April 20, 2006

MINUTES

The April 20, 2006 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:35 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were regular members: Mr. Simon, Mrs. Tooker, and Mr. Wolfersberger Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Vacarro and Mr. Reilly. Absent: Struncius, Palisi, Moberg and Cangelosi

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to nominate Mr. Wolfersberger as temporary Chairman

Vote: Simon, Leonard, Tooker, Vacarro and Reilly………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Vacarro to carry application #2005-31 of the National Sign (CVS) to August 17, 2006 without notice

Vote: Simon, Leonard, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Vacarro and Reilly……………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-14 – Patrick & Helene Nasdeo, 306 New York Avenue; Block 32; Lot 17; Applicant wishes to construct a second story addition to existing two-family dwelling. Applicant will be converting the structure to a one-family dwelling. Helene F. & Patrick B. Nasdeo, sworn. Helene Nasdeo: We are replacing what was damaged in the fire; we are not making it any larger. 1 1/2 cape Cod. Applicant will be abandoning two-family use. Home will remain in existing footprint. Siding will be all vinyl clapboard to replace the cement shingles. Existing front setback of 14 feet will remain, home will be attractive, will not block neighbors light, air or view of beach.

No audience questions

Deliberations:

Mr. Leonard: Home only 27 ½ feet in height; just going over existing footprint and improving aesthetics. In favor.

Mr. Vacarro: I second that. I also like that you are converting a 2 family to a one family.

Mr. Reilly: This is an existing condition. Would be hard to change. In favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Vacarro to approve application #2006-14.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Leonard, Tooker, Reilly and Vacarro……………….Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-51 – James DeSantis, 319 Carter Avenue; Block 13.04, Lot 10; Applicant wishes to replace and extend existing pool barrier fence approximately 15 feet into side yard.
James De Santis, sworn. Pictures taken last week. A-3, A-4 and A-5 entered. Applicant wishes to extend red cedar 6-foot fence 8 feet towards front of home to allow for a more useful space. Home will be power washed and re-stained this summer. Fence is presently encroaching on backyard access. Will still have room for three cars in driveway after the fence is extended. Will give applicant more room for table and chairs and it will maintain applicants privacy. Mr. Leonard: That isn’t your backyard; it is your side yard. Mr. DeSantis: I look at it as my backyard because that is where the access is. Mr. Leonard: Inquired if the fence would be in front of neighbors home. Mr. DeSantis: No, the house next door is well in front. The fence will be right between the casement and the fireplace.
Mr. Reilly: How would you feel if the fence went a little past the sliding doors? Mr. De Santis: Anything is better than nothing. Mr. Wolfersberger: Where is the back of your house? It looks like it is already encroaching on your side yard.

No audience questions

Deliberations

Mr. Leonard: I do see why you are here. I do not agree with moving it to the chimney. It is a 6-foot fence facing the street. Variances are forever. Your neighbor would be stuck with a 6-foot fence. I would be more favorable with a 4-foot fence.

Mr. Galvin: Instructed that the board does not have to grant all the relief requested, you can grant part of it.

Mr. Vacarro: I tend to agree with Mr. Leonard. I understand your privacy, but your fence is half way up the yard now, I would like the fence to be 4-feet as well.

Mr. Reilly: Mr. DeSantis has a beautiful home. I would like to see the fence go past the sliding door. I think the appearance of a six-foot fence would be better.

Mr. Vacarro: Inquired if the applicant would accept the fence going half the distance requested.

Mrs. Tooker: It is quite a departure from what is allowed now.

Mr. Leonard: I would allow the fence to go 4 feet forward, but I would want it to be a four foot fence.

Motion by Mr. Vacarro, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2005-51 with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Reilly and Vacarro……………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard………………………………Nay

Application Denied

Application #2005-48 – Robert C. & Anne E. Lightburn, 307 New Jersey Avenue; Block 50, Lot 4; Applicant wishes to add a second story addition to existing single family dwelling.
Anne E. & Robert C. Lightburn, sworn. Lot coverage with deck will be 35.9%. We amended the application and added the deck. Wolfersberger: My concern is lot coverage. Pictures taken on Monday entered as A-3 & A-4 depict rear of home. Anne Lightburn: Deck will extend over existing concrete apron. Mr. Wolfersbrger: Impervious coverage will remain the same? A. Lightburn: correct Mr. Wolfersberger: You included both sets of stairs in lot coverage? R. Lightburn: Yes Mr. Wolfersberger: Is there a certain distance that the stairs have to be away from the pool? A. Lightburn: If there is a concern we can move the stairs to the side. (Mr. Galvin reviewed pool ordinance) Mr. Vacarro: How many square feet is the deck? (BL: 240 sq. feet) Mr. Vacarro: I am coming up with 285 sq. feet.

Condition:

1. Stairs are to be a safe distance from the pool.
2. Improvements are not to exceed 35.9% Lot coverage.

Deliberations:

Mrs. Tooker: The deck is going over concrete anyways. It will be beautiful. In favor

Mr. Vacarro: I second what Kristine says.

Mr. Wolfersberger: I am going to agree with both my colleagues in this instance. Replace ugly concrete with something functional. Will not exceed what is on the application. In favor

Mr. Leonard: To echo what has been already said, my only concern is the proximity of the stairs to the pool.

Motion by Mr. Vacarro, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2005-48 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard, Vacarro and Reilly…………………Yea
Opposed – None

Application #2006-03 – Robert P. Gallo, 403 Philadelphia Avenue; Block 33, Lot 2; Applicant wishes to construct a 17′ x 25′ deck. Robert Gallo, sworn. Mr. Gallo stated that the deck would be attractive and not have a negative impact on his neighbors. Joseph Quinn, builder, sworn; Deck will be built with ACQ treated lumber, vinyl system for railings. Mr. Gallo stated that after the addition is finished the home would be 29.7% building coverage. Mr. Wolfersberger: The increase in lot coverage will be 25%. Mt. Gallo stated that the new deck would extend 10 feet further than the old deck. Under the deck is just soil. Mr. Leonard: Wanted to know why he did not come with the addition and deck for approval. Mr. Gallo stated that he was advised to start the addition because he did not need a variance for that. Mr. Galvin inquired if they need steps to exit the home. (Mr. Gallo: Yes) Mr. Leonard inquired if they thought about having a paver patio. Mr. Gallo: The patio would require having steps. I think a deck looks a lot more attractive and we would like to keep it that way if we possibly could.

No audience comments/questions

Mr. Wolfersberger: To be honest I am concerned with the 37.6%. Considerable increase.
Mr. Gallo: We squared off the house. We can reduce it, I don’t know how with the two sliders. The new addition is a new bedroom.
Mr. Wolfersberger: I am not sure where everyone else is coming from, but I am concerned.
Mr. Leonard: Had I seen this all at one time I would not of been comfortable with it. We would have been asking you to cut back.
Mr. Gallo: We were not hiding anything. We were following the advice we were provided with. I do not know what the design would be if we reduced it.
Mr.Leonard: You got bad advice.

Deliberations

Mr. Leonard: I am not comfortable with 38%. I do not know if the board would set a % that we are comfortable with. I am not sure how to cut it back. I would be esthetic if you put in pavers.
Mrs. Tooker: We generally stick to 30%. It is not like we are picking on you.
Mr. Wolfersberger: My suggestion is that you work with your builder and come up with a design that I would know what it looks like before I approve it.
Mr. Vacarro: I sympathize with you, but maybe a smaller deck with stairs that come down to a patio.
Mr. Gallo waves the time in which the board has to act.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2006-03 to June 15, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard, Vacarro and Reilly…………………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-12 – First Baptist Church, 708 McLean Avenue; Block 203, Lot 25; Applicant wishes to construct a new building to provide the Church with classroom space in the lower level and a multi-purpose room with kitchen facilities in the upper level. (Carried without notice) John Amelchenko, licensed architect. Credentials accepted. Drawings depict prior and present architecturals. We looked at prior application and felt it was out of scale. The building was reduced by 1,000 square feet per floor. Original proposal added 12,080 square feet. New proposal adds 10,000 square feet (per floor). Reduced height of building to 30 feet and reduced volume. Roof slopes were replicated to match existing church. Over all volume was reduced by 67,000 cubic feet from prior application. Replicated new entrance to look like original entrance. DYFYS will eventually decide how many children can occupy the building. It strictly is for Sunday school use.

Mrs. Tooker and Mr. Vacarro stepped down from this matter.

Audience Questions

Al Barnes: Can it be used for a gymnasium (JA: No)

Meg McElwee, 701 McLean Avenue: I like the drawing. Will there be showers? (JA): No) Meg: Excellent!
John Butow: You referred to bottom level as classroom. Are all classrooms in the basement (JA: Yes)
John Amelchenko: Reduced classrooms by one. There will be 8 classrooms, which will hold 85 children. Ceiling will be 20 feet tall.
Mr. Wolfersberger: It is a lot more attractive than the last presentation.

Bob Burdick, Engineer/Planner, credentials excepted: Revised plan reduced building by 17%. Reduced multipurpose room by 34%. Kitchen and restroom facilities have been moved from rear of church and classrooms have been reduced. Flat wall in front of structure has been reduced from 20 feet to 12 feet. Parking will be increased from 8 to 27 parking spaces. Evening meetings would take place between 4pm to 8 pm up to three times per week. There will be an occasional wedding. A church is an inherently beneficial use. They promote morals and civic responsibility. Significantly lessons the flat wall and provides relief in an attractive manner. Proposed parking lot improvements will aid in the free flow of traffic with providing more on site parking. Manse will now be constructed in rear of facility and parking will be in front. Requesting waiver on parking space size. Based on these facts we believe this project satisfies the positive criteria. Negative Impact – Increase in noise from new parking area. Revised original plan entered as A-101.

Requesting Variances: Impervious, 55% to be conservative. Negatives are minimal compared to the positives. I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments.

Motion by Leonard second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2005-12 to July 6, 2006 if board members are available with notice
Vote: Simon, Leonard, Wolfersberger and Reilly

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-36 – Mike Terpak, 302 New York Avenue; Block 32; Lot 19

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Reilly…………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mrs. Tooker, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2006-05 – William & Denise Mayer, 705 Cedar Avenue; Block 118; Lot 10
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Reilly…………………………………Yea

Motion by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-15 – Marie Lauletta, 76 Inlet Drive; Block 176; Lot7 partial 8 with conditions

Vote: Tooker………………………………………………………………………Yea

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second Mr. Leonard Denying Application #2005-42 – Angelo & Anna Danza, 217 Trenton Avenue; Block 80; Lot 8Application Denied
Vote: Simon, Tooker and Leonard………………………………………………….Yea

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Simon to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-43 – Oscar Dino, 206 New Jersey Avenue, Block 42; Lot 17 with conditions
Vote: Simon and Leonard…………………………………………………………..Yea

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-47 – George & Linda Meyer, 404 Central Avenue; Block 95; Lot 10 with conditions

Vote: Simon, Tooker and Leonard…………………………………………………….Yea

Attest: Karen L. Mills