March 17, 2005

Board of Adjustment
March 17, 2005

The March 17, 2005 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:40pm. The clerk read the Notice of Compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Board Members: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Cangelosi, Palisi and Tooker. Alternates: Leonard and Dyer Absent: Simon

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the minutes of March 17, 2005.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon, Tooker and Dyer………………………….Yea
Abstain: Palisi, Struncius and Cangelosi

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2004-46 of Rose Lynn Bernstein, 8 Broadway, with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer………………………Yea
Opposed: None
Abstain: Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote amending application #2004-26, and final site plan approval of 25 Broadway LLC, 88 Inlet Drive and 29 Ocean Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Dyer………………………………………… Yea
Opposed: None
Abstain: Wolfersberger

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Dyer to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2004-36 of Bernard Michalski and Daniel Miles- Michalski, 121 Trenton Avenue, with conditions.

Vote: Moberg, Leonard, Dyer…………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: Tooker and Wolfersberger………………………………………….Nay

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application #2004-21of James & Collie Marsetti, 1505 St. Louis Avenue without notice to April 7, 2005.

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

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi, to carry Application #2004-32 of Theresa Hrapsky, 139 Ocean Avenue to May 17, 2005 without notice.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Cangelosi, Tooker and Leonard….Yea
Opposed: None
Application carried

Application #2004-49, Angelo Danza, 217 Trenton Avenue, Block 80, Lot 8;Applicant did erect a fence that measures seven (7) feet in height in the rear and east side yards. Fence on Chicago Avenue encroaches onto the Borough right –of-way by four (4) feet.

Dennis Cantoli, attorney for applicant. Angelo J. Danza, sworn. Angelo J. Danza took pictures of his property March 2005. Pictures entered as exhibit A2. He explained that the pitch in his yard goes from 6 ½" to zero and for aesthetic reasons he is trying to keep the fence level. The fence also helps with security to keep children out of the pool. The grade of his yard was changed so that water drains out. The fence itself is 6′, but because of the grade it measures higher. Mr. Cantoli: For aesthetic reasons you are trying to keep the fence level. Mr. Danza: Yes. Mr. Dyer: Are you saying that the fence is 6 foot and the grade is raising it up? Mr. Danza: Exactly Mr. Dyer: You directed the installer to make it level at top. Mr. Danza: Yes Mr. Dyer: Across the back, when you bought the fence it was 6 foot. Mr. Danza: Yes Mr. Palisi: Not that it really matters, but how was this discovered that this was an issue? Mr. Danza: When we were inspected for the CO the zoning officer noticed the fence. It is also 4 feet into the borough right-of-way. When they took the old fence out they installed it in exactly the same place. If you look at the survey you can see it was installed in the location of the prior fence. Mr. Cantoli: We are not looking for a variance to leave it there. If the town tells us to take it down we will. We are not asking you for permission to leave it there. Mr. Palisi: I assume Dennis that we could not grant it if we wanted to. Mr. Galvin: We can’t, we don’t have jurisdiction. We have dealt with this before. We have asked the applicant to request approval from the jurisdiction where the fence is located, or move it back to the property line. Mr. Leonard: There should be a site triangle down there because you cannot see when you come down to the corner of Liberty by Chicago. Mr. Moberg: The site triangle it very limited. It is a hazardous situation; we should strongly suggest that the county takes a look at this. Mr. Galvin: I do not think that you are prohibited from addressing a safety issue. I do not think that you can do something that conflicts with the county, but you have the right to be aware of and fix any safety issues. Mr. Palisi: We have a right to say that you have to move your fence, but technically we can not say you have a right to leave it there. Mr Galvin: We have two issues, the first being" do we have a right to grant a variance for them to leave their fence on someone else’s property", and the answer is no. We can say we do not care if you leave it there provided you are granted permission. If they do not get a license they have to move it. The second issue is that the fence is impacting safety. Mr. Cantoli: We were before the Board for the original application, and what was originally here was a garage. If anything we have improved the situation. Mr. Wolfersberger: You moved it? Mr. Danza: We removed the garage Mr. Wolfersberger: That is half the size of the garage, half the footprint? Mr. Danza: Yes Mr. Wolfersberger: It is consistent with height requirements of auxiliary buildings Mr. Danza: Yes The things we are before this board are for the side yard and the fence encroaching the right of way. If we are going to deal with the height, I want to know what your position is on that. Mr. Moberg: As far as the safety issue can we act on that? Mr. Galvin: I do not think it is wise to grant a variance for a fence that is a site triangle area. I am not an engineer. Mr. Danza: I am willing to go to the county. Mr. Galvin: The Board is raising the concern that the fence is blocking driving visibility, and that is a dangerous condition. Mr. Cangelosi: We are the residents of the town, god forbid if we are waiting for your application to the county and a resident gets injured. Mr. Cantoli: We are here for the fence height not a site triangle. Mr. Galvin: I have just recently double checked research in this area, once a Board has jurisdiction for an application they can consider any and all variances and conditions, whether or not requested by the applicant. Mr. Cantoli: I understand that. Mr. Struncius: You indicated that the fence replaced an old fence, but on the old survey I do not see a fence. Mr. Danza: There was an old brown stockade fence. Mr. Cangelosi: Your building permit gave you permission to replace that fence in that same place. Mr. Danza: I do not know what the permit said. I have spent a lot of money and attention to detail. It will be a great expense but if you want me to move the fence I will. I do not believe it is a visibility problem. I believe visibility is better. I would like a yes or no on height and send me on to the county. Miss Petrillo never told me there was a problem with the fence along Chicago. She only objected to the fence because it was in the public right-of-way. Mr. Danza: We will have a major safety problem if the fence is 4 feet. I have kids jumping over it at 6 feet. Mr. Galvin: Read Ordinance 19-11.4 (b & d) into the record. The way to do this is to carry this and have the borough engineer look at this and make sure there is not a problem. Mr. Struncius: Does your 6-foot fence stop at the back of the house? Mr. Danza: No, which is why we are here. Mr. Moberg: We can have Mrs. Petrillo check over the property and see if other variances are required. Mr. Dyer: I think Mr. Moberg has a good suggestion. It says the fence measures 6 to 7 foot plus. I would like to know what the real measurements are. Mr. Galvin requested that Mr. Danza write the letter to the County about the right-of-way, and bring that letter with him to the next meeting.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application #2004-49 to April 21, 2005 without notice.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Tooker and Leonard
Opposed: None

Application carried

Application #2005-04, Wayne Sardoni, 315 Carter Avenue, Block 13.04, Lot 8; Applicant wishes to finish area above garage thereby creating a third floor.

Dennis Cantoli, attorney for the applicant, explained that he believes that the applicant is asking more for an interpretation than they are for a variance. All of this came about because the surveyor forgot that he had to account for flood elevation in his measurements. The applicant wants to create a room over the garage. The space in question is located two steps up from the first floor. The elevation you see will be the same with or without the variance. Mr. Gardner informed the applicant that he could use the room for storage. The additional room is on the same plane as the first floor. I do not believe that this is what was intended to be prohibited by your ordinance. It doesn’t create a third floor. Even without the area it would still have to be this high. Mr. Wolfersberger: It doesn’t increase lot coverage. Mr. Moberg: We are just changing the utilization of vacant space from one use to another.

Any other questions for Mr. Cantoli: None
Any audience questions: None

Open deliberations

Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger: I have no problem with this. It doesn’t change lot coverage or building height. It is just our interpretation if those 16 inches changes that into a third floor. I would be in favor. Mr. Palisi: I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger, it’s deminimus; I am very much in favor of this.

Close Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger: I feel it is very attractive with no negative impact on the surrounding homes.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Struncius to approve application #2005-04 of Wayne and Linda Sardoni, 315 Carter Avenue.

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard
Opposed: None

Application Approved

Application #2004-50, John C. Ruggier, 309 St. Louis Avenue, Block 106, Lot 12; Applicant erected a fence to replace a rotted stockade fence that was 6 feet in height in the side yard.

John C. Ruggier, Sworn. Mr. Ruggier purchased his home in 1982. Mr. Ruggier has already replaced a rotting stockade fence that was preexisting. The original fence was installed in 1982 without objection. The existing fence is not to code. Mr. Wolfersberger: When I went by the house I thought the fence was a tad overwhelming at 6 feet high across the front. Mr. Ruggier: I have the fence to contain my grandchildren. In the summer you cannot buy a space to park. People park in front of my home all day and come back to change and eat and leave their garbage. Mr. Moberg: The 6-foot across the front was not there before? Mr. Ruggier: No. Mr. Ruggier: If you go around the block you will see other people have the same fence. Mr. Moberg: You think the fence is consistent with the neighborhood and not a hindrance with anyone’s site lines? Mr. Ruggier: Do you want to look in my yard. Mr. Galvin: Did you get a permit to put the fence in across the front of the yard Mr. Ruggier: No, I did not realize I needed one. Mr.Struncius: That is 21 feet of 6-foot fence. Mr. Galvin: I do not think it is unusual for people not to realize they need a permit for a fence. I hear that kind of regular through out the towns. Mr. Moberg: Does anyone on the board have any further questions of the applicant? Mr. Struncius: Would you be willing to take down that 21 foot of six foot fence down to four feet? Mr.Ruggier: If I had to Mr. Struncius: You also need approval for the fence in the backyard. The fence in the back has been in existence for 20 years, so we should get it settled. We decide every case individually. Mr. Wolfersberger: We have two issues here, the six feet on the side and the 21 feet across the front as far as I am concerned.

Any audience questions or comments? –None

Open Deliberations –

Mr. Leonard – There are two things, the existing side fence and then the front yard fence. I do not like the 21 feet of 6-foot fence across the front yard. I know you want to keep the grandchildren in the yard, but you do not need a 6-foot fence to do that. Mr. Ruggier: The town is not the same, there are transients. Mr. Struncius: We all live in this town. Mr. Palisi: I appreciate it, I have kids to. The backyard is open; there is not a gate. Mr. Ruggier: We have not put the gate in yet. Rosemary Ruggier, sworn: You keep saying the front, it is behind the porch. I do not think you understand, we have a two-foot wall and people park and come back and sit on the wall and have their coffee and leave their garbage. Mr. Struncius: I am not asking you to remove it; I am asking you to lower it so that the elevation is not overwhelming. It is an aesthetic thing we are talking about. Mr. Wolfersberger: We would like to approve the side fence. We would like you to say you will lower it to 4 feet. Mr. Galvin: Mr. Ruggier is worried about how much time he has to do this. Mr. Moberg: 2 months Mr. Ruggier: That is fair. Mr. Palisi: I wouldn’t mind if you moved the fence back and kept your 6 feet. Mr. Ruggier: How much? Mr. Palisi: 8 feet Mr. Leonard: I would support Mr. Palisi’s suggestion. Mr. Ruggier: It would probably be simpler to cut it to 4 feet than to dig it up the concrete post and move it back. Mr. Struncius: I am much happier with that. Mr. Cangelosi: I would be inclined to agree with that. Mr. Struncius: That eliminates that portion of the variance.

Close Deliberations:

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2004-50 with the following conditions:
1. Removal of two feet of the 21 foot section spanning side yard of 6 foot fence and should be no higher than four feet in 60 days.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Struncius, Cangelosi, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2004-51, John Hughes & Kimberly Malone, 400 Niblick Street, Block 106, Lot 22; Applicant wishes to construct a second story addition to existing attached garage and construct a new front porch.

John Hughes and Kimberly Malone Hughes sworn. Mr. Moberg: You are at 19% lot coverage going to 20% Mr. Hughes: That is correct. Mr. Struncius: Your neighbors are? Mr. Hughes: Antrim School and The Board of Education. Mr. Struncius: Are you expanding the foundation? Mr. Hughes: Just for the front porch. Mr. Galvin: The two sides are staying the same. Just the front is changing. Mr. Palisi: Your changes are not even what you have on the application. The calculations work out to less. What you have on the application is correct to the bottom of the steps. Mr. Struncius: You are going from 27′ to 22′. The change is less than the application states, Do you agree Mr. Hughes: I agree. Mr. Palisi: Why are you guys doing this? Mr. Hughes: Our bedrooms are spread throughout the house. We have an autistic child and we would like the bedrooms all on one floor. That is the primary reason. Mr. Moberg: You feel the addition will be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hughes: Yes

Any audience questions/comments – None

Deliberations – Mr. Wolfersberger – Unique corner in town. It will be a nice addition to existing homes. Building coverage is below ordinance. I would be in favor. Mr. Palisi; I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger: Aesthetically it is beautiful No negative impact. You have made a lot of improvements and kept the integrity.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2004-51, with conditions.

1. The front yard setback on Niblick is not to exceed 22.5 feet.
(THE PROPERTY MAY COME OUT 6 FEET AND 3 STEPS FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FOUNDATION.)

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

Application approved with conditions

Application #2004-53, John Ciancia, 1612 East Street, Block 178.02, Lot 10;Applicant wishes to install an in-ground pool. Wood deck to be removed.

John Ciancia, sworn. Stated his property is located in an SF5 Zone. He will be putting the pool in his backyard, which faces an apartment complex. The actual structure is approximately 70′ feet away. Mr. Galvin: What is the distance from the back fence? Mr. Ciancia: 5 feet Mr. Galvin: 5 feet from the rear would be OK. It is the one-foot of concrete around the pool that would be the problem. Mr. Struncius: What is right behind the fence? Mr. Ciancia: A dumpster is about 4 feet away. It is where most people walk their dogs. Mr. Wolfersberger: You say you are going to put pavers. I get concerned when people say pavers, because the whole yard ends up being pavers. What is the impervious coverage Mr. Ciancia: Lot coverage will be 37%, impervious coverage will be 47%. There will be decorative landscaping along the back perimeter, and grass on the south side, where it is 15 feet. The paver patio will be directly off the back porch. Mr. Struncius: We are having a problem with the calculations. At times we will have" not to exceed stipulations". Will you be willing to have stipulations, like impervious coverage is not to exceed a certain amount. Mr. Ciancia: Absolutely Mr. Wolfersberger: Is this a fiberglass pool? Mr. Ciancia: No, vinyl lined, in ground. Mr. Wolfersberger: Would you be willing to move the pool closer to the house? Mr. Ciancia: Yes, I am willing to move the pool anyway you want. Mr. Cangelosi: The referral throws me off a little. Mr. Struncius: What is the final size of the pool? Mr. Ciancia: 25′ x 12 Mr. Palisi: That works out to 6% Mr. Struncius: I want you to be careful with your calculations. If you walk out of here with 33.9%, then that’s what it is. You might find out the pool is much smaller. What percentage is it that you want us to vote on? Mr. Wolfersberger: Whatever we vote on is what you are stuck with. Mr. Struncius: You do not want to limit yourself. Mr. Wolfersberger: I am uncomfortable not knowing what I am voting on. Mr. Struncius: 37% is something you are willing to work with and you are willing to stay with these setbacks? Mr. Wolfersberger: You are sure that your building coverage is 30% Mr. Ciancia: Yes Mr. Leonard: Where are you putting the mechanicals for this pool? Mr. Ciancia: SE corner

Audience Questions

Robert Rogers, 1424 Ocean Avenue, sworn. My mom owns the house next door since 1967. I am concerned that besides the pool going in that the board is granting a variance for a fence. Mr. Ciancia assured the board that he is going to have a fence in keeping with the ordinance, so no variance is required. Mr. Galvin insured Mr. Rogers that Mr. Ciancia’s fence will be in keeping with the fence ordinance. Mr. Roger’s was happy to have it clarified. Mr. Rogers also voiced concern about the water runoff after the pool is installed. He was informed by the board that a grading and drainage plan will have to be submitted prior to installation of the pool.

Deliberations:

Mr. Struncius: We are dealing with a tight setback, against an apartment complex located 70 feet away. I think that is enough space. Mr. Leonard: I agree with Mr. Struncius. Mr. Wolfersberger: I am also in favor as long as we stipulate where the mechanicals are to be located.

1. Impervious coverage including pavers will not exceed 50%
2. Lot coverage not to exceed 37%
3. The four feet at the rear of the property is to be decoratively landscaped.
4. The location of the mechanicals and fencing are to meet the requirements of the ordinance.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2004-53, with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions

Date: March 29,2005 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board