March 15, 2018

Minutes

March 15, 2018

The March 15 2018 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: Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly, vice chair Reilly, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo and Mr. Davis
Chairman Struncius arrived late

Absent – Spader and Crasper

Also present – Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet – court Reporter

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of February 1, 2018
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Memorialize resolutions

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2018-03 of Kerry Eckelman – 5 Stony Road with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Davis

Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2018-07 –Thomas Abraham – 1208 Ocean Avenue with conditions

In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-19 – 1031 Ocean Ave. LLC – 1301 Ocean Avenue with conditions

In favor: Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2017-34 of Cassie Childers Trust – 809 Trenton Avenue –

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, DePolo and Davis
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve the amendment to resolution #2014-27 of Dewey Imhoff – 217 Philadelphia

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2018-12 – David Barra – 126 Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 9.02 – Applicant wishes to utilize existing storage space as garage.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, entered exhibit A-3 – photos, reviewed request for curb cut and reviewed last application. David Barra rescinded his request for a curb cut and garage during the previous application. David Barra, applicant, sworn, stated that he has presently been using the space for storage as stated in his testimony in the first application. David Barra said he takes great pride in his property and does not use it as a rental anymore; reviewed why he thought it would not be a safety issue and that it would improve parking by removing two cars off the street. Exhibit A -4 – Photos of surrounding houses and curb cuts.

Ray Savacool visited the property and stated that a parking stall is 23 feet long, we have tried to have them 20 feet long if there is a driveway to back into, what he noticed that there is very little buffer near this parking space. It is a very small space and question if that is a legitimate space that would be left. The setback of the house is just a couple feet off the property line; you would be backing out and not be able to see people walking – it is very tight. David Barra stated that the parking spot is 18 feet 8 inches – one of the parking spots near his house is 19 feet. David Barra showed a home whose garage is only 15 inches to the sidewalk where his is 84 inches.

Robert Burdick PE/PP, sworn stated that we have 2 parking spaces in front of this dwelling, if we have the opportunity to access this structure he will be able to park 2 vehicles under his dwelling. There will be one parking space left after the curb cut that will be easily accessible – it will be tight but usable. Robert Burdick stated that the rear cameras on the cars of today will help to safely back out of the garage. Mr. Reynolds commented that he thought not having a garage was an important part of the granting of the previous resolution.

Mr. Dixon has recused himself from the Barra application

Deliberations

Kelly – First of all I have learned a lesson – should ask why did you come back a second time. Applicants reevaluate a situation and want to come back – I sat at the meeting and Ray Savacool brought up that the setback was intrusive on pedestrians and that the space should be used for storage. There are limited parking spots on that road. I park in front of my house and I have room in my driveway for 4 cars. Most of the residents do the same thing. There just isn’t enough parking – we have to be concerned about the parking. The area is already limited and not in favor.

Reynolds – Going back to previous case – the setback and the vehicle hanging over the sidewalk were the reason we did not allow it. What happened is what I intended when we voted on in in 2013.

Schneider – I don’t see any benefit to the community; I see a safety issue – it is not easy to back out of a driveway. I believe that part of the previous resolution was to eliminate the garage.

DePolo – I think there is definitely a safety issue; parking down there is tough and to eliminate 1 spot, but I really think you are eliminating two spots because that one is undersized and I think you will be creating a scenario where the police will be called because a large vehicle parked there and is blocking someone’s driveway. Too much foot traffic and it will be too hard negotiating backing out.

Davis – Concur with what has been said so far – in terms of concerns of traffic and public safety. The voicing of those concerns it what had it removed from the first application.
Reilly – Nothing to add

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to deny the request of application #2018-12 – Davis Barra 126 Ocean Avenue

In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application denied
Let the record reflect that John Dixon has returned to the dais

Application #2018-02 – William/Jill Jackson – 4A Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 43.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant 2 story dwelling. Use variance – single family not permitted.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the property is located by the inlet. There is a little parking in the middle of the court that will remain. Home does not have a letter of substantial damage. Ronald Meeks, Professional architect, credentials accepted. Ronald Meeks stated it is a small lot with no frontage – building is in disrepair and it will be demolished and replaced with a FEMA compliant structure. Ronald Meeks reviewed the floor plan of the new house and the elevations. It will have a gable roof running front to back of the house; the height is 32.6 feet from grade which is in compliance. Chairman Struncius questioned the height – but Ray Savacool stated it is a use variance and residential homes are not permitted in the MC zone. If we were in a SF5 zone the height would comply. Ronald Meeks stated that garbage will be kept in the garage until garbage day. Entrance to the home is through the garage – second level is the sleeping area – third level is the kitchen/dining area – half bath and access to the balcony and access to the porch. Chairman Struncius questioned the dual garage doors (Easy access to the property). Rear area of the house will be utilized for green area. (Picnic table) Slightly less than half the area under the home is dedicated for storage – shed will be removed. Slide 9 of presentation showed the fence, shower and shed that will be removed. John Jackson stated that all property deeds run out to the center of the lot. Ronald Meeks reviewed requested variances and gave Planning testimony.

Audience comments

Carolyn Kelly – 4B Inlet Drive – inquired how many cars fit in the garage (1 car) – What is maximum occupancy of house (4) – no outside shower planned (there will be no outside shower) – will you have a grill (yes- in back yard) Worried about her site line. Carolyn is worried about her access being blocked during construction. She had problems with another home that was constructed. – She also had her water turned off previously without notification and does not want that to happen again. The applicant stated that they will be considerate and not block the easement. Questioned where the dumpster and port a john will be located. (In front of the property)

Jeff Kutuski – 6 Inlet Drive – Questioned soil samples and if they will be taken (Yes) Worried about pile driving and damage to his home.

William Jackson, applicant, sworn, stated that this will be a year round home. They have 3 grown children. Commented that he would like the large garage door to access the rear yard for recreational space. They only need two parking spots.

Audience comments

Carolyn Kelly – 4B Inlet Drive, sworn, stated she is a year round resident who actually stayed through the hurricane. She knows it is an old building the needs to be rehabbed. She feels the home is way too big. She feels the bath house is a nice considerate building, this building is much larger than her home and believes it will block her light and air. Worried this house will cause her home to have mold because it blocks out the sunlight.

John Jackson gave closing argument.

Deliberations

Kelly – Has no objection to this project. Marine Commercial is not coming into this area; modest home. Improvement to this area.

Reynolds – I believe that both sides have compelling stories and evidence. See points on both sides; not having a whole lot of issues with it. This does stop a hotel chain from coming in and buying properties.

Reilly – Agree with everything that has been said. We are supposed be getting things into conformity but it is impossible to do it one property at a time.

Dixon – The town obviously wanted a marine commercial zone but there are so many houses there. If we were going to push the issue it should have been done right after Sandy. We should limit it to a story and a half because of the small lots. It is a decent size home and an improvement from what is there.

Schneider – There is no sun issue; might block some wind and the view down the driveway. Overall it is a good design; I do not see marine commercial coming in the area.

DePolo – Risk of repeating everybody; thinking that some commercial type of business coming in there is not realistic. Unless some grand plan comes in and someone buys everyone out. I think it is an improvement – safer – FEMA compliant home. Inclined to approve it.

Davis – In agreement with the argument of the marine commercial. Feels this house is too big for this piece of property. I think consistency is what exists but I feel three stories is too much for little spot.

Struncius – It does push the limit on height; but again I think the relevance about having the usable floor that close to the water and the usable storage space underneath is an important factor in homes that are a stone’s throw from the ocean. I do not think it is pushing the limits of the SF5 homes. It is modest in construction and has an aesthetic value. I think that Mr. Jackson needs to work hard on being a good neighbor in the process of things that might impose on the neighbor during construction. But again the balance of being so close to the water and being elevated is where I get some balance in the height along with the other safety features.

Conditions

1. Garbage must be stored inside garage.
2. The shed is to be removed.
3. There is to be no shed on the property.
4. Outdoor shower is to be removed.
5. Rear garage door will be removed and replaced with a wide door.
6. There is to be no disruption of the neighbor’s water supply during construction without proper notice.

Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2018-02 of William/Jill Jackson – 4A Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 43.01 with conditions

In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2018-09 – Steven/Lisa Lefkowitz – 106 South Baltimore – Block 18.03; Lot 4 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single family dwelling and add a second level. Applicant also wishes to convert existing detached garage into a cabana. Use variance – cabanas not permitted

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed the application and stated that this home has all the elements the board wants to see – bump outs and roof lines. They have a detached garage that they want to use as an open cabana for use in conjunction with the pool. They are lifting the home and upgrading the home – there is no negative impact to the rest of the property. The lot coverage has been lowered to 50% – driveways will all be stone. Garage is in a great location – It will not be heated or used for overnight habitation. The applicant will file a deed restriction.

Mark Nemerget, licensed architect, credentials accepted, reviewed house elevations and floor plans. Elevating single story to make it FEMA compliant and adding second floor. Existing deck at grade will be elevated with house. Slide 14 of 24 – reviewed property line and lake – removing pavers in front of home and between house and cabana to reduce impervious coverage. There will be no water or electric in the cabana. Mr. Kelly inquired if they will be installing a sidewalk. Mr. Dixon questioned the shared driveway – they are not shared they are just next to each other. Increasing building coverage 1.2% – mostly from deck. Deck will be made from trek material and white vinyl railings. House in under 2500 square feet so the second floor 85% rule does not affect this house. Cupola is just for natural light.

Mr. Reynolds thinks that bringing the sidewalk to the lake will create more runoff. Mr. Savacool does not believe that anyone would walk on that sidewalk considering its location. John Jackson stated that they could put in a concrete apron to contain the stone.

Deliberations

Kelly – Thinks that South Baltimore has sidewalks on the other side. Beautiful home and have no objection to the size. Do not see any neighbors here to object. The curb would prevent people from parking on the lawn.

Reynolds – Beautiful house on the lake – the house belongs – everything works for me – I see no need for the sidewalk – People walk in the street there. No objections

Reilly – Gorgeous piece of work – I do not have any problem – I do not see a need for a sidewalk.

Dixon – Believes the sidewalk would be a buffer. Would eliminate someone parking in front of the garages. The house is gorgeous.

Schneider – Think it is nicely designed for the area. Main concern was plumbing in the cabana – nice design and an improvement to the area.

DePolo – Supportive of a sidewalk to keep the stones in – in support of the application

Davis – Cabana is now an accessory structure – it is a very large accessory structure – serves as a function as a use to the pool. Very conflicted with just additional recreational space. We kind of raced through this application.

Struncius – Do not see this as a cabana – it is an accessory structure. The architectural value of how the house looks – it is up against a lake. I support the sidewalk and that kind of control that was put in.

Conditions

1. The cabana is not to be used for overnight habitation and will not have electric and plumbing; this will be recorded by deed restriction.
2. There is to be no habitation of the attic.
3. The home is to be construction as described during the hearing.
4. Fence is to be installed to separate the driveways.
5. Sidewalk to be installed.
6. Applicant is to get councils approval for a curb cut.
7. Applicant is to construct Sidewalk and curb cut with Board Engineer review.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by vice chair Reilly to approve application #2018-09 of Steven/Lisa Lefkowitz – 106 South Baltimore – Block 18.03; Lot 4 – with conditions

In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 11:00pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board