September 7, 2006

MINUTES

The September 7, 2006 Special 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 regular Board members: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi, Mr. Struncius, Chairman Moberg Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Spader and Mr. Reilly

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the minutes of August 17, 2006 meeting.

Vote: Palisi, Wolfersberger, Leonard and Reilly…………………………..Yea

Mr. Reilly stepped down from the discussion and vote to extend the Hrapsky Resolution.

Hrapsky #2004-32 Resolution extension; Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to extend Resolution #2004-32.

Vote: Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Leonard and Spader……………..Yea

Application #2006-34, PLRJ, 504 Sea Avenue, Lot 13;Block 12,Applicant wishes to construct 5 Garden Apartments, office building with second story apartment and pool.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Paul Barlo, Professional Architect, credentials excepted. Illustration of town homes entered as A-3, Illustration of commercial building entered as A-4. Mr. Pardes stated that both buildings are compatible in style. Mr. Palisi questioned that based on the layout "who would see these homes? Mr. Barlo replied that the residents on Maryland Avenue would see the front façade. Town homes will be hidden from view of the highway. The homes will measure 34.9feet ¾ inches from the curb on Charleston Avenue. Mr. Savacool stated that with a single lot the height is measured from the lowest point. Mr. Wolfersberger is concerned that they are picking which spot they measure from. Mr. Pardes replied that the property has three frontages. Mr. Barlo said that they could go with a flat roof but that would be unfortunate. Charles Gilligan, Professional Engineer. Credentials accepted. Property .8 acres located in the HC zone. Colorized Site Plan entered as A-5. Requesting variance for building height (three floors); all signs will comply. All lighting will be residential in character. No dumpster – individual garbage cans that will be kept in garages and put out on garbage day. Arborvitae will be planted along board on board fence. Freestanding signs will be provided to show entrance and exit to property. Will comply with flood ordinance. Will provide 1250 feet of recreational area. Sidewalks and curbs will be provided on Charleston and Sea Avenue. Requesting waiver for 9 x 18 parking spaces.

Jim W. Higgins, Professional Planner. Credentials accepted. Mr. Higgins stated that this is a unique solution to the development of this property. Ideal flow for the property; Low intensity parking area. For those reasons I think the site is ideal for the development of this property. Allowed uses in this zone could be detrimental to surrounding residential properties.

Audience questions/comments

Mike McCarthy,507 Maryland Avenue, spoke on behalf of the applicant and inquired if they would be replacing the fence? He stated that Mr. Childers has invested time and money in this property. I have dealt with Pizza Hut and Outerbanks. If he is rejected we can end up with another commercial use.

Lee Childers, principal of property, responded that he would replace the existing fence.

Deliberations

Mr. Palisi: Mr. Higgins did a wonderful job. This is a unique property; I would prefer this. Mr. Childers runs a first class operation. I like the fact that he will have his commercial property there. He will ensure that the folks in the town homes keep a level of integrity. I am challenged to find a negative impact.

Mr. Struncius – The front building gives a good aesthetic feel. Transitioning into residential neighborhood. I think about the potential uses that could be there without even coming before us. I think it speaks volumes that a neighbor has shown support and that no one has objected. I do not see a negative impact. Not a high intensity use. In favor

Mr. Reilly – Mr. Higgins really swung me over. Better than the alternative, particularly for the neighbors. In favor

Mr. Wolfersberger – Architecturals are fabulous; reduced size; transitional things bother me. Have concerns about picking and choosing elevations. In favor

Mr. Leonard – I share some of the same thoughts as where you are measuring heights. I do not like them looking right into the neighbor’s backyards, but heavy machinery could be there. The positives outweigh the negatives. In favor.

Mr. Spader – I agree with Jim about transitional concerns and I agree with Mike about the uniqueness. The applicant has addressed our concerns by decreasing number of units and adding a recreational area. In favor.

Conditions

1. The pool /recreation area will be increased to meet requirements.
2. First floor will be utilized as garage and storage.
3. The condominium documents will be reviewed and approved by the Board’s attorney and Engineer. Documents must be recorded and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Charleston and Sea Avenue frontages are to have curbs and sidewalks installed.
5. The fencing around the commercial property dumpster is to have a three foot fence and landscaping.
6. The south property fencing is to be replaced with a 6 ft board on board fence and submit a landscaping plan to the Board Engineer for approval.
7. Rear building to be measured from Charleston, Front building to be measured from Sea Avenue.

Motion by Mr. Palisi second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2006-34 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Leonard, Spader and Reilly………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-11,Ocean’s III, 3-5 Ocean Avenue, Lot; 46; Block 176; Applicant wishes to add a second story to rear building of existing motel, expanding the living space of the existing 5 motel rooms and converting the rooms to apartments. (Carried without notice)

Ray Bogan, attorney for applicant. Robert Burdick Professional Engineer/Planner testified that the applicant wants to expand units above existing units. Property located in the MC zone. Preexisting non-conforming use. Bulk variances are required. Units are to remain hotel rooms. Site located within walking distance of Boardwalk. Use is well suited to the property. Proposed use is more in keeping with the neighborhood. Units will be improved to afford amenities to tourist. Two rear sheds will be removed. Lot coverage will be under 40%. Variances are existing conditions. Savacool; the second story exasperates the variances. Mr. Moberg – I agree with Mr. Savacool that it is being increased by 50%. We will be delinquent by 7 parking spots. Houses in rear of property are located 5 to 7 feet off rear property line.

Audience Questions

Nina Halter, Phillip Hembrough, Ann Marie Rossi, Joe Grueber, Joe Capouano, Carolyn Kelly, Phil Gulmy and Robert Halter all testified that they opposed the application due to the fact that the proposed addition would impede on their view, light, air and privacy.

Philip Petrocelli, applicant, sworn. Stated that a/c units will be located in front of the building.

Mr. Wolfersberger stated that the proposal would give the units the potential to have multiple occupants. Mr. Spader inquired if they would consider having an on-site manger? Mr. Petrocelli replied that his brother lives in Brielle and the phone is forwarded to his home. The board did not find this to be adequate supervision of the property.

Audience comments

Lillian Halter – Lives directly behind the motel and she brought pictures showing how close the building is located to her property and how a second story would affect it.

John Capuano – voiced his concern over how the water pressure and parking would be affected. He pointed out that the property does not have signage letting the people know it is a one way when they exit the property.

Robert Halter – Said he has recently retired and sits in the back yard to watch the sun come up and drink his coffee. If they put the addition on he will not see the sun until 1pm.

Deliberations

Mr. Struncius – Everything you are trying to do aesthetically are positive, but the intensity is too much. There is not any argument you can make to convince me that this is not an increase. You are adding twice as much mass within those setbacks. It is a very tight area. I am already concerned with the intensity that exists. Not in favor

Mr. Wolfersberger – I agree with everything that Mr. Struncius said. The negative impact of light and air on the neighbors is remarkable. I would be opposed to this project.

Mr. Moberg – The thing I find most disturbing about this is that the intensity is going to double. Parking is deficient. You could double the capacity. Not in favor

Mr. Palisi – Town has made a statement by adopting new ordinances. We need to be conscience of what the town is asking the board to do. There are some positives, but there are a lot of negatives. The intensity is too much. We have to look at these expansions for a lifetime. I hope that the activities that I have heard mentioned going on there are not true. Not in favor

Ray Bogan request to withdraw the application.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to deny application #2006-11.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Leonard, Spader and Reilly………Yea
Opposed: None

Application denied

Meeting adjourned

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board