February 2, 2006

MINUTES

The February 2, 2006 Special meeting of the Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:45pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg and Tooker Alternates: Leonard and Spader.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to approve the minutes of January 19, 2006.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Spader…………Yea
Abstain: Leonard
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote extending application #2003-13 of Kelly Wall, 504 St. Louis Avenue.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Spader…………Yea
Abstain: Leonard
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to memorialize the action and vote extending application #2003-22 of Donald & Rosemarie Canastra, 12A Inlet Drive

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Spader…………Yea
Abstain: Leonard
Opposed: None

Motion by Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi memorializing the action and vote amending application #2004-17 of James Barrett, 502 New Jersey Avenue.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Spader…………Yea
Abstain: Leonard
Opposed: None

Application #2005-41, Crescenzo Group, LLC, 311 Broadway; Bock 167, Lot 4; Applicant wishes to convert existing restaurant into a professional office use. Mr. Wolfersberger has stepped down from this application. This leaves 6 board members to vote on a "use" variance. The applicant reserves the right to hold off on the decision. If the applicant goes ahead with the use variance they do not want to abandon the restaurant use. As long as that is the understanding the applicant will proceed. Robert Burdick, Professional Planner/Professional Engineer, credentials excepted. Robert Burdick: This is the conversion of the old "Portofino’s" Restaurant. The applicant wishes to convert to professional offices. There are offices located within the LC zone. The building is to remain the same with minimal improvement. No open space will be lost. There will be a slight increase in open space. Less of an impact on surrounding properties than present use. Lights will be turned off earlier. There will be a more structured traffic flow, lighting, handicap access and landscaping. Bulk variances are pre-existing, but that will be improved with the removal of some of the pavement. Will be requesting variance for parking. Applicant will attempt to place trash area towards rear of structure. Trash should be minimal. Revise plan to have sewer flush with pavement. Parking; 19 spaces where 24 are required. Request waiver for 5 parking spaces. Cangelosi: Is the concrete you are offering to take out in Paragraph 8 what is reducing impervious coverage? Burdick: Yes Simon: Parking on side you said is for loading. What will the traffic be? Burdick: Maybe 1 FedEx truck or UPS truck per day. Maybe a larger truck, but that would be rare.

Audience Questions – None

Cangelosi: Please comment on handicap accessibility. Burdick – There is none now. We are proposing a space near the rear door. Struncius: What are the limitations of the "use". We do not want to give a blanket approval.. Pardes: We would exclude luncheonette. We are not talking about retail sales. Administrative offices, equipment would be somewhere else. Offices like small realtor. We would have no problem limiting the "use". Mr. Cresenzo said the interest so far is a surveyor and real estate office. He is willing to condition that there will not be medical offices. Galvin: Use of space shall be limited to professional/corporate offices. No medical offices. No commercial vehicles are to be parked on site and there will be no stored vehicle. Pardes: It is a big building; we would like to see multiple uses. Galvin: What type of signage? Pardes: façade signs

Audience comments: None

Pardes: It might wind up being a restaurant. Struncius: There is a defined time that you can proceed. Pardes: They have one year to act on it. Galvin: I will record that the applicant has one year to proceed with office "use".

Deliberations – Struncius – What a change. Someone who wants to change use and it is not a person wanting to put a home on a commercial lot. I think it is important to maintain commercial uses. I think it does meet "Master Plan" recommendations. I do not think the intensity is going to be a negative. I would be willing to allow you that buffer and be able to sell it in either capacity. Commercial property within a commercial zone. In favor. Cangelosi: I do not see a negative impact on the surrounding area. No negative impact on the "Master Plan". Tooker: It will be nice to see the building used. I will be happy to see it turned into something useful.

Conditions:
1. Paving detail showing the thickness of the pavement has been provided to the Board’s Engineer
2. The site plan is to be revised to depict an evergreen landscape buffer along the easterly property line along Channel Drive to screen the parking area in accordance with the ordinance.
3. Landscaping is to be added adjacent to the five stalls proposed on Broadway.
4. The applicant is to remove and replace sidewalk-fronting channel Drive and a replace 20 linear feet of sidewalk and curbing on Broadway.
5. The use of this space shall be limited to corporate and professional offices and will not be used for medical offices.
6. There is to be no overnight parking of vehicles.
7. No commercial vehicles are to be parked on site.
8. Signs will be limited to façade signs consistent with the ordinance.
9. The Board is aware that the applicant wishes to maintain the restaurant use. In accordance with the ordinance the applicant shall have one year to convert the building to the proposed off use.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2005-41 with conditions.

Vote: Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Spader…………Yea

Opposed: None

Letter from Ken Poray – He is requesting that his resolution be amended to allow him to expand the food preparation area. Microwave heating only is not working out. Mr. Moberg said that this is an expansion and that the applicant will need to notice

Application #2005-39, PLRJ; 504 Sea Avenue, Block 12; Lot 13; Applicant wishes to construct 1 Building containing 7 Garden Apartments and another building containing a commercial use on first floor with a second floor apartment. (Carried without notice)
Mrs. Tooker has stepped down from this application. Mr. Pardes: We held off last time going ahead with the vote because we did not have seven board members. The only outstanding issue was garbage collection. Charles Gilligan: He has spoken with Bob Meany about how the garbage will be picked up and Mr. Meany said he would have no problem entering the private property to do so. He offered two options. Wolfersberger: I think we should go over all the variances we are looking for. We are looking at a side yard and front yard, three-story building. What accommodations did you make for a recreation area? Gilligan: We do not have a common area. Cangelosi: Total number of parking spaces? Gilligan: 28 where 26 are required.

No audience questions.

Deliberations:

Leonard: Although I am not thrilled with taking height measurements from different locations. I am glad to see we are reducing impervious coverage. I think it is a good fit with the neighborhood. Struncius – We have seen a trend where homes are replacing commercial use. However, I think it is a unique piece of property that is transitional. They positioned the homes that they do not look in their neighbors yard. You won’t even know the townhouses are there. When you come down the highway you will see an improved building. I do not see an intensity issue here. Wolfersberger: I am concerned with the density of this project. I think the building facing Sea Avenue is pleasing. I think the mass of buildings that are 41 feet high is a mass. The people on Maryland Avenue will have to look up. I am concerned that we have no addressed the need for a common recreational area. I am concerned with the three stories. Not in favor of this project as it stands. Moberg – This project is on a unique site. The commercial building and 6 town homes will be a lot less traffic. It will not have the odors of a restaurant, The first thing you will see is the commercial use.. Density on this property is much less that the other town homes that have been approved. Skoko’s and Richmond Commons are much more dense. In favor. Spader – I was not on the board, but I listened to the tapes two or three times. I was particularly impressed with the way the applicant was working with the Board. Testimony went to the type of people that would be buying the units. The fact that there are no residents from Maryland Avenue here, they are not objecting, but they are not here. I would like to see it more upscale and if there was one less unit I would be more inclined to support it.

Conditions:
1. Applicant is to submit a Master Deed bylaws and public offering statement for the review and approval by the Board’s attorney.
2. The applicant is to revise the plan to provide Leland cypress
3. The plan will be revised to add sidewalks on Charleston Street and Sea Avenue
4. A manufacturers lighting plan will be provided by the applicant subject to review and approval by the Board Engineer.
5. The applicant is to locate garbage receptacles on the site after consulting with Director of Public Works and the Board’s engineer the applicant will revise the plan to show the location of the garbage, receptacle placement on pick up day.
6. The applicant through its Engineer agreed to comply with certain items in the Borough Engineers letter of November 21, 2005.
7. The applicant agreed to utilize cedar impression shingles.
8. The approval is granted based on there will be no changes to the existing signage.

This requires 5 affirmative votes.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-39 with conditions.

Vote: Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg & Leonard
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Spader

Application Denied

Application #2005-11, Augustus Columbus Hayes Investment Group, Inc.; 105 Baltimore, Block 154; Lot 10. Applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling. (Carried without notice)

Donald Ambrose, attorney for applicant. A-3, base flood elevation certificate that shows the BFE is 10 feet. Mr. Moberg refreshed everyone’s memory explaining that the applicant was to revise the building design. Mr. Ambrose said they have added two gables in the front and brought the porch across the front of the home except where the stairs are located. He feels they have adhered to the board’s wishes. The location of the building is no different. Mr. Struncius inquired as to the height of the home. Mr. Ambrose replied that the foundation is 6 feet so the home will be 32.6 feet. Mr. Struncius: Then we can say they home will be no higher than 33 feet. Mr. Wolfersberger: Inquired why the railing does not run across with the lattice.

Deliberations:
Wolfersberger: I am not an advocate of modular homes. I have been disappointed so far. I hope I am pleasantly surprised. Your concessions and willingness to listen to us, I would be in favor. Struncius: We are dealing with setbacks because it is a corner lot. You are back here because we have to be sure we are maintaining some aesthetic value. We are not exceeding lot coverage. In favor. Moberg – I echo Mr. Wolfersberger remarks as far as modular homes. Cangelosi: A/C is to be placed on the south side of the home and have vegetative cover.

Conditions:

1. The applicant is to install 4-foot tall foundation plantings along the front of the home on Baltimore and Sanborn to cover the base of the home.
2. The building height is not to exceed 33 feet.
4. The siding is to be cedar impression vinyl.
5. A/C unit is to be located on the southwest corner of the home located within the setbacks and have vegetative cover.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2005-11 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Spader…………Yea
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2005-28, Andrew S. Labowsky, Jr., 1620 Beacon Lane, Block 179.03 Lot 5.09; Applicant wishes to enclose ground (basement) level with full wall in lieu of four-foot high masonry perimeter wall. Construct enclosed shower on ocean side deck. Provide second floor deck immediately above first floor deck. (carried without notice)

Application #2005-29, Ocean Ventures at Bay Pointe Dunes, 1618 Beacon Lane, Block 179.03 Lot 5.08; Applicant wishes to enclose ground (basement) level with full wall in lieu of four-foot high masonry perimeter wall. Construct enclosed shower on ocean side deck. Provide second floor deck immediately above first floor deck. (Carried without notice)

Application #2005-30, Ocean Ventures at Bay Pointe Dunes, 1616 Beacon Lane, Block 179.03 Lot 5.07; Applicant wishes to enclose ground (basement) level with full wall in lieu of four-foot high masonry perimeter wall. Construct enclosed shower on ocean side deck. Provide second floor deck immediately above first floor deck. (Carried without notice)
Steve Pardes, attorney for applicant. All three applications (#2005-28, 29 & 30) will be heard at once. Applications are identical. This case is purely aesthetics. Exhibits Applications-A-1, (28), A-2 (29), A-3 (30). A-4 – Photo Board, A-5 Photos on 2 pages. A-6 2nd board. Massimo Yezzi, architect, sworn.. Lower level of home will be enclosed with same siding. There will be a window or two and will not be heated. Moberg: What are the sizes of the decks? Yezzi: Strictly sun decks, not for entertainment purposes. Spader: Isn’t it unusual to sheetrock an area that is not going to be used? Labowsky: We walk through there to get to the deck. Struncius: So these plans are not accurate? Pardess: We submitted new plans to the building Department on December 6, 2005 and they were accepted.

Audience Questions: Kathy Foley, 115 Randall Avenue – Why was the deck changed from the original plan? Labowsky – As we were building we saw an opportunity to have outside access. Foley – Did the building of the lower deck encroach into the dune. Labowsky – No it did not. Moberg – The dune line is actually 10 feet into the dune. Foley – Did Cafra require you to build the deck over the sand?

Mr. Simon- Can we get some time frame for completeing the dune plantings. Labowsky – by April

Audience comments – Rose Rinaldi, 1605 Beacon Lane. I am sick and tired that these homes are not finished. It will be good for the neighborhood. It decreases our property value. On windy days all the debris goes in that area.
Foley: The sand flies around because it is a dune area.
Frank Rinaldi: 1605 Beacon Lane. I agree with my wife 100%. For 6 years it is not done.

Deliberations:

Moberg: I will agree with the residents. It will improve the aesthetics. I like the look of it. The improvements will enhance the neighborhood. No negative impact. Tooker: That whole area has been given tons of leeway. There is sand because you live on a beach. Not in favor. Struncius: Your houses are different. If there were a consistency it would be different. We are talking about the value of these homes. I am in favor. Spader: That whole project was supposed to be built on pilings. Someone gave them permission to close. Now you have 80-90% of the block closed. I do not know who gave the approval. Now that it is started the rest should be done. Wolfersberger- obviously they should be closed. In favor with reservations. Cangelosi: I do not know how the project got this far. We have to be more careful when we pick up an application. I am in favor of finishing the construction.

Conditions: 1. 1st floor is not to be habitable space and to be limited to radiant heat.
2. The first floor is limited to storage and use as a garage.
3. These buildings are limited to two floors of habitable space and the constructed 500sf of habitable space existing on the mezzanine third floor.
4. The applicant agreed to all site plan requirements stated in resolution 1994-195, including the requirement of dune plantings.
5. The applicant is to submit a landscaping plan to sufficiently cover the foundation and to be reviewed and approved by the Board Engineer.
6. The applicant agreed to abide by Mr. Savacool’s letter of February 2, 2006.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Struncius to approve applications 2005-28, 29 & 30 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Leonard & Spader.
Opposed: Tooker

Application approved with conditions.

Meeting adjourned