February 1, 2007

MINUTES

The February 1, 2007 Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mrs. Tooker, Mr. Palisi and Mr. Struncius Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve and memorialize the minutes from January 18, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting.

Vote: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mrs. Tooker, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Reynolds……………………………………………………………………………Yea

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2006-51 of Thomas Leach, 322 Richmond Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger; Struncius; Tooker; Leonard………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2006-35 of Antonio Nobre, 300 Chicago Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger; Tooker; Leonard; Reynolds………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2006-41 of Vito Ritigliano with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger; Struncius; Tooker; Leonard………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-48 of Jenkinson’s South, Ocean and Trenton Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger; Struncius; Tooker; Leonard………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Amend Application #2005-47 of George and Linda Meyer. Applicant requested an amendment to his resolution allowing a small landing (3’x 9′) in the rear of his home. Applicant will still be under the 32% granted building coverage.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to permit the amendment to allow the landing.

Vote: Wolfersberger; Palisi; Struncius; Moberg; Tooker; Leonard
Opposed: None

Application #2006-40 – 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC, 1301 Ocean Avenue; Block 18.01;Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to renovate existing 3-story guest house and to consolidate two rooming units into apartment space and create a new apartment for a total of 7 apartments. Property is a pre-existing non-conforming use containing 6 apartments and 2 rooms. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. John C. Amelchenko, Professional Architect, credentials accepted. Property known as the Carousel Inn (formerly the Kerry House). Elimination of the two rental rooms in favor of making an additional apartment will be more compatible with a SF5 zone. Currently 2-story balcony at northeast corner of existing structure with awning. Plan on pulling balcony back from Washington Avenue property line and putting on permanent roof. Adding balcony to exiting third floor; No plans for expansion of enclosed heated space. South side there is currently a second story balcony that applicant plans on roofing. This is an attempt to catch some of the current views to the ocean. These new porches will give a stronger identity to the building architecturally. Third floor balcony will be totally within footprint of property. Two-story balcony in rear will provide entrance to second floor unit. Mr. Moberg inquired how much outdoor useable space there is now and how much is proposed? (300 square feet to 500 square feet of outdoor useable space) Rear set back will comply; Side setback will be improved from 3.1 to 5 feet; Impervious 51.4% to 53.3%; Building coverage will comply and height will remain the same. Exhibits entered – A-3 Color rendering of Ocean Avenue elevations; A-4 Side elevations; A-5 first floor plan; A-6 Second floor plan; A-7 Third floor plan; A-8 Site plan; A-9 Exterior photo board. Site plan revised to have 13 parking spaces, which is consistent with required parking. Applicant will provide a garbage enclosure; bumper stops will be provided in parking lot. Richard Striano, one of the principal owners, sworn. Mr. Striano stated that the Carousel Inn had been converted to Condo previous to his purchase. The Inn is rented year round; it is full right now. They are already taking reservations for the summer. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner; Credentials accepted. Bulk variances under 2%; aesthetic improvement; little less parking requirement and slightly reducing use of property; project is consistent with the MLUL.

Audience Questions/Comments

Vince Vitale, sworn– 1303 Ocean Avenue – Lives directly across the street; very concerned with the garbage on the property. Has become an unwilling part time caretaker for the property. Cans are left out on the curb on the wrong days and cats and seagulls are strewing the garbage all over the street. He has had to pick the cans up many times. There is no on site management.

Richard Striano – Apologized for the inconvenience; promised to rectify the problem.

CarlaVitale, sworn – 1303 Ocean Avenue – All of that being said, as long as the garbage is taken care of and there is proper management I think it is a beautiful project and that condo’s would be better for the area.

Deliberations

Mr. Struncius- Architecturally, although the property has been neatly kept the building is a little goofy the way it is designed. Certainly what we are doing aesthetically is worlds apart. The 1.9% increase in impervious coverage is deminimus for this property. In favor

Mr. Moberg- Agreeing with Mr. Struncius and Mr. Pardes in positive criteria with the condominium situation. There haven’t been any problems besides the garbage situation. Safety wise I am sure there are a lot of things that will be brought up to fire code with renovations. In favor

Mr. Leonard – I agree. Architecturally it is going to be a better-looking building. Moving porch off property line and move parking spots and putting in buffer. In favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger – Considering the benefits of the project, they outweigh the negative. All the positives that have been identified by my colleagues I would be in favor of this project.

Mr. Palisi – I just want to echo everyone else’s sentiments. The balconies will not be looking into anyone’s yards. Those of us who live here consider this a family town and take a lot of pride in it. Please be diligent in policing your property. In favor

Conditions

1. Applicant is to add car stops to the gravel parking lot.

2. Applicant is to create a centralized enclosed facility for the storage of garbage and recyclables cans. In a location to be approved by the Board’s Engineer. The cans are to have hinged covers.

3. Any proposed interior construction must conform to building codes. The applicant must obtain the required building permits.

4. A landscaping plan is to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval. The Board would like the applicant to provide a buffer (7 feet) along the south and southeast property line.

5. Decks are to remain open to allow rainwater to filtrate into the ground.

6. Condominiums documents are to be provided to the Board’s attorney for review and approval.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2006-40 of 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC with conditions.

Vote: Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Reynolds………………………………………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2007-02 – 1301 Avenue, LLC, – 1 Ocean Avenue; Block 176, Lot 44- Applicant wishes to convert an existing vacant restaurant to a single-family residence and to maintain and expand second floors to that and two (2) other residences at the site. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner –Pie shaped parcel at the corner of Inlet and Ocean Avenue. Several pre-existing bulk variances. Mr. Savacool letter points out that this is not an inherently beneficial use. Applicant must show special reasons why this should be granted and how the positive criteria outweigh the negative criteria. Two residential properties are not in accordance with the ordinance. Looking to convert one story restaurant to two-story residential unit. Add second story to garage apartment and add second story to residence at southeast. Existing restaurant has been vacant for a year. There is no parking available for commercial use. Therefore the appropriate use of this property is limited; that is why we believe the proposed use is the best use. Currently residential use is the rule, not the exception. We also point out parking in prime time is limited. Variances are required for lot area of 7,783 square feet versus 10,000 square feet; variances for lot depth, front, rear, side yard set backs; building and impervious coverage. Reducing building coverage slightly, reducing impervious by 12% with removal of pavement in front of restaurant. . There will be an increase in height in all three units. Mr. Burdick believes it complies with the MLUL. Consistent with residential density in the area. Plan will provide upgraded visual appearance and use will eliminate odors from existing restaurant. There will be some loss of air and light. We believe the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Leonard inquired if they will be raising the buildings with an "S" opposed to razing them with a "Z". (Mr. Burdick replied raising them with an "S"). Parking spaces will be assigned. Mr. Savacool said he does not know how they would elevate these buildings. He has to believe that the two rear buildings would have to be leveled; in other words razed with a "Z". Mr. Leonard also commented on the stacked parking. Landscaping will be provided; sidewalks will be replaced.
Exhibits Entered – A-3- Unit 1, 2nd floor plan front elevation; A-4 Unit 2, 2nd floor front elevation; A-5 – Unit 3, 2nd floor front elevation; A-6, Board with 6 photos; A-7 Preliminary & final site plan revised; A-8 Existing conditions

Audience Questions

Philip Hembrough, 4B Inlet Drive – Voiced his concerns in reference to losing his sunshine, flowers, and view of the water and is worried about the safety of the children in the area.

Carolyn Kelly – 4B Inlet Drive – If building 2 is increasing 8.7 feet to 28.4 feet and my house is at 16.5, it will not affect my light and air? (Burdick- yes it will)

Nina Halter – 68 A Inlet Drive – What is the total height of each building? (Unit 1- 30.4feet, Unit 2- 28.4feet, Unit 3- 29.3feet)

John Capuano- Is the roof area going to be increased? (To be answered by architect)

John C. Amelchenko, sworn, credentials accepted. Summarized architectural points. Will be coming up 3 feet from grade line to meet flood elevation. Plan is to build on existing footprint. Roof over hangs may be larger than existing. Ordinance states that we must provide retention for run off. Building that will replace the restaurant is a total of 800 square feet on first floor and 1,000 square feet on second floor not including balcony. We tried to be consistent with colors so it looks like a community. It is reverse living; bedrooms on first floor, kitchen on second. Setback of home in front is 7 feet off property line. We do not have exact location on the two residences in the rear, but we believe it is in excess of 5 feet. Mr. Moberg inquired if the applicant needed a variance for multiple buildings on one lot. Mr. Pardes commented that the units would be condos. Mr. Palisi inquired if these could be townhouses? Mr. Galvin replied no.

Audience Questions/Architect/Engineer

Carolyn Kelley – Isn’t it true that grills are not allowed on balconies? (JA – I am not aware of that) Where will the a/c units be located? (Unit 1- Condenser behind Octagon. Unit 2 – Under balcony, Unit 3 – In rear yard)

William Lowe – How are you going to get 6 cars in and out without juggling?

Nina Halter – Curious as to how the houses will be used. Will they be occupied year round or will they be rentals? Will there be changes with the utilities? Is any fencing planned?

Richard Striano, applicant, sworn – Applicant would like to occupy the converted restaurant building for the summer. The other two units will be converted to condos. They might be a private sale or could be rentals. There are fewer bedrooms so there would be fewer renters.

John Capuano – Do you think it is safe to be backing out on that street?

Bob Burdick – I think it can be done. I would rather see them drive straight out, but they have been backing out all along.

Audience Comments

Philip Hembrough – 4 B Inlet Drive – The buildings in back, there foundations are gone and there is oil in the ground.

Kevin Thomson, 7 Ocean Avenue – My opinion is that this is poor planning. The lot is already over utilized. I do not believe that this is what council wanted with the zone change. You are trying to shoe horn things into a crowded area.

Carolyn Kelly, 4Binlet Drive- I think the drawings are beautiful but they are massive for the site. There are no renderings of the back or sides. I do not know what I would be looking at. I believe the condominiums would be problematic. Once ownership transfers anything can happen. That is an extremely busy corner; people driving the wrong way, people driving in three lanes and I believe this will raise safety issues. Pictures entered as O-1, O-2 and O-3.

Marian Lowe, Inlet Drive – Pictures entered as O-4, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8, O-9. Cars hitting our wall cause part of the traffic congestion. Pictures depict the proximity of their home to the restaurant and the wall that gets hit.

Bob Solt – Previous owner of property. The oil spill was in 2001. It was cleaned up and we received the proper paperwork from the state. We have fit 11 to 12 cars on the property when family came down.

John Capuano, sworn – The homeowners who are renting keep raising the cost. If they took consideration for legitimate rentals, people would stay longer. If this is one lot why are there three structures on it? There are obligations on a condo. This project sounds like it is going to be a hardship.

Deliberations

Mr. Moberg – I agree with Mr. Solt 100%. Climate of the MC zone has changed, and has gotten slower as far as a business aspect. Single-family housing along Inlet Drive all the way around is truly a MC area, but it is all residential. Thirty-five feet is allowed here if they wanted to put an apartment on that restaurant, I believe. Single families are not permitted in this zone. This case has many positive criteria and negatives.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I can’t disagree with my colleague more. The more we eliminate the business sites the less viable that area becomes Marine Commercial. Architecturals are outstanding. I have no problem with the two existing residences. I am not about to rezone by variance. I do believe it will be a negative impact. I am not going to roll this town up by closing all the businesses. I think a creative individual can make that business work.

Mr. Struncius – This is one where I am truly torn. Both proposals have a good intent. As has been stated, everything is beautiful, but having said that I am torn in the sense that council just passed this ordinances saying not to put any new residences in the MC zone. I want to ere on the side of caution. They couldn’t put an apartment there and go 35 feet because of the setback and they would have to come before us and I wouldn’t let them do that. The parking and the traffic have been like that for my 40 years. I want to be cautious and patient where I go with this. I am leaning towards a no right now.

Mr. Leonard – I have jumped on both sides of the fence with this. Traffic is an issue everywhere in town, what does concern me is the ordinance. Should the Master Plan be updated and allow homes I do not think they would want three homes on one lot.

Mr. Reynolds- I spent a lot of time walking around this site this weekend envisioning what two-stories would look like. Two-stories there are going to block the air and light of the surrounding residences. I will not rezone by variance. I would be against it.

Mr. Palisi – Clearly there is some negative criteria; there is an impact on air and light. An ordinance has recently been passed not allowing residences. This is clearly a wonderful neighborhood; every time there is an issue you are all here. The reality is that this will be a less intense use. It will minimize parking and is aesthetically pleasing. It is not our position to rezone by variance.

Mrs. Tooker – I agree more with Greg. It is just really hard with businesses, but we have this ordinance.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds second by Mr. Struncius to deny application #2007-02,1 Ocean Avenue.

Vote: Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Leonard and Reynolds
Opposed: Palisi and Tooker

Meeting adjourned at 11:40pm Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board