[brief] 1.  The construction does not leave 30% of the property with an open view of the waterfront.  (This requirement of the Scenic Resources Rule is not considered or discussed in the Settlement Agreement.)  2.  The proposed construction does not comply with the required 2 to 1 setback ratio.  [...] involves construction of a 99 foot high building with only an 88 foot setback from the boardwalk.  The setback must be approximately 200 feet.  3.  The proposed construction would be 20 feet taller and much bulkier than [...]'s fully stepped back building adjacent to the north of the [...] site.  Moreover, all the nearby buildings to the south of [...] are substantially stepped back.  The applicant's proposed block-like building rising straight up 99' is not visually compatible with its surroundings.  **30%  VIEW OF WATERFRONT**  [...] Avenue's proposed construction fails to provide a view corridor to the water front (boardwalk) that is 30% of the site's frontage facing the waterfront.  *NJAC*  7:7-16.10 (d)l.  Currently, the site, which is 225' wide along the waterfront, is empty and today has a 100% view corridor to the waterfront.  Aa11.  The proposed [...] apartment building will have side setbacks of 21.15' to the south and 34.56' to the north counting the balcony terrace overhangs or a total of about 56', which provides only a 25% view corridor to the waterfront whereas the Scenic Resources and Design Rule requires a 30% view corridor or about 67'.  Aa3; Aa18.  [...] ignores the 30% requirement and claims that the proposal meets the rule because of the perpendicular orientation of the building to the ocean.  However, even with a perpendicular orientation the building is simply too wide by about 12 feet.  Aa18.  The proposed [...] building violates *N.J.A.C.* 7:7-16.10(d)(l).  **2-TO-1 RATIO**  Instead of being stepped back from the boardwalk two times the height of the structure, the applicant has proposed a wall of apartments 99’ high and only 88’ plus or minus from the boardwalk.  The setback of the proposed building should be about 200’.  The design of [...] does not attempt to comply with the Rule at all, openly ignores the stepped back requirement, and unquestionably violates the Scenic Resources and Design Rule.  *N.J.A.C.* 7:7-16.10(d)(2).  VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDINGS  The [...] applicant intentionally ignored the Scenic Resources and Design Rule as though it did not exist and designed a building which would dwarf [...] Realty’s adjacent building and other buildings in the area in order to maximize profit.  See renderings of relevant buildings and aerial photo exhibit.  Aa48-Aa53.  [...]’s proposed building is in the middle of the rendering and [...] Realty’s is to its right.  Aa51.  Plainly the [...] building is not visually compatible with surrounding buildings.  As the renderings and aerial photos all show, buildings in the area are fully or at least substantially stepped back.  The proposed [...] building is not stepped back at all and it is far bulkier and taller than surrounding buildings.  The construction of [...], if permitted to proceed, would result in a building incompatible with the surrounding area and in violation of N.J.A. C. 7:7-16.10 (c).  Aa5-Aa12; Aa48-Aa53.  POINT II