March 3, 2005

03-03-2005

The March 3, 2005 Special meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Board Members: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon and Tooker. Alternates: Leonard and Dyer Absent: Palisi, Cangelosi and Struncius.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the minutes of February 17, 2005.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Simon, Tooker Leonard and Dyer………….Yea
Abstain: Simon

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Dyer to memorialize application #2004-47 of Jay Bayliss, 113 Arnold Avenue with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize application #2004-42 of Joseph and Patricia Feeley, 1809 Beacon Lane.

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

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize application #2004-43 of Greg and Barbara Somers, 105 Harvard Drive with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize application #2004-45 of Joseph and Barbara De Vingo, 302 Elizabeth Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer
Opposed: None
Abstain: Simon

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Dyer to grant the extension of application #2002-36 of Judith A. Sharp and Marie Cocuzzo of 401 Elizabeth Avenue, for one year under conditions of original application.

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

Application #2004-52, Kenneth Poray, 705 Ocean Avenue, Block 67, Lot 2 and 3, Applicant wishes to change existing non-conforming use (real estate/insurance) to retail service. Applicant wishes to carry application to April 7, 2005 so that he may have time to submit architectural drawings.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry application #2004-52 to April 7, 2005, without notice.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer………….Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2004-46, Rose Lynn Bernstein, 8 Broadway, Block 121/25.01, Lot 14. Applicant wishes to demolish existing structure and erect a 2-story structure.

Steven Pardes, appearing on behalf of the applicant. Rose Lynn Bernstein originally proposed a modular home. Board did not approve of plans as proposed. Mrs. Bernstein had Frank Aiello prepare a custom designed home, which conforms at 21’5", a significant reduction. The home will also now comply with the 50% lot coverage. There is a cupola proposed that is at 25′ in height.. The applicant will be changing from a "D" variance to a "C" Variance. We are no longer 10% over height requirement. Ronald W. Post, licensed surveyor, retained by applicant, sworn, testified that his employees measured surrounding homes and found that the heights varied from 30’4" to 14′ 11 ½". Mr. Aiello, sworn, testified that Mrs. Bernstein has a single story structure in disrepair. New structure will be 800 square feet of building coverage, which reduces lot coverage to 49%, which is in compliance. Home will be two-story. In developing elevations we had to address height and drainage. We designed a low roof almost flat with a slight pitch (1/4" per foot) and diverted that pitch into scuppers that come out at the west elevation. These scuppers lead to conductors that take the run off into leaders, leaders will go into a drainage pipe on the western side, that go into a 6" pvc perforated pipe which will allow the drainage to percolate into the ground at a normal rate. There is a discrepancy with the height of the cupola. The drawings have it at 25′ and Mr. Post survey has it at 25’4". The applicant will except as a condition that the cupola will not exceed 25′. Ray Savacool: That is 25" from top of curb. Mr. Aiello: That is correct. Mr. Moberg: How far does that cupola actually come out from the front face of the building? Mr. Aiello: It comes out a foot or two over the porch. The second level is recessed so it does not come out further than the first floor. Mr. Dyer: I see you moved the home back from 5’setback to 10’setback. Mr. Aiello testified that the home would also comply with rear setback. He also included the steps in front and rear of house in total building coverage calculations.

Any audience question?

Philip Brody, 8 Rear Broadway – Is there any access to the roof from the cupola? Mr. Aiello replied that there is not any access.

Mr. Szfranski: Is this in a flood zone? Mr. Moberg answered that the home complies with a 12 foot finished floor elevation.

Ray Savacool: Could you touch on the utilities and where they will be located? Mr. Aiello: We can put the condenser on the roof. The air handler will be inside. Mr.Pardes: In essence there will be nothing on the outside of the footprint of the building. Mr. Wolfersberger: What will you have a hatch or something? Mr. Aiello: We will need a roof hatch. Mr. Moberg: And it will not be visible because of the style of the roof. Mr. Aiello: Correct

Questions:

Mr. Brody, sworn: I am concerned with the utilities and power lines. Mr. Pardes: The house will not interfere with utilities. Mr. Galvin: We should be concerned with safety and I am sure they will work it out. Mr. Brody: Will the house be on a crawl space or a slab? Mr. Aiello: Slab Mr. Brody: Will there be obstructions in easement while they are building? Mr. Aiello: Obstructions will be kept to a minimum. Mr. Brody:As long as they are kept to a minimum and they clean up at the end of day. I understand that to build a house it will be blocked sometime. Mr. Galvin: The easement is not to be blocked.

Jackie Nasso, sworn: I am concerned of the course that we will have tomove the water and sewer. It is already costing us $6,000.00. I am worried about the additional burden and the cost. Mr. Galvin: This is something that the board does not get involved in. You will have to work it out with your neighbor.

Deliberations:

Mr. Dyer: This is an upgrade to the property from the home that exists. You improved lot coverage to 49%. I think the applicant has complied. I think the cupola gives it an added feature. It is a tough area to build a home. The architect has done a nice job. I am fully in favor.

Mr. Leonard: I agree with Mr. Dyer. The applicant has taken in all our concerns. With the changes made, I am in favor.

Mr. Moberg: I think those measurements taken of the surrounding houses helped me immensely. Good move by Mr. Pardes. 4 houses are lower, 5 houses are higher. I am in favor the way the plans were presented.

Close Deliberations

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2004-46 with the following conditions:
1. Top of the cupola will be no higher than 25 feet as measured from top of curb.
2. Mechanicals are to be on the roof.
3. Height of the building not to exceed 21 feet 5 inches as measured from top of curb.
4. The roof is not to be utilized as a deck.

Vote: Simon, Moberg, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer………….Yea
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions.

Application 2004-26, 25 Broadway Developers LLC (contract purchasers), 88 Inlet Drive & 29 Ocean Avenue, BL. 176, Lots 1 & 59; Applicants wish to construct (2) buildings with (6) dwelling units. Site presently used for restaurant.

Mr. Wolfersberger recused himself.

Steve A. Pardes, Attorney for applicant. Charles Gilligan, licensed professional Engineer and planner, sworn. First plan was 6 units, revised to 5 units. Building is now further from the North property line. There are now 5 units, 2 bedrooms each. Building size is reduced 12%. Mr. Pardes: Have you reviewed Mr. Savacool’s letter. Mr. Gilligan: Yes, essentially there are three variances, one is a height variance, and the other two are the front setbacks, (10′ off Broadway), (13′ off Ocean),to stairs it will be 8′ on Broadway and 11’on Ocean. C –1 Criteria- we have three frontages, which is a hardship. C-2 criteria-Commercial use, we are providing a residential use, which decreases density, aesthetically pleasing, and decreasing impervious coverage. New construction will meet all code requirements, more than adequate parking. Mr. Gilligan proceeded to review engineer’s general comments, they will have adequate lighting, 2 lanterns either side of entry, building lights and streetlights presently exist. The southwest portion of the property has two streetlights, so the property is more than adequately lit. Ocean Avenue units have been shifted south improving site line. Private carter will collect refuse and refuse containers will be located in garage area. Hairpin striping will be provided. Mr. Moberg: Will there be curb stops on the northerly border? Mr. Gilligan: I do not think it is not necessary. Mr. Dyer: Are all the parking spaces 9′ x 18′? Mr. Gilligan: All the exterior spaces, some of the interior spaces are larger than that. No signs are proposed other than the addresses. They will comply with all comments on page 5 and page 6. There will be 4 steps to the front porch and slate lined roof. They are seeking a waiver for a CAFRA exemption.
Ray Savacool: Sidewalk will be extended on Inlet Drive? Mr. Gilligan: Yes it will Mr. Savacool: All the sidewalks will be replaced since there is extensive work going on. Mr. Gilligan: Yes they will.

Mr. Moberg: Any audience questions or comments?
None

Closed for Deliberations

Deliberations

Mr. Moberg: The requests made earlier by the Board were met. We asked for 10% total reduction in coverage, they reduced by 12%, they assisted us with the setbacks on the northerly side, 13 parking spaces, one more than necessary. All requirements and requests have been met.

Mr. Leonard: I feel same way as Mr. Moberg. They went from 6 to 5 units and have met all setbacks. I am in favor.

Mr. Dyer: Huge improvement to area. I like the decrease in impervious coverage. People in that area are welcoming to the idea. I am in favor.

Close deliberations:

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve site plan and the changes that were made and amend previous resolution with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS
1.Applicant will paint hairpin stripes when delineating parking spaces.
2. The applicant will comply with the conditions as shown of page 4 & 5 of engineers report.

Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Site Plan approved

Application # 2004-36, BERNARD MICHALSKI & DANIEL MILES-MICHALSKI, 121 TRENTON AVENUE, BL. 81, LOT 21;applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling. Carried without notice

Daniel Miles-Michalski, sworn. Mr. Galvin: Basically I remember we carried this because you were going to advise us about the flood elevation.
Mr. Michaski: We were over on lot coverage; we have brought the house itself down under 30%. The plans list where we are supposed to be for flood elevation. The height of the house is 34.5′. Rear yard is 33′; we have brought everything down to comply. What we are asking now is to put the rear deck on at the level of the first floor due to the flood zone we are in. We have to have house 10′ above where the flood zone is. I f the deck is under 1′; it will be under the flood zone. Mr. Dyer: Were the steps taken into consideration when figuring lot coverage? Mr. Michalski: Yes, I believe they are. It does not say it on the plans, but I believe they are. Mr. Michlski: The 32.8% is the house and the deck. Mr. Galvin: You will still need a rear setback. The house is 33′, but the deck is 27′. Mr. Michaski: Yes that is correct. Mr. Dyer: House without deck is 29.8%. I do not think that is correct. Unless I am missing something. Mr. Wolfersberger: I do not think that is right either. Mr. Dyer: Is a portion of that deck under the overhang? Mr. Michalski: Yes, that is correct Mr. Moberg: What does the house back up to. Mr. Michalski: It backs up to Little Silver Lake. Mr. Wolfersberger: What exactly is different? Mr. Michaski: The size of the house. We brought the house down from 33% to 29.8%. We were told if the deck were under a foot it would not be considered in lot coverage, it would be considered a patio. If we put the deck under a foot it will be in the flood zone. Mr. Moberg: Your architect calculated all the steps in lot coverage? Mr. Michaski: Yes. Mr. Simon: If we approve this on your architects numbers and it goes to our building department and they get different numbers you will be back before us. Bernard Michaski:We know what we need to have to appreciate the area. We need to have a deck to appreciate the area, or our grand kids will be walking in duck poop.

Any audience questions or comments.

Mr. Galvin: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the stairs are being factored in the rear. Mr. Simon: That is what I am saying, the deck is 27′, but there are 4 stairs 4′ wide then the rear is 23′. Mr. Michalski: We can move the stairs. Mr. Galvin: We can do 27′ rear, 25′ front, all to be approved by the building department. You guys have to make it fit or you will be back before us. Mr. Wolfersberger: We are still at 32.8% lot coverage on a brand new building with deck.

Any further questions or comments?

Mrs. Tooker: We really try to stay at 30% with new houses, if we give a house at 30% and then we let you add on anything you want. Mr. Michalski: We brought the house down; we really need the deck for the kids.

Deliberations:

Mr. Dyer: I personally am under a different opinion when it comes to decks. I would not be opposed to 2.8% overage for a deck. I have no problem with this as long as all aforementioned conditions are adhered to. If not, they will be back before us.

Mr. Leonard: With all the changed that were made I would be in favor.

Mr. Moberg: I like the proposal the applicant brought back to us. I do not know if we can consider duck droppings a hard ship, but I understand. I have no problem with application as long as the few items we mentioned are adhered to.
Mr. Wolfersberger: I appreciate changes, but I have to remain consistent in lot coverage issue. I stick to 30%because that’s what the ordinance is. I was looking for closer to 30%; at this particular point I would not vote in favor.

Close Deliberations

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application#2004-36, with the following conditions:

Conditions
1. The applicant will not exceed 32.8% lot coverage
2. Rear yard set back will not exceed 27 feet
3. Front yard set back is to comply with the required 25 foot set back
4. These measurements are to be reviewed by the building department to ensure compliance. In the event the applicant cannot make modifications to the plan to comply they are to return to the board.

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

Application approved with conditions.

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to adjourn.

Vote: Moberg, Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer……………..Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 9:40

March 4, 2005 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board