February 17, 2005

02-17-2005

The February 17, 2005 meeting of the Board of Adjustment was opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Board members: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger and Tooker Alternates: Leonard and Dyer Absent: Simon

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Dyer to approve the minutes of January 20, 2005 meeting.

VOTE: Moberg, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer..YEA
ABSTAIN: Palisi

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize application #2004-39, Jehovah Witnesses, 301 River Avenue with conditions.

VOTE: Moberg, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard,…….YEA
ABSTAIN: Palisi, Dyer

Application 2004-47, Jay Bayliss, 113 Arnold Avenue, Block 98, Lot 7; Applicant wishes to construct a second story to existing single family dwelling and a small two story addition and a covered porch.

Irving Bayliss, sworn, testified that he wishes to add a second story to the existing first story of his home. He wants to remove the existing front porch and add a porch the length of the house. Mr. Cangelosi: How many square feet will you be adding. Mr.Bayliss: About 910 square feet, the same as the first floor. Mr. Galvin: You will be adding the second floor directly over the first floor that is preexisting. Mr. Bayliss: That is correct. We will also be bumping out the kitchen 5 feet and the second floor will be going over that. Mr. Cangelosi: That kitchen bump out will be in the rear. Mr. Bayliss: No that is on the side. The other side is where I need a variance. Mr. Dyer: What is the existing lot coverage? Mr. Bayliss: A little over 33% Mr. Wolfersberger: I don’t understand, it says 30%. Mr. Bayliss: You mean what’s current now? Yes, 30%, the proposal goes up to 35%Mr. Dyer: Will it be 35% because of the deck?Mr. Bayliss: Because the front porch will be the length of the house, we are adding a kitchen. Mr. Moberg: How much bigger will the porch be?Mr. Bayliss: The existing porch is 6′ x 8’and the new porch will be 8′ x 31′.Mr. Moberg: Right now your are 10′ from the front property line and you will remain at 10′? Mr. Bayliss: Yes Mr. Moberg: The front porch will not encroach into the existing front yard set back? Mr. Bayliss: Right. Mr. Cangelosi: What we are seeing are three variances required, which 2 of the 3 are preexisting. Mr. Struncius: Could you clarify the lot coverage. Mr. Bayliss:
We are at 30%, with improvements it will be about 35%. Mr. Moberg: For simplicity sake, what is the major reason for the 5% increase? Mr. Bayliss: The front porch and the kitchen. Mr. Dyer: Does that 30% take in account the wood deck in the back. Mr. Bayliss: Yes Mr. Galvin: Enters photographs A-2, A-3, A-4 , When did you take these pictures? Mr. Bayliss: November and December 2004.Mr. Dyer: What is the square footage of the deck. Mr. Bayliss: There are actually 2 decks. Main deck is 14′ by 22′. Small deck is 9′ by 9′. Mr. Dyer: If you took away the square footage of the decks you would be under 30%. Mr. Bayliss: Yes Mr. Struncius: What will this do for your living space? Mr. Bayliss:We will have 3 bathrooms and 3 bedrooms upstairs. Mr. Moberg: Are the average houses on Arnold about the same? Mr. Bayliss: Yes Mr. Struncius: Looking at the pictures I can see the house next to you is way out in front.

Audience Questions:
None

Mr. Galvin: Do you believe that the new house will be attractive? Mr. Bayliss: Yes, now the house will have one roof line. Mr. Galvin: Will it have any negative impact on anybody? Mr. Bayliss: No Mr. Galvin: Will it block anyone’s light or air? Mr. Bayliss: No

Deliberations:

Mr. Dyer: I am in favor when someone wants to improve his or her home. When you look at the home without the deck, it comes in under 30%. Mr. Moberg: Being it has an open front porch, which is not impeding anyone’s view and it enhances the look of the property, I am in favor.Mr. Wolfersberger: Looking at the house and the design, I would approve, but I have to go with my conscience and not be in favor because of the lot coverage. Mr. Palisi: We are not looking at a big square house, it has character. Without the deck it is under 30%, I am in favor. Mr. Cangelosi: I am in favor of application. The home enhances the neighborhood. I have no particular concerns. It will be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Struncius: A couple of items are preexisting. I do not see any negative impact. House on either side are much larger. I am in favor of application.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application 2004-47 with the following conditions.
1. Front porch not to be enclosed.
2. Front stairs not to encroach closer than 8 feet.

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard……………..YEA
No: Wolfersberger……………………………………………………………NAY
Abstain: Dyer

Application approved with conditions

Application 2004-38, Thomas & Patricia Bahmer, 210 Carter Avenue, Block 179.02, Lot 9;Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and detached garage and construct a new single family dwelling.

Steven A. Pardes attorney for the applicant. Thomas R. Bahmer Sworn. Thomas R. Bahmer stated he has been the owner of the property for 20 years. Survey of property is entered as A-2. Mr. Bahmer states that this is an accurate survey of the property in question. Mr. Bahmer went on to explain that this has always been a family summer home and that it has never been a rental property. Mr. Bahmer is looking to make it a permanent residence since he and his wife are now retired with two grown children. His 89-year-old mother-in-law will also be living with them. He has decided that a modular home is the easiest way to go. Plot plan is entered as A-3, showing proposed house with attached garage at 35.4% lot coverage. Mr. Pardes asked if it was possible to build a house and comply with both setbacks. Mr.Bahmer does not believe so. Mr. Pardes stated looking at the survey and plot plan that the old house has a setback on Cater Avenue of 14.3 feet, which is non-conforming and the new house will have a setback on Carter of 25.5 feet, which will comply. Mr. Bahmer states that that is correct. Mr. Pardes: Would it be possible to construct the new home and comply with both setbacks. Mr. Bahmer: I do not believe so. Mr. Pardes: In essence you are building a bigger house but the setbacks are improved. You have a 2 car garage, have you thought about just a one car garage to improve lot coverage. Mr. Bahmer: I am involved with antique cars and the garages a very important to me. I need the garage to putter around in. I have talked about it, but it is very important to me at this stage of my life. Mr. Bahmer states that his will be an aesthetic improvement to the property and enhance the neighborhood. Mr.Pardes: Will it be blocking any of the neighbor’s light or air? Mr. Bahmer: No Mr. Struncius: What is the height of the house? Mr. Bahmer: 28 feet Mr. Struncius: The new house? Mr. Bahmer: Somewhere in the 30’s. Mr. Leonard: The front of the house faces Carter? Mr. Bahmer: The front will be Lake Avenue. Mr. Wolfersberger: Houses on a corner are unique. The style is important. I am going to sound like a broken record but 35.4% lot coverage concerns me. We are starting from scratch. Mr. Struncius: My issues are a little different. We are going over 30% and it is a box house going on the corner. It is a lot of house on property very close to the street and a big box on the corner. Mr. Palisi: I think it is great that you want to live here full time. I don’t mind 35% if there are open porches and character. My fear is how big it is on a corner, I want you to change things around and come back to us, Mr. Pardes: I told Mr. Bahmer here might be a problem with the size and lot coverage. Mr. Struncius: The massing of the house is a problem. Mr. Dyer: If you want to stay with 2-car garage then maybe the sunroom could go. Mr. Bahmer: Maybe we rushed this. Mr. Pardes: I would ask that the Board would allow us to carry this application to a future date. We would have time to come back with a better design.

Audience Questions:

Mr. Solt: Is the bottom floor elevated in accordance to the community flood plain ordinace? Are these specs at the flood plane level. Mr. Bahmer: We checked on that and we will be elevated 6 feet. Mr.Palisi: You should have those specs when you return.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger to carry application 2004-38 without notice to July 21, 2005, second by Mr. Palisi.

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard..YEA
Abstain: Dyer

Application Carried

Application 2004-42, Joseph & Patricia Feely, 1809 Beacon Lane, Block 11.01, Lot 2; Applicant wishes to construct a deck over existing porch.

Joseph P. Feely, sworn. Mr. Feely stated that his home was built in 1972. In order to enhance the look of his home he would like to construct a second floor deck. This would allow him to have a place to sit and enjoy the view and read the paper. He is also putting new siding and a new roof on the home. He and his wife will be retiring in 3-4 years and are looking forward to their children and grandchildren coming to visit. Mr. Dyer: You are not coming out any further? Mr. Feeley: No Mr. Palisi: When sitting on the porch you will not be looking into anyone’s bathroom or bedroom Mr. Feeley: Neighbor to the South has opened deck, neighbor to the North has closed porch. From privacy standpoint I do not think it will be affecting anyone. Mr. Moberg: His neighbors already have decks. I heard you say you were doing work on the bedrooms. Mr. Feeley: We are just doing the deck. Mr. Wolfersberger: The density down there is out of control, but it is consistent. I would be in favor, more consistent with neighborhood. Mr. Palisi: I echo Mr. Wolfersberger, In favor. Mr. Moberg: He has one of the older houses on Beacon Lane. Any renovation to older homes, I am in favor.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, Second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application 2004-42.

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard….YEA
Abstain: Dyer

Application Approved

Application 2004-43,Greg & Barbara, Somers, 105 Harvard Drive, Block 153, Lot 18; Applicant had originally submitted plans to construct a new single family dwelling with the intent and verbiage that stated "Garage to be demolished & completely removed." Applicant now advises that he would like the detached garage to remain.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for the applicant. Gregory Somers, sworn. Mr. Pardes: Could you give the Board a brief history of your home? Mr. Somers: My family has been the owner of the home since 1961, so it has been in the family for over 40 years. My mother passed away in 1991 and our purpose of coming back is to retire. The new home is already constructed and the garage is an existing garage. Most of the house was constructed while I was in Kentucky. I kept in touch with the builder via the phone. The builder informed me when he was calculating lot coverage he had not included the garage. He told me the garage would have to go or we would need to come for a variance. There was nothing I could do. The stairs also were not correct. The builder put in 30 pilings and the stairs are 5 feet wide. Mr. Galvin: If the stairs were compliant you would not be over lot coverage? Mr. Pardes. Yes, Builder did not figure them in. The only way to be compliant is to remove garage. Tell them about storage. Mr. Somers: We have a crawl space. I use the garage for additional storage. Mr. Pardes: Do the stairs interfere with your neighbors light and air? Mr. Somers: No Mr. Pardes: These stairs are already constructed because you are already living there. Mr. Somers: Yes, since October 27, 2004.Mr. Struncius: Is it a very high foundation? Mr. Somers: We had to conform to FEMA. The miscalculations added to the extra stairs. Mr. Struncius: Will you be having shrubbery? Mr. Somers: Yes, 6 feet high. Mr. Struncius: Would you be willing to have them as a condition? Mr. Somers: Absolutely, I already have that all worked out. Mr. Struncius: Another condition will be that impervious coverage cannot exceed 50%.

Audience Questions:
None

Mr. Galvin confirmed that impervious coverage in a SF5 Zone is 50%. Mr. Struncius: What is the whole square footage? Mr. Dyer: 1107 square feet without the stairs. Mr. Wolfersberger: As long as impervious is 50%, then OK.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Struncius to approve application 2004-43 with the following conditions:
1. Confirm with Building
Department that impervious coverage does not exceed 50%.
2. Applicant is to plant a minimum of 8 Arborvitaes, 6 feet high in front of home to cover foundation.

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard..YEA
Abstain: Dyer

Application 2004-43 approved with conditions

Application 2004-45, Joseph & Barbara De Vingo, 302 Elizabeth Avenue, Block13.04, Lot 26;Applicant wishes to expand the living room by enclosing the open front porch and construct a new family room in rear. Previous variance granted front yard encroachment to 21 feet.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for the applicant. Joseph De Vingo sworn. Mr. Pardes pointed out that there is an discrepancy between the Building Department calculations of lot coverage and the architects. Impervious coverage is not an issue. Mr. De Vingo stated that he is a full time resident. His house was built in 1998.
Mr. Pardes produced photographs that Mrs. De Vingo took a week ago. Photos entered as A-2 and AB. Mr. De Vingo stated that he originally had a screen porch, but it has been so windy that it blew out the screens, so he does not use the porch. He wants to enclose to porch to add more space to his living room. The footprint will remain the same.Mr. Cangelosi: How will you be enclosing the porch? Mr. De Vingo: With walls and a window. Mr. Cangelosi: There will be no change to the front yard setback? Mr. De Vingo: No Mr. Pardes called attention to the architectural plans. Mr. De Vingo: The back of the house is like an "L", we want to put up walls to increase our dining room. Photographs entered as A-4a, A-4b, A-4c, and A4d. Pictures show where proposed addition will go. Mr. Struncius: We have beautiful plans and we can see what is being done, so do you think there will be a negative impact on any of your neighbors? Mr. De Vingo: No Mr. Struncius: All changes are aesthetically pleasing, not exceeding outside the foundation, you are just closing it in. You are not encroaching any setbacks? Mr. De Vingo: No Mr. Cangelosi: Does the front enclosure block anyone’s view? Mr. De Vingo: No Mr. Moberg: You are going to add a deck above the enclosure? Mr. De Vingo: There is a deck already; we are extending it over the enclosure. Mr Dyer: The lot coverage will be the same? Mr. De Vingo: Yes

Audience Questions:

Frank Costa – 300 Elizabeth Avenue
Did the notice reference a roof top deck?
Mr. Pardes: It is not a roof top deck. It is a second floor deck. The notice follows the Building Department referral. Frank Costa: I was looking at their plans and I did not see the shed. What about the shed? Mr. De Vingo: I have a shed Mr. Galvin: Is that included in lot coverage? Mr. De Vingo: No Mr. Galvin: I would go with our Zoning Officer’s Calculations. Mr. De Vingo: I will get rid of the shed tomorrow. Barbara Costa: I do not understand why the deck did not need to be included in the notice. Mr. Moberg: Because it was included in the lot coverage.

Barbara Costa, sworn: I had to come back for clarification to the board for the same thing they are doing. I do not understand why they did not have to notice us about the deck. We cut our home back in good faith. We have a growing family; their children are full grown and live in the area. I do not understand what their hardship is. Mr. Pardes: It is not fair to go back into the Costa’s application. It is what it is. We are talking about a modest deck. No other neighbor’s have shown up. The Costa’s have shown up, so I guess the notice was sufficient. There is a great deal of hostility due to the De Vingo’s objecting to a previous application of the Costa’s. Mr.Galvin: The key thing is that the notice is adequate. If the Board finds that the notice is adequate, then the Board can hear it.

Mr. Moberg: Are there any further comments? Frank Costa, sworn. I do not understand. If people come look at the plans and they are not accurate how can they know what is exactly going on Mr. Moberg: I asked Mr. De Vingo about the deck and he clarified it. Mr. Costa: I am referring to the shed Mr. Galvin: We have decided about the shed. Mr. Costa: They have a large 20′ by 20′ grape arbor. Is that considered building coverage? Mr. Moberg: I do not believe that is a building coverage issue. I believe it is a horticultural assessory. Mr. Galvin: It is movable and not fixed to the ground? Mr. Pardes: It is not fixed and totally movable. Mr. Wolfersberger: What do we end up with lot coverage? Are we keeping the shed or not keeping the shed? Mr. Pardes- Lot Coverage is 31.7%

Deliberations:

Mr. Dyer:Being 5 feet from the East and 40 feet from the back I do not see where it is an issue. I think it is minimal for a situation like this. Mr. Leonard: I agree with Mr. Dyer. I think the shed should be removed. I am inclined to let the variances to take place for the items you have asked us for. I also think it would be a kind gesture to remove the shed since Mr. De Vingo offered. Mr. Struncius: I am glad someone else said it. I agree to the removal of the shed to keep it under 31%. It is aesthetically pleasing with no negative effects. Mr. Cangelosi: I think the shed should be removed even though coverage is minimal. I am inclined to let the variances go ahead. Mr. Palisi: I am in favor of application. It is a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Motion to approve application 2004-45 by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Struncius with the following conditions: 1. Removal of shed.
2.Home is to be constructed in accordance to the plans submitted.

Vote:Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard….YEA
Abstain: Dyer

Motion Mrs. Tooker to adjourn, second by Mr. Dyer

Vote: Moberg, Palisi, Struncius, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard, Dyer

Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm

February 18, 2005 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board