January 19, 2006

MINUTES

The January 19, 2006 Regular meeting of The Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:45pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were Regular Board members: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker Alternate: Spader Absent: Leonard

Resolution Extension- Application#2003-13, Kelly Wall, 504 St. Louis Avenue; Block 87, Lot 11.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to extend Application #2003-13.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Resolution Extension – Application #2003-22, Donald & Rosemarie Canastra, 12A Inlet Drive

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Struncius to extend Resolution #2003-22.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-23: Linda and Tom Sullivan, 221 Baltimore Avenue, Block 126;lot 3.01. Applicant wishes to demolish existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with a 14′ x 20′ in-ground swimming pool. (Carried without notice) Linda Sullivan, applicant, sworn. Anthony Ginisi, applicants father and builder, sworn. Mr. Ginisi explained that the home now complies and they are just looking for the variance for the swimming pool. Building coverage with pool is now 35.27%. Struncius – Why are you not just moving the pool over? Linda Sullivan – we were trying to leave room for a patio. Palisi – The patio is all pavers and the driveway and you are still 57.26% on impervious coverage? Who did the calculations? Sullivan –The engineer did. The home without the pool comes in under on everything. Moberg – Let’s start with moving the pool over and get rid of that variance. Move it two feet in the southerly direction. Palisi – We need to figure out how to get the impervious down to 50%. Sullivan – I can have the engineer double check the figures. Wolfersberger – Now we are just dealing with building coverage.

Audience questions – none

Moberg – Mrs. Sullivan do you understand what the board is asking. We want the impervious down to 50% and the bump out removed from the pool. Mr. Galvin – I have the plans will be revised to have the pool setback from the rear and side property 10 feet. Impervious coverage will be brought down to 50%.

Audience comments – none

Deliberations –

Struncius – You have brought the home down under 30% and made the adjustments we are looking for. You are eliminating the need for a variance on impervious coverage. I am in favor because you have made other adjustments.

Conditions:
1.) The plan is to be revised to show that the pool will be setback 10 feet from the rear and side property line to comply with the ordinance.
2.) The impervious coverage is not to exceed the 50% allowed by the ordinance. The applicant is to remove a sufficient number of pavers to achieve this result.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Struncius to approve Application #2005-23 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions.

Mrs. Tooker stepped down from the following application.

Amend Application #2004-17: James Barrett, 502 New Jersey Avenue, Block 39;Lot 13; Applicant wishes to construct a covered front porch. Jim Barrett, applicant, sworn. Home is built within the set back area, but we did not allow for a staircase. The steps encroach 5 feet into the setback. The setback is 20 feet instead of 25 feet. My builder and engineer did not catch it. Galvin: The referral from the Building Department says 18 feet. Struncius – He counted the two steps allowed. Pictures entered A-3 (5 pictures) depicts how the setback of his home lines up with the neighbors. Barrett – Porch landing is 42 by 48 inches (treated white l lumber).
Audience questions – none

Deliberations –
Wolfersberger – Houses on either side encroach on the setback and I do not see an alternative. I do not think it infringes on the light or air of your neighbors. I am in favor. Struncius – I appreciate when applicants bring additional things. The pictures make it clearer. In favor. Palisi – As more homes are being built and have to meet flood elevations we have to take into account the additional stairs. In favor Moberg – No part of this porch will be covered. Barrett – correct Struncius – Do you plan on landscaping the foundation. Barrett – Yes

Condition – 1.) No part of the staircase is to be covered.
2.)Applicant is to install one or two three-foot tall foundation plantings.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2004-17 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Application amended with conditions

Application #2005-39, PLRJ; 504 Sea Avenue, Block 12; Lot 13; Applicant wishes to construct 1 Building containing 7 Garden Apartments and another building containing a commercial use on first floor with a second floor apartment. (Carried without notice) Do to the lack of seven members to vote on this application, Mr. Pardes request that the application be carried to February 2, 2006 without notice.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Struncius to carry application #2005-30 to February 2, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-11, Augustus Columbus Hayes Investment Group, Inc.; 105 Baltimore, Block 154; Lot 10. Applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling. (Carried without notice) Donald Ambrose, attorney for applicant. Mr. Senkel, owner of property, sworn. Albert Morris, licensed land surveyor, 52 years experience, credentials excepted. David Paulus, builder, sworn. Ambrose – Home has been moved to face Baltimore as the Board requested. Wolfersberger – I am not a fan of modular homes. They look like little boxes. Picture from previous meeting A-2 brought out. Moberg – If you had brought us a picture of the home from the last meeting – we would be done. Ambrose – We must not of been clear in what the board wanted. Moberg – We are already encroaching on the setback and now the stairs. Paulus – We will do the home in the picture, but have the stairs come down on the side to the driveway. Struncius – I will need you to come back. I want to see drawings. I need to know how high it is going to be. The picture does not show any elevations. Moberg – Flood elevation certificate will be needed. Palisi – I thought we were very clear at the last meeting what we wanted. If you come back with everything we have requested it should not take long.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application #2005-11 to February 2, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None
Application Carried

Application #2005-38, George & Jacqueline Massood, 311 Baltimore Avenue, Block 108, Lot 1. Applicant wishes to demolish existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling with an in-ground swimming pool. (Carried without notice) Cangelosi, Moberg, and Spader have listened to tapes of previous meeting. Dean Daley, professional architect explained how the home has been modified. The home is now under 30% and 15.58 is the front yard setback. Volume of attic has been reduced. Spader – You have taken off the back porch and there will just be stairs to some sort of patio? Daley – Yes Moberg – They have given up the pool and the deck. Pardes – The new plans have eliminated 2 variances. Building coverage in now under 30%. They have reduced the mass and eliminated the pool Struncius – What kind of siding? Daley – Cedar Impressions Palisi – We will want some kind of foundation plantings.

Audience questions – none

Deliberations –

Palisi – I appreciate all the effort that went into this. You listened to the neighbors and made the changes. You brought the height down, you have my vote. Moberg – You have listened to your neighbor’s concerns. The home has been cut back. Everything I heard and read from the tape and every alteration has been met. In favor. Wolfersberger – I would like to thank you for making the adjustments. In favor of revised plan with plantings. Struncius – I think you listened to the board. When you get to see this in 3D, you will get to the true aesthetic value. Cangelosi – I appreciate the architectural techniques that were used in the revisions. You have made substantial adjustments. I am in favor. Spader – Could we stipulate that they not apply for a pool for 3 to 5 years? Palisi – We talk about that all the time. Galvin- When they apply for the pool it would trigger a variance.

Conditions – 1.)The plans are to be revised to show the rear deck has been removed
2.) The siding is to be cedar impressions.
3.) The applicant is to install three foot tall foundation plantings along Baltimore and Central Avenue sides of the home.
4.) The decking and porch is not to be enclosed.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-38 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-38 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi and Spader…Yea
Opposed: None

Application approved

Application #2005-08, Sandra & Bob Bischoff, 128.05 Ocean Avenue; Block 121, Lot 8.01; Applicant wishes to convert existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling.
(Carried without notice) Tom Thomas, Professional Planner, sworn. Credentials accepted. Ex. Photo A-3, tax lot focus A-4. Area typical summer rental are located in the RR1 zone. 5-foot easement on left side of home is pedestrian access to about 12 lots. Before board because multi-family homes are not permitted in that zone. This lot could actually be subdivided. The applicants have made a number of improvements. The exterior has been cleaned up and all items pertaining to the commercial use has been removed. This is one of the larger lots in the area. Because this was a commercial lot it has 6 parking spaces across the front. It provides 3 parking spaces per apartment. Lower density than most properties in the area. Will not adversely affect neighborhood. Moberg – Once we take away the commercial use it is abandoned and will not be able to be a commercial use again. Is it also an abandonment of the commercial parking spaces? Pardes – There is nothing I know of that would require cubing and limiting the parking. Spader – The way the parking looks there it looks like a commercial use. Galvin: Are you suggesting that you would like to see it go from 6 to 4 parking spaces? Moberg – Yes and maybe get some of that impervious coverage eliminated. Galvin – I thought you were offering some parking so we could get some impervious coverage eliminated. Pardes – I would have no problem eliminating some parking, but not going down to two spaces. Moberg – Lets make it look more residential if you want a residential use. Spader – What is the reason you want a two family? Pardes – They were led to believe when they purchased it that they could rent it as a two-family. Now the financial reason is that they need the income. Sandra Bischoff, sworn. We come down for a couple of weeks, but most of the time we rent it. We would like to be able to spend more time here. Palisi – could you tell us where the other two-family homes are located? Bischoff: They are scattered around. Palisi- If we are going to take testimony that there are other two-families, shouldn’t we have facts to back that up? Galvin – We could have the engineer look into that. Thomas – Duplexes were never permitted; the ordinance was created to limit rooming houses. Robert Bischoff, sworn. The home being so large attracts large groups of riff-raff. Palisi – I appreciate the threat, but if you rent to that type of person you might lose your ability to rent. Robert Bischoff: If we are upstairs we can watch the renters. Spader– would you be willing to make it a condition that you only rent downstairs and that you occupy the upstairs. Pardes: They would not be willing to make that a condition.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations –

Moberg – Once again I feel the purpose of the "Master Plan" was to make this a single-family zone. I think subdividing the lot would be a good thing. The homes would be conforming. I don’t see any basic benefit. The 97% impervious coverage should be reduced. Cangelosi: I echo the Chairman’s sentiments. I do not see any reason to grant this variance. It does not support the Master Plan. Not in favor. Wolfersberger – I do not think it is consistent with the Master Plan Palisi – These are the days you hate sitting on the board. Negative impact having two rentals. Negative outweighs the positive.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mrs. Tooker to deny application #2005-08.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader.

Application denied

Meeting adjourned 10:55 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board