 30-foot rear setback plus a 25-foot setback in the front.

"I don’t see how you’re going to build anything on it," Fitch said.

Zarour said he was counting on the rear of the property having a 10-foot setback.

Widdis said he took the line at the rear of the Ocean Avenue lot, which runs parallel to Seaview Avenue, to be the back line of the new lot.

Scott C. Arnette, the Zoning/
Planning Board attorney, was asked which side of the trian­gular lot would be the rear.

Arnette read the definition from the ordinance which described the rear lot line as generally opposite and parallel to the front lot line.

Fitch said Widdis’ suggestion of using the side as the rear doesn’t meet that definition. It has to be opposite and parallel, not perpen­dicular, he said.

Resnikoff said he was relying on the board engineer, who said the setbacks were compliant. He sug­gested the board could approve the application and it would be up to the buyer to deal with the setbacks.

Fitch said he didn’t want a buyer coming back claiming a hardship. He asked Zarour, Resnikoff and Widdis if they wanted to go back to the drawing board and, after a brief recess, they agreed to the continuance.