March 17, 2022

The March 17, 2022 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. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Secretary Schneider, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Davis and Mr. Driber

Absent – Dixon, Crasper, McGee and Villani

Also, present:  Karen Mills, Charles Cunliffe, Engineer and Ben Montenegro, Esq.

 

Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Secretary Schneider to Memorialize the minutes of January 20, 2022 –

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola and Davis

Opposed:  None                                         

Memorialize Resolutions

Motion by secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Pasola to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2022-05 – 1300 Richmond Investors – 1300 Richmond Avenue with conditions –

In favor:  Kelly, Schneider and Pasola

Opposed:  None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2022-03 of Glen Paesano – 223 Hawthorne Avenue – with conditions –

In favor: Kelly, Schneider and Davis

Opposed:  None

 

2022-10 – Kourtney Nelson/Kris Werner – 302 Chicago – Block 108; Lot 22.01 – Proposed plan does not conform to Resolution #2008-30. Cabana not permitted use. Height variance required.

Tim Middleton, Esq, attorney for applicant reviewed the requested variances:

A d(1) use variance for approval of the construction of the pool cabana structure, whereas pool cabanas are not permitted in the SF-5 Zone.

Bulk variances are proposed as follows:

Lot Width where 50 ft is required and 46.72 ft is proposed (existing)

Lot Frontage where 50 ft is required and 47.76 ft is proposed (existing)

 

Relief from prior condition of approval requiring maximum height of 32ft above BFE whereas 32.5 ft is proposed and otherwise allowed by ordinance.

Relief from prior condition of approval #13 requiring construction of the previously submitted architectural plan whereas Applicant presents a revised single family home architectural plan for approval.

 

Tim Middleton stated that the applicant proposes to construct a two-story single-family home of approximately 2,504 square feet of living space (previously approved home was 2.5 story of approximately 3,000 square feet) together with associated driveway, covered porches, rear yard patio, inground pool and a pool cabana.   The pool cabana use is not permitted by the ordinance in the SF-5 zone. The subject property was created via approved subdivision per Resolution 2008-30 (amended in 2019 via Resolution 2008-30(2).

 

Exhibits entered

 

Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application

Exhibit A2 – Architectural Plans, by Jerry Spanola, R.A. (4 sheets, dated 1/28/22); and Plot Plan, by Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E. (1 sheet, dated 5/11/21- last revised 10/25/21)

Exhibit A3 – Color Rendering of Home- 3D Model

 

Applicant’s Architect, Jose Santos, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted, stated the following:

 

The existing site is located in the SF-5 zone and currently is a vacant residential lot.

 The applicant proposed to construct the two-story home presented containing approximately 2,504 square feet of living space.

 

The previously approved home contained greater than 3,000 square feet and prpvided for 2.5 stories.

 

He stated that the proposed development as depicted on the architectural plans submitted will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site and that the proposed home is consistent in size, scale and character not only to the previously approved home for the lot, but with the surrounding neighborhood.

 

  1. He stated that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a), (c) and (i).
  2. Applicant agreed as a condition to revise the proposed cabana plan to eliminate all plumbing and the proposed bathroom (converting the bathroom shown solely into a changing room).
  3. Applicant agreed as a condition to revise the house architectural so that the height shall not exceed 32.5 ft from BFE per ordinance. The reduced height shall be accomplished through modification to the roof slope with said revisions subject to the review and approval of the Board engineer to confirm adequate pitch/design.
  4. The color rendering submitted as Exhibit A3 is an accurate depiction of the proposed finishes for the home and cabana, including: light green siding, white board and batten siding, white trim and fascia, brown textured shingle roofing.
  5. The trellis shown as connected to the cabana is open and does not provide for a covered roof or awning.

  

Matthew Hockenbury, P.E., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated the following: 

 

  1. He has provided for a drainage plan that includes recharge structures to capture runoff from the home. This is a significant drainage improvement to the plan approved by the 2010 subdivision that created the subject lot.
  2. He confirmed that the plan as revised/submitted requires no variance relief for building coverage and meets the 30% maximum allowed by ordinance.
  3. Applicant agreed as a condition to revise/clarify the plan to reflect that the area under the stairs shall be pervious.
  4. The plan exceeds RSIS requirements for off street parking where 2 parking spaces are required and 5 are proposed (3 garage and 2 driveway).
  5. The plan sets the stairs at 25’ from the front property line and the home front façade at 30’ from the front property line; providing for adequate light, air and open space.
  6. The grading at the site is front to back with the proposed recharge trenches on the sides of the home. Applicant agreed as a condition to provide a formal grading plan subject to the review and approval of the Borough engineer.
  7. Applicant agreed as a condition to modify the plan to provide for one 13 ft wide driveway curb cut at the street line; thereby eliminating only one on street parking space due to the development of the site.
  8. The proposed cabana as depicted on the plan is 13 ft by 26.5 ft and meets all setback and coverage requirements of the zone.

 

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Kelly – I was on the original application. This was just a beautiful lot. One house would have been magnificent on this property. I have some reservation about the parking. Concerned about access to the utility pole. There is a fence to preserve the environmental easement. We have done the best we can with this lot.

Schneider – Very modest design. I think the off-street parking is a plus. All the conditions we have in place I will be in favor.

Reynolds – I believe that we have addressed all concerns. No matter if it was a garage, shed or cabana it would have electricity.

Pasola – I think it is a beautifully designed home that will fit nicely on that lot. I do like the idea of off-street parking and you have met the set-back requirements.

Davis – I do like the reduced building from the original plan. I am still struggling with the whole idea simply because it is a unique location and situation. There is some positive criteria I am struggling with the negative.

Driber – I listen to everything carefully. I am impressed with the concessions and the design, but I do agree that the cabana does concern me. I have been around long enough and people look to bend the rules and that does concern me.

Struncius – Frankly my point about the cabana is we need a better definition. We do approve them and do have concerns that they might convert it to something illegal.  We are here for variance relief – if it has some negative impact on the neighborhood I would deny. It is just some place to get out of the sun. With the conditions in place, I will be in favor.

Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Pasola to approve application 2021-10 of Kourtney Nelson/Kris Werner – 302 Chicago – Block 108; Lot 22.01 – with conditions

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed None

Application approved with conditions

 

2022-07 – George Flugrad – 9 Niblick Street – Block 130; Lot 9 – Applicant is building a single-family dwelling and is requesting variances for the encroachment of the balcony in the setback.

(Application not heard/Applicant did not notice)

 

2022-06 – Kerri/Kevin Smith – 113 St. Louis Avenue – Block 56; Lot 5 – Applicant is looking to reduce size of garage and convert to a cabana (D1) and install in-ground pool.

            John Jackson, esq., attorney for application reviewed the requested variances.

 

  1. d(1) use variance for approval of the construction of the pool cabana structure, whereas pool cabanas are not permitted in the SF-5 Zone.

 

  1. Bulk variances are proposed as follows:
    1. Side Yard Setback (primary) where 5 ft is required and 4.88 ft is proposed (existing)
    2. Side Yard Setback (accessory) where 5 ft is required and 4.22 ft is proposed (existing)
  • Rear Yard Setback (accessory) where 5 ft is required and 4.45 ft is proposed (existing)
  1. Building Coverage where 30% maximum is allowed and 30.8% is proposed (34.4% existing)
  2. Impervious Coverage where 50% maximum is allowed and 57.6% is proposed (65.5% existing)

 

 

 

The applicant proposes to construct a pool cabana by converting a portion of the existing detached garage (335 sq. ft.) into a pool cabana and removing a portion of the existing garage (225 sq. ft.); together with construction of an inground swimming pool, pool surround, pool equipment, and fencing.  The pool cabana use is not permitted by the ordinance in the SF-5 zone.

 

 

            Exhibits entered

 

Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application

Exhibit A2 – Cabana Plan by Paul Amelchenko, R.A. (1 sheet, dated 8/18/21); Plot Plan, by Martin G. Miller, III, P.E./P.L.S. (1 sheet, dated 7/7/21- last revised 8/26/21); Zoning Permit Denial dated 10/2/21.

Exhibit A3 – Power Point Packet (14 pages)

 

 

Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated the following:

 

The existing site is located in the SF-5 zone and currently is a developed residential lot with an existing single-family home and detached garage. The FIRM Flood Map effective 6/20/18 identifies the subject property situated in the Flood Zone X with only .2% chance of flood.

Based on that designation, applicant can install bathroom- plumbing in the cabana and meet current building code. The proposal is to construct an inground pool as depicted on the plot plan and in conjunction with that proposed pool, to convert the existing detached garage into a pool cabana with bathroom by removing a portion of the garage (225 sq. ft.) and converting the remainder (335 sq. ft.) as depicted on the architectural plan submitted. The bathroom proposed is a half bath containing only a sink and toilet (no shower or bathtub in the cabana).

Applicant volunteered as a condition that there shall be no heat, no air conditioning and no   kitchen facilities in the cabana and a note shall be added to the plan. Applicant volunteered as a condition that the cabana use is solely accessory to the swimming pool and shall not be utilized for living space and/or overnight accommodations.

As shown on the plot plan, the portion of the garage to be removed is proposed as an open grass area.   Applicant proposed an impervious walkway between the cabana and pool surround in this area and volunteered as a condition that said walkway shall be not more than 62.5 sq. ft. (1% additional impervious coverage).  The final design/dimension together with final impervious coverage calculation shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer.

The revised driveway (to provide for a minimum 36’ in length) shall provide for 2 off street parking spaces which meet RSIS criteria for the existing 3-bedroom home.  Upon revision to the plan related to driveway length, Applicant shall recalculate the impervious coverage calculation which will increase from 55% to approximately 56.6%. 

 

No audience questions/comments

 

John Jackson stated that he believes that the proposed development as depicted on the architectural plans submitted will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site and that the proposed cabana is appropriate in size, scale and character not only in comparison to the larger and less sightly detached garage, but with the surrounding neighborhood development. The plan as presented reduces the noncompliant building and impervious coverage that exists on site which is a better zoning alternative. The plan provides for drainage ground gutters which together with the reduced impervious coverage is an improvement to the site.

 

Keri Smith, applicant, sworn, stated that she and her husband are the owners of the subject property and have resided there for approximately 9 years. Her elderly parents join them at the home from June through September; which prompted their desire to construct the pool with cabana. The intent is to provide a comfortable and convenient amenity for her family (particularly her elderly parents) to enjoy the pool and be able to utilize the cabana to avoid the sun/heat on warm days.

 

 

The building is to be constructed in accordance with the architectural plans submitted to the Board as part of this Application.

 

 

Conditions

 

  1. Applicant shall revise the plan to add a note that the cabana shall have no air conditioning, no kitchen facilities, and no heat.
  2. Applicant shall revise the plan, subject to review and approval of the Board Engineer, to show the revised driveway at a dimension to meet RSIS standards for 2 parking spaces and to show the design/dimension of the walkway from the cabana to the pool. Total impervious coverage NTE 57.6%.
  3. The bathroom proposed shall be a half bath containing only a sink and toilet (no shower or bathtub in the cabana).
  4. The cabana use is solely accessory to the swimming pool and shall not be utilized for living space and/or overnight accommodations.
  5. The impervious walkway between the cabana and pool surround shall be not more than 62.5 sq. ft. (1% additional impervious coverage).
  6. The pool surround fencing shall comply with ordinance and building code and be no less than 4’ nor more than 6’.
  7. The cabana height shall not exceed 16’.
  8. The construction activity proposed shall not cause damage to nor trespass upon their immediate neighbor property whose driveway abuts the subject property driveway.

 

  1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Board Engineer report, by Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., dated 3/10/22, unless specifically exempted herein.

 

 

Deliberations

Kelly _ I have no problem with this application

Schneider – Reduction of impervious coverage – there is no plumbing or heat. In favor

Reynolds – In regards to the sidewalk – I do not think it is necessary – I would go stepping stones.

Pasola – I do not have any problem with the sidewalk. I am for the application – I see more positives for the neighborhood. In favor.

Davis – For all that has been said – I agree   The ordinance needs to address cabanas and clarify it because we seem to be seeing quite a few.

Driber – I agree with everybody. I think a sidewalk is a more permanent structure for safety reasons.

Struncius – This does need to be put in the year end report for more clarification.  There will be a time that a cabana comes in and they will want to push the envelope. This is modest and a restructuring of the garage. There is no real issue – a positive a design.

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by secretary Schneider to approve application 2022-06 – Kerri/Kevin Smith – 113 St. Louis Avenue – Block 56; Lot 5.

 

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed None

 

Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA

            Clerk of the Board