March 15, 2007

MINUTES

The March 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. Simon, Mrs. Tooker, Mr. Cangelosi Alternates: Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve and memorialize the minutes from March 1, 2007 minutes.

Application #2007-04-John & Marie Mercun; 409 Trenton Avenue, Block 78; Lot 5; Applicant replaced an existing fence with a code compliant pool barrier at a height of 6 feet that had been in the side yard area. John Mercun, applicant, sworn, stated that the existing wooden stockade fence had deteriorated and posed a safety hazard. It was not serving any purpose and he employed a fence company to install a new fence. Mrs. Petrillo had informed Mr. Mercun that if the new fence would continue to be 6 foot along the side of the home he would need a variance. Mr. Mercun explained this to the fence installer, yet while Mr. Mercun was away he installed a 6-foot pool barrier fence along a 10-foot section of the side of the home anyway. Mr. Mercun requests that the Board allow him to keep the 10-foot section of fence due to the fact that is home is located across the street from the park and would increase the safety. Entire fence is located inside the property line. No audience questions/comments.
Mr. Struncius has arrived.
Deliberations

Mr. Moberg – Though the fence is 10 feet where 4 feet is allowed, it is nothing more than replacing a previous fence. The previous fence was an eyesore and safety hazard. Fencing around a pool is mandatory. I believe this fence is a benefit to the neighbor’s and homeowner. I see no negative affect what so ever.

Mr. Reilly – As I said I visited the property and I agree with what Mr. Moberg said. I also felt that this is a more attractive solution then if we had gone down from 6 to 4 feet, it would have chopped it up. I am in favor.

Mr. Cangelosi – I agree with everything I have heard so far and I would like to point out that the applicant has made every effort to minimize the impact of the new fencing by installing the fence in the same perimeter of the old fence when he could of moved it out a couple of feet towards his neighbor. I do not see any negative impact.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Simon to approve application #2007-04 of John and Marie Mercun 409 Trenton Avenue.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Ardito…………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-44 – Home Mark Homes, 604 Cramer, Block 91.01/Lot 12; Applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling. Exhibits Entered; A-3 willow plan and
A-4 computerized drawing entered. Mark Kitrick, attorney for applicant. Dennis McKenna, applicant stated that a variance (9 inches) is needed for lot width. Variance is deminimus. Structure on property was demolished. Mr. Moberg inquired about the two options for the home? Dennis McKenna replied that both homes are stick built. Beachy looking one has a lot of rooflines and a full porch. Willow model also has a full porch. Lot is 50(almost) by 200 feet. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner; Credentials accepted. 49.4 feet is the width of this lot. I took a look at an additional 5 lots on Cramer and they are all a little short in width. Lot is 9,500 square feet where 5,000 feet is required. I believe the plan complies with the MLUL, provides adequate space, home will provide aesthetically pleasing character for the neighborhood. He believes variance can be granted without detriment to zoning ordinance, master plan and public good.

No audience questions/comments

Mr. Cangelosi inquired why the northerly side of the home does not have any windows? Dennis McKenna replied because they were close to the home next door. He would like the option open to add windows. Mr. Cangelosi replied that he looks at homes without windows as not being aesthetically pleasing. Dennis McKenna stated that he could add bedroom windows. Mark Kitrick stated that he believes this variance is deminimus. Once this home is constructed it will enhance the neighborhood. It is a significant upgrade from the home that was previously there. No negative impact to the surrounding homes.

Deliberations

Mr. Moberg – What are you going to do about 8 inches? It was interesting that Mr. Burdick found that every lot on the street to the North is deminimus of 8 inches. I see no negative impact for a project such as this. All building will be behind setbacks. I am in favor of this application.

Mrs. Tooker – It is a shame that you had to spend all this time and money for 8 inches. It will be lovely. Good luck

Mr. Reilly – I agree that this is a deminimus type thing. I am glad to see that your buyers had the good taste to go with the beach model. Mr. Reilly inquired to make sure that the home was facing the street. He was reassured that it was.

Conditions]

1. Applicant may construct either architectural plan but otherwise the applicant
will need to submit a revised architectural plan to the board.

2. Property is to comply with all other zoning requirements.

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Struncius to approve application #2006-44 of Home Mark Homes with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Ardito…………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-43 – Penny & Fred Ficociello, 1601 West Street, Block 178.04; Lot 7; Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with an in-ground pool. Mark Kitrick, attorney for applicant. Exhibits entered – A-3 Photos A & B; A-4 Picture of pool; A-5 architectural plans. Applicant proposes to construct a new modular home to replace the home they have lived in since 1993. Variances required for lot width, front-yard setback, rear yard setback, and rear yard setback for the pool. Robert Burdick is here to discuss those issues with the board. Penny Ficociello, applicant, sworn, home is basically falling apart (leaky roof). Instead of remodeling we prefer to knock down and rebuild a bigger home so we can accommodate my ailing mother in law. Applicant only has neighbors on south side; the other side of the home abuts the railroad property. Mr. Struncius questions the calculations on the application. He stated that even with the reduction of the pool out of building coverage it would not be an 18% difference from what the Building Department calculated. Mr. Burdick stated that he recalculated the figures and the building coverage is 23.8% and he will stand by his figures. This is a uniquely configured lot; it has two front yards with the railroad on one side. The best way to utilize this lot was to make a long narrow home. Applicant is proposing a pool that will be located 5 feet of the property line. The in-ground pool will be replacing an existing above ground pool. Mechanicals will be located in rear of home next to rear steps and have proper pool barrier fence installed. Mr. Burdick believes the home will bring an aesthetic improvement and enhance the neighborhood. The only negative is the home will be closer to the railroad. Mr. Reilly is confused by the application; the square footage calculations seem to be excessive for the proposed home. Mr. Struncius has concerns; he feels some things are generalities and reminds Mr. Burdick that steps are included in building coverage. Approximate square footage of home is 2900 square feet. Mr. Galvin clarifies that the Board is trying to catch up where the application is deficient. Mr. Cangelosi cannot understand why the application is so far off. Mr. Reilly hates to hold up the application, but he cannot make them work. Mr. Moberg states that Mr. Burdick has corrected the calculations to 25.5% building coverage. Mr. Struncius has never seen an application where all the figures are off; he said it is like they are looking at another home. Mr. Moberg stated that the building coverage variance has been eliminated; 23 feet to steps and 13.3 feet to porch front yard variance. Pool will be moved to 10 feet off southerly property line. Flood elevation will be at 12 feet; Mr. Moberg requests a landscape plan for foundation cover. Mr. Struncius concern is that they do not have floor to ceiling heights or roof pitch dimensions. Dennis McKenna, builder, sworn, stated that the home would be 33 feet high. Mr. Simon inquired about the lack of windows on the south side of the home. Mr. Moberg concludes that the Board will be using Mr. Burdick calculations and that will be reflected in the resolution.

Conditions:

1. The home is to be constructed in accordance to the plan that was shown to the Board at the time of the meeting.

2. The Building Department shall confirm that the building coverage at time of construction will not exceed 25.5%. This is not a limitation on the future development of the home.

3. The pool mechanicals and fencing are to comply with the ordinance.

4. Home is not to exceed 35 feet in height.

5. The home is not to exceed 2900 feet in habitable space.

6. There will be a 23-foot setback to west Street and a 13-foot setback to North Street.

7. Pool is to comply with side setback requirement.

8. Applicant is to submit a landscape plan of foundation plantings to be reviewed by Board Engineer.

9. Home is to utilize cedar shake vinyl impression siding.

10. Windows are to be added to the second floor south side of the home.

11. Application has been found to be defective and this resolution shall be the control.

Deliberations:

Mr. Struncius – First of all I want you to know that I am in favor of this. It will be an aesthetic enhancement to the area, but we are going to put some precautionary measures into this. Corner lot setbacks are almost always impossible to meet. Your overall building coverage is 25.5%, so we did not over maximize coverage. If the train tracks were not behind you I would think that the pool is a little bit forced on this lot. It really is not the space for it.

Mr. Reilly- I to think this is a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and will not have any negative impact and meets the families needs.

Mr. Moberg – This piece of property is in its own little world at the south side of town. Actually on three sides it has no bearing on anything. The only concern is the southerly neighbor with the 5-yard pool setback that we eliminated by moving it 5 feet north. It will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. In favor.

Mr. Cangelosi – I believe this property is burdened at a higher level than many other properties that we look at. I see the positive enhancement to the neighborhood. No negative impact to the neighbor’s light and air. I am in favor of this application.

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2006-44 of Penny and Fred Ficociello with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Struncius, Cangelosi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Ardito……………..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Struncius to approve the Board of Adjustment annual report for 2006 and recommendations for 2007.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly ………………………….Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi second Mr. Ardito by to approve the new application and present it to the Borough attorney and Mayor and Council for review.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Ardito………………Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board