February 15, 2007

MINUTES

The February 15, 2007 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mrs. Tooker, Mr. Cangelosi and Mr. Struncius Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Reynolds

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve and memorialize the minutes of the February 1, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting.

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

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve and memorialize the action and vote denying application #2007-02 of 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC located at 1 Ocean Avenue.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Leonard to approve and memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-40 of 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC located at 1301 Ocean Avenue with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote amending application #2005-47 of George and Linda Meyer

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

Application #2006-32 – Joseph Auriemma & Majoree McGhee, 111 Arnold Avenue; Block 98/Lot 6; Applicant wishes to remove existing garage and replace with a 24′ x 36′ two-car garage with workshop and storage areas. Peter Kearns attorney for applicant. Greg Moberg has listened to the previous meeting and signed an affidavit stating that fact. Joe Auriemma, applicant sworn. Photo showing garage on Westerly side entered as A-6. Peter Kearns states that the finished garage will be 16 feet from finished floor and 18.1 feet from the curb (peak of roof). Mr. England, board engineer, commented that the structure is measured from the curb not the slab and if it is 18 feet from curb it will require a variance. If you reduce the height to 16 feet you would not require a variance. Joe Auriemma stated that the garage would be used for cars and storage. Marjoree McGhee, applicant sworn, stated that they take a lot of pride in the house and have done a lot of work to upgrade the home and the garage takes away from the home aesthetically. Mr.Wolfersberger is concerned with the expansion of non-conformity. I appreciate the fact the garage floods, but from my point of view I would not be in favor of 24′ by 24′. Mr. Reilly inquired if they live here fulltime? Mr. Auriemma replied that they live in Point Boro and want to live here fulltime but that this is the stumbling block. Peter Kearns stated that this would be a true improvement to the property; there would be a reduction of the flood issues. We feel the positive criteria outweighs the negative. Mr. Struncius does not feel that this is a complicated issue; it is a garage. I think there is a size that the board might be comfortable with. Mr. Moberg does not have a trouble with the application because he understands the hardship. Mr. Leonard said he would be comfortable with 20′ by 20′. Mr. Reynolds also does not have an issue with the application. Marjoree McGhee said they would be comfortable with 20′ x 24′. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that they are already over on building coverage. Mr. Galvin explained that the Board is trying to help them because they realize that some of the members are not comfortable with the application as presented; if you are willing to modify the proposal, now is the time. Peter Kearns stated at this time his applicants are willing to amend the plan to 22′ x 22′. Mr. Moberg said the board members did some calculations and 20′ by 24′ would give them more square footage. The applicants agree to amend the plan to 20′ x 24′.

Deliberations

Mr. Cangelosi – I think this property is burdened by flooding. I think there is some positive criteria to their existing plans. I will be happy to vote for the application.

Mr. Struncius- I think Mr. Wolfersberger has a very good point. There comes a point with building coverage that we have to be careful. You have worked with us to minimize the affect. I think there is an aesthetic improvement. There is a 45-foot garage right behind you and you are installing a recharge system to deal with the run off. I think it is a good application.

Mr. Moberg – I had no problem with the original application. I believe this is a hardship situation; the crawl space was not available. I did not see a negative impact. They were eliminating a non-conformity; quite obviously I am in favor even though the first application was fine.

Mrs. Tooker – It should be noted that impervious coverage is going down under the allowable and they are clearing up the set back issues which is good. This application is fine with me.

Mr. Leonard – Height was never an issue with me; the problem was the area of the garage. You compromised and came down and really tried to work with us so I am in favor of this.

Mr. Reilly – The thing that makes me want to vote for this is the special situation and the hardship you have with the flooding or I would be more concerned about the height. You have worked very well with us and you have listened. We are just trying to meet our obligations and I would be in favor of this.

Mr. Reynolds – I have gone by a couple of times and the homes are beautiful and I think this will improve the property.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I think that it is meeting the positive criteria and the recharge system is a plus and it is an aesthetic improvement. We have addressed the setback issue, which is a plus. The applicants have worked with us and the flood issue is a major concern. When all is said and done I am in favor of the application with the conditions.

Conditions
1. Access to the attic storage area of the garage shall only be accessed by means of pull down stairs.

2. The garage is never to be used as habitable space.

3. The utilities in the garage will be limited to electric and a slop sink.

4. The applicant is to submit a grading plan and cut sheets of the structure to the Board’s Engineer verifying that the garage will not exceed 18.1 feet in height from the top of curb, not including the cupola. If the cupola is constructed, it is not to exceed 3 feet in height.

5. The garage is to be reduced in size to 20 by 24 feet.

6. The recharge plan is to be constructed as shown on the plan.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application#2006-32 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard, Reilly and Reynolds…….Yes
Opposed: None

Application #2006-12 – Miguel C. Diaz, 711 Atlantic Avenue, Block 57; Lot 6; Applicant wishes to add 10′ by 28′ foot addition to back of home. Miguel C. Diaz, applicant, sworn, revisited his testimony as to why he needs the addition; bathroom size downstairs and the lack of closet space for coats. He only has one closet downstairs at this time. Application has been reduced from 36.9% building coverage of original submission to 35% building coverage. He did not want to change front of home (wrap around open porch) to improve building coverage or alter the rear because they need the off street parking. Applicant worked with architect to research board recommendations. Recommendation #1 was to knock out a wall in the living room but that would cause lateral instability since it is a bearing wall. #2 was to build up; while this would give some additional space the architect was concerned with the stability of the foundation. I had a mason examine the foundation and he found that it was not adequate to carry a second story. One of the things they are trying to do is keep the volume and save the dogwood tree that would be affected if they built up. One story would allow them to keep the volume and save the tree and improve the nonconformities. Home would remain unaltered from the front. We plan to live here and pass this home onto our children. Glenn Henderson, (applicant’s neighbor to the east) sworn. I am most impacted and I have no problem with the addition. He is a good neighbor. Mr. Wolfersberger commented that 8% of this building coverage is an open porch. The applicant wants to maintain the character of the home and does not want to enclose the porch, which is open underneath also.

Deliberations:
Mr. Struncius – Setbacks are 9 feet and 12 feet; so we are not pressed up against the neighbor’s properties. I would prefer this type of enlargement; I like the gable affect. You have taken a minimal approach to gain the space. I would add the recommendation that any other future enhancements to the home would have to come back before the board. I would hate to see this become a big box over the foundation.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I agree with everything he just said and I need the rest of the board members to convince me that 35% is OK.

Mr. Moberg – I will try to let Mr. Wolfersberger see my thinking. The options of this property are limited due to the setbacks. The character of this home is tremendous and it is very well kept. What they need is a necessity; bathrooms and living space. I can see the percentage because it is keeping the character of the home. I believe this will be a definite improvement to the neighborhood. I agree that 35% is big but not on an older home.

Mr. Leonard – I like the house and understand why you wouldn’t want to do anything to the front porch. I will be honest; the only thing that is still on my mind is the 35%. The only thing I wrestle with is that could an architect put an addition on this house that does not go all the way across and still get you that bathroom, closet and space that you need.

Mr. Reilly – The way I look at this is what drives the 35% is the porch, plain and simple. The porch is a very important architectural and nice feature. That is what drives this variance. I tend to agree with Mr. Diaz. I think he has moved the whole back out the minimum extent he can and to have a little cut out would not look good. I am going to be in favor of this application despite my concern over the 35%.

Mr. Reynolds – I think the house is beautiful. If I were voting I would be in favor with the conditions.

Mr. Cangelosi – I think this is a classic example of a lot coverage ratio that does not give you the whole story. You have managed to preserve the character of this home, which is a Dutch Colonial. You are using space that is impervious to begin with and keeping the addition low to the ground. If we approve this I would want to see you come before the board if you are adding cubic volume to this space in the future. I would be in favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger- From my perspective, at this particular point; the style of the home you cannot do much to it or you loose the character. 8% of the building coverage is the porch, it is not living space. At this point I am leaning to vote in favor with the stipulations.

Conditions

1. The Board has granted the addition to allow the applicant to increase the building coverage to thirty-five (35%) percent based upon the limitations of this structure and the applicant’s intention to preserve the character of this home as a Dutch Colonial. The Board hereby reserves the right to consider any modification to this home; specifically any requests to expand the second floor must be submitted to the Board for review and approval, even if no additional variance relief is required.

2. All future building permits for the second floor must be submitted to the Board for review and approval unless the home is brought into conformance with the building coverage requirements of the ordinance.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2006-12 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-38 Railroad Square Partnership 413 Railroad Square, Block; 94 Lots; 13-19; Applicant wishes to construct 13 Condominium Units consisting of retail/office space on first floor and two level residential units on the second floor. Application was not heard at this time due to a deficient notice.

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board