The Avalon Planning and Zoning Board heard three zoning applications at the May 13, 2025, meeting. Two of the applicants were requesting a site plan waiver, and one applicant was seeking a number of variances.
First, the Icona, located at 105 Eightieth Street, sought a site plan waiver for a proposed installation of 240 solar panels and related equipment. the Icona’s land use expert testified that the proposed installation does not require any variances. Specifically, there would be no increase in lot coverage, no change in building height, and no need for additional parking spaces. He also pointed out that under State Law, the project is considered to be an inherently beneficial use. The solar company’s project manager testified that the solar arrays related equipment will be installed in the building and that there will not be any perceptible noise associated with the solar panel operation. The Board ruled in favor of granting the requested waiver.
Next, MCE Property, LLC, located at 2516 – 2522 Dune Drive, sought a site plan waiver for a modification of their four-unit mixed-use condominium.The condo association wants to remove a nonconforming sign on the buildings and change the current roof line to accommodate the construction of a second-floor deck. Applicant’s land use planner and engineer testified that no variances are required and the the proposed changes are in keeping with other structures in the area. The Board granted the site plan waiver.
Finally, 7th Haven, LLC, located at 576 Seventh Street sought variances for setbacks and pool accessories. An attorney for a neighboring property owner challenged the propriety of the Board hearing this application because Applicant’s required notice of application was defective. Basically, Applicant’s attorney argued that while there were some defects in the notice, these were minor and that case law supports his position that minor technicalities should not prevent proceeding with the application. The neighbor’s attorney asserted that the proper location and time to view Applicant’s documents is not minor, and he cited case law that supported his position. In rebuttal, Applicant’s attorney made the point that the neighbor has the documents and is present; therefore, he had adequate notice. However, the Board was concerned that the absence of other interested parties could have been a result of inadequate notice. In the end, the Board ruled that the notice was inadequate. Consequently, it would not consider the application variances at this time.