RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF LONG BRANCH GRANTING APPLICATION FOR 0(1) USE VARIANCE RELIEF AND BULK (“C") VARIANCE RELIEF

RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF LONG BRANCH GRANTING APPLICATION FOR 0(1) USE VARIANCE RELIEF AND BULK ("C") VARIANCE RELIEF WHEREAS, a proper application was duly filed on behalf of JOSEPH FERRAINA (the "Applicant'') with the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Long Branch (the "Board"), seeking 0(1) use variance relief and bulk ("C") variance relief to convert the existing single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling and to convert the existing detached garage into a cabana and a one-car garage; and WHEREAS, the application pertains to the subject property, which is designated as Block 147, Lot 11.01 on the Tax Map of the City of Long Branch, which premises are commonly known as 107 Matilda Terrace, Long Branch, New Jersey; and WHEREAS, all notice requirements were satisfied by the Applicant, and the Board had jurisdiction to hear, consider, and decide the application; and WHEREAS, the Board held public hearings with regard to the referenced application on February 9, 2026 and April 13, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Board, having given due consideration to the exhibits moved into evidence and the testimony presented at said hearing, does hereby make the following findings of fact: The subject property is located in the R-4 zone; two-family dwellings are not permitted under the City's Ordinances within the R-4 zone.The Applicant submitted the following exhibit(s) into evidence:Architectural Plan Detached Garage, Feb. 9, 2026 (A-1);Proposed Basement Plan, Feb. 91 2026 (A-2);Existing Site Plan with Zoning Table, Feb. 9, 2026 (A-3);Aerial and Street View of Subject Property, Feb. 91 2026 (A-4);Tax Map with Multi-Family Properties Colored, Feb. 9, 2026 (A-5); andExterior Pictures of Subject Property, Feb. 9, 2026 (A-6).At the February 9, 2026 hearing, Frank Crupi, Esq., Applicant's attorney, discussed the differences between the current application and previous applications to confirm that the current application was not barred. At present, there is habitable space in the single-family dwelling and in the detached garage upon the subject property. Specifically, a temporary apartment exists in the detached garage, which was approved in 2002 for the Applicant's parents and such approval expired upon his parents' no longer occupying that structure. The Applicant returned to the Board in 2018 to expand the temporary apartment and to add a second story. At that time, the Applicant's parents were no longer occupying the unit and his granddaughter was living there. The Applicant requested to add a second story to make the unit a two-bedroom unit. The Board denied that application for two units in two principal buildings by Resolution memorialized March 25, 2019. Because the Applicant now seeks to convert the temporary apartment to a one-car garage and cabana and convert the principal structure into a two-family dwelling, the doctrine of res judicata is Inapplicable to the current application.At the February 9, 2026 hearing, the Board Attorney concurred with Mr. Crupi that the current application is different from prior application(s) and is not barred.At the February 9, 2026 hearing, Anthony Scalise, AIA, Applicant's architect, testified in support of the application. He testified as to the existing conditions, as well as the Applicant's intentions to improve the property. The Applicant proposes to renovate the existing rear building to remove the living space. One side of the rear building will be converted to a one-car garage; the other side will be converted to a cabana. Mr. Scalise testified that the kitchen will be removed, but the bathroom will remain, and a small bar-sink may be installed. The height of the renovated rear structure will be approximately 14.25 feet, less than the maximum 15 feet permitted. Mr. Scalise reviewed the floor plans of the principal structure to be converted into a two-family dwelling. Each floor, first and second, would contain a two-bedroom unit. No exterior changes are proposed. Mr. Scalise explained that the Applicant proposes to use the second floor as one unit and a combination of the basement and first floor as the other unit. The existing loft area will be eliminated for floor space for second floor unit. The basement plan proposes no bedrooms.At the February 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant, Joseph Ferraina, testified in support of the application. The Applicant testified that his daughter will live in the second-floor unit until he decides to move, where his daughter will remain as owner. He explained that establishing a second unit will allow his daughter to remain living on-site with rental income coming in from the other unit.At the February 9, 2026 hearing, Robert Hudak, MPA, PP, AICP, the Applicant's planner, testified in support of the application. Mr. Hudak testified that the existing drive is nonconforming. The 2002 resolution approved a zero setback where ten feet was required. The ordinance has since been amended to permit a setback of 5 feet in the R-4 Zone. Mr. Hudak testified that the 2002 resolution approved lot coverage of 65.5%, whereas 40% is the maximum permitted, and the current coverage remains below that approval at 64.3%. Mr. Hudak explained that each two-bedroom unit requires two parking spaces, for a total of four spaces. The Applicant has satisfied the parking requirement and also vacated an easement with an adjacent property owner for a shed and fence.At the February 9, 2026 hearing, the Board expressed concerns regarding how the proposed cabana will be used, as well as the configuration of the basement as potentially habitable space. The Board also made recommendations as to attic access for second floor unit storage, as well as laundry facilities.In response to the Board's concerns, the Applicant agreed to deed restrict the basement area to eliminate any bedrooms in the future. The Applicant also sought for the application to be carried to allow for revised plans. 10. No interested parties appeared at the February 9, 2026 hearing of this matter and the application was adjourned until April 13, 2026. 11. At the April 13, 2026 hearing, Anthony Scalise, AIA, the Applicant's architect, testified as to the revisions to his architectural plans after the February 9, 2026 hearing. He testified that the Applicant's revised plans took into account the Board's recommendations. Most notably, the Applicant now proposes only a half-bathroom in the cabana, rather than a full bathroom. 12. At the April 13, 2026 hearing, the Board requested and the Applicant agreed that the cabana/garage be deed restricted as such 13. No interested parties appeared at the April 13, 2026 hearing of this matter. 14. The Board accepts the testimony of the Applicant and its professionals and finds that the Applicant seeks 0(1) use variance relief and bulk ("C") variance relief to convert the existing single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling and to convert the existing detached garage into a cabana and a one-car garage. 15. The Applicant bears the burden of proving both the "positive criteria" and the "negative criteria" under the Municipal Land Use, Law ("MLUL") to support the Board's granting of D(1) use variance relief. 16. Regarding the "positive criteria", the Applicant must demonstrate that "special reasons" warrant approval of the requested relief. "Special reasons" derive their meaning from the purposes of the MLUL. The Board finds that the Applicant demonstrated "special reasons" and this application promotes the purposes of the MLUL. 17. The Board finds that granting the variance relief at issue will have no adverse impact upon neighboring properties, and the Board further finds that this relief can be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan/ordinance. 18. The Applicant also requires bulk ("C") variance relief for the improvements referenced hereinabove. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated "hardship" (C(1) criteria) sufficient to support granting the relief here at issue. 19. The Board finds that granting the bulk variance relief at issue will have no adverse impact upon neighboring properties, and the Board finds that this relief can be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan/ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and specifically makes the following conclusions: Based upon the aforesaid findings of fact, the Board concludes that the Applicant has proven the "positive criteria" and the "negative criteria" necessary to support granting the D(1) variance relief for the project here at issue;Based upon the aforesaid findings of fact, the Board concludes that the Applicant has established and demonstrated that the premises are of such exceptional size or shape, and/or are so affected by topographic or physical features, and/or are so affected by other extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that the strict application of the zoning regulations would result in undue hardship;The Board concludes that granting the approvals set forth herein will not cause substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan/ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that D(1) variance relief to permit the Applicant to maintain two principal structures upon the same lot and to convert the existing single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling and to convert the existing detached garage into a cabana and a one-car garage, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, be and is hereby GRANTED; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the following bulk ("C") variance relief be and is hereby GRANTED: Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, with a driveway setback of 0.00 feet, whereas a minimum of 5.0 feet is required.Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, without and landscape buffer around its parking/driveway areas, whereas same is ordinarily required.Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, with a side yard setback of 0.00 feet to the pool patio, whereas a minimum of 10.0 feet is required.Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, with a side yard setback of 8.0 feet to the swimming pool, whereas a minimum of 10.0 feet is required.Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, with a side yard setback of 7.8 feet to the deck, whereas a minimum of 10.0 feet is required.Variance relief to permit the proposed project to be constructed, as depicted on the plans submitted into evidence, with the HVAC units in the side yard setback, whereas same is otherwise prohibited. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that any relief not expressly granted herein by the Board, be and is hereby denied. THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS SET FORTH HEREINABOVE ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Conditions Subject to the development here at issue being undertaken in accordance with the testimony presented to the Board and the plans approved by the Board.Subject to the testimony of all witnesses called on behalf of the Applicant being true and accurate.Subject to the Application, alt attachments thereto, and all exhibits offered by the Applicant being accurate depictions of that which they purport to represent.The Applicant shall furnish proof that taxes have been paid through the current quarter and through the quarter in which it receives initial construction permits.Subject to the Applicant paying in full all application fees, review fees, engineering and consulting fees, and escrows.Subject to the Applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the subject property or project, including but not limited to the Board of Health, the Municipal Engineer, the Municipal Fire Official, and any County, State, or Federal agency; provided, however. that in the event that any other agency or authority shall require any changes in the plans herein approved, then any such changes must be submitted to this Board for review and approval. Further, if another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance of a regulation, which same affects this approval or any condition attached hereto, or otherwise requires any changes in the plans herein approved, then this matter shall be brought back before the Board for review of any such action, and the Board shall have the right to modify this approval and/or the conditions attached hereto as a result of any such action.The action of the Board in approving this Application shall not relieve the Applicant from responsibility for any damage caused by the project, nor does the Board of Adjustment or the City of Long Branch or any of their respective professionals and consultants, accept any responsibility for the design or the installation of the Project.Subject to the provisions of section 69-24 of the Zoning and Land Use Ordinances of the City of Long Branch, which section provides for the expiration of variances upon the date occurring one (1) year from the date of publication of the notice of determination, except upon the circumstances referenced in said ordinance section (or unless said time period is otherwise extended, or the variance relief is otherwise granted in conjunction with final approval of a site plan or major subdivision as provided in said ordinance section).Subject to the applicant complying with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements, including payment of any and all applicable affordable housing development fees, or otherwise demonstrating exemption therefrom. Specific Conditions Subject to the Applicant complying with all requirements and recommendations set forth in the Board Engineer's review letter dated October 14, 2025, and supplements thereto, if any.Subject to the Applicant recording a Deed Restriction upon the subject property providing that its basement shall never contain bedroom(s) and that there shall be no habitation of its detached garage/cabana. ROLL CALL VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR: GING, DEGNAN, ZASLOWE THOSE OPPOSED: 0 CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Resolution adopted ty the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Long Branch at its meeting held on June 8, 2026. DATED: JUNE 9, 2026 Erik Brachman, Secretary Tucci & Crupi, PC Frank J. Crupi, Esq. 464 Broadway Long Branch, NJ 07740 June 29 2026 LNYS0546159 $218.24