July 20th, 2006

MINUTES

The July 20th, 2006 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:34PM. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were regular Board members: Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Struncius, Mr. Moberg, Mr. Palisi and Mrs. Tooker. Alternates: Mr. Reilly and Mr. Vacarro Absent Alternates: Mr. Leonard and Mr. Spader

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve the minutes of the June 15, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker, Reilly and Vacarro…………..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Palisi to amend Application #2001-51, of Ward Family Properties, LLC.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-13 – Drew & Joan Ricciardi; 313 Philadelphia Avenue; Block 32, Lot 7; Applicant wishes to remove existing shed and replace with a 10′ x 12′ shed, three feet from the rear and side yard property lines.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application#2006-13 of Drew and Joan Ricciardi to Juoy 26, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-18 – Michael & Colleen Zarrillo; 1906 Beacon Lane; Block 7, Lot 1: Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.(To be carried to July 26, 2006 without notice)

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Cangelosi to carry Application #2006-18 of Colleen and Michael Zarrillo to June 26, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-26 – Joe Leone’s/Joe Leone’s Development LLC; Block 89; Lot 4; Applicant wishes to convert existing bakery/real-estate office to a "manufacturing" wholesale business operation. Applicant would like to add a 7′ x 30′ addition and a 16′ x 16′ walk in box surrounded by an 8′ fence.

Kevin Starkey, attorney for applicant. John Hilla and Joseph L. Introna, applicants. Mr. Introna stated that the intent of purchasing the property was not to expand but to accommodate the current establishment. It is located across the street from his catering business. Four commercial businesses share the parking area. Primary business location at 400 Richmond Avenue. Currently renting space from Wallace contracting. Baking facility will be primarily for catering, his retail store and for his 8 current wholesale accounts. Hours of bread delivery will be from 7am on. Will not be using the street. Delivery trucks will be using rear access for pickups. It will be strictly a production facility. There will be 4 to 6 employees. Baking will be done 12 to 15 hours per day; building will be repainted and new signage. Proposed walk-in freezer box in rear is to store flour and ingredients to keep the insects out. The freezer box will be enclosed with a board on board fence. They are going to add a handicap parking space in rear. Property is currently not ADA compliant. Mr. Introna works with Votech Schools in Ocean County and sometimes employs mentally challenged people. The previous owner of the property subdivided property forty years age with the understanding that everyone would share the lot. Three or four delivery vans will be parked behind the building overnight. John Hilla: We are entitles to 25% of the parking area and 6 vans are less that 25%.

Mr. Reilly inquired if there will be any changes to the front of the building. (Joe – The front will remain Brick and be the colors of our other stores. Windows will be left. Awning will be Green, white with cream colors.)

Mr. Palisi: What will the residents be seeing? (Joe – B & K Real Estate side will have a clean oven in the window. There will be lights in the window.)

Mr. Moberg: Are all deliveries through the back door? (Joe – Yes)
Mr. Savacool – Please address garbage disposal. (Joe – garbage is brought to Point Bay fuel to avoid attracting animals. Bakery garbage is minimal. 10 or so bags a day.
Mr. Introna; Hoffman’s was a wholesale business that had people coming in all day. They had three trucks delivering donuts.
Mr. Moberg: What is the proposed height of the proposed freezer unit? (Joe – 9 feet). Mr. Starkey does not believe there is any negative criteria.
Gary Englehardt – Resident, American legion Way was concerned with deliveries.
James Decos – 506 American Legion Way. He does not like the idea. Between the eggplant and the garlic and now the bread smell. I do not think the residents can take this.
Mr. Moberg inquired about the height of the fence surrounding the walk-in box. Joe – the fence is 8 feet in height. After research Mr. Savacool concluded that the 8-foot fence is within the ordinance.
Deliberations

Mr. Cangelosi: I think the fence meets the criteria perfectly. We are not looking to enclose the dumpster. I think it is a technical distinction. There had previously been a baking operation there for forty years. Traffic will be limited more than previously. Hours of operation are reasonable. There will be no deliveries to the front. Traffic will be decreased…In favor.

Mr. Palisi: I agree with Mr. Cangelosi. The reality is when you purchase a home in the GC zone you have to expect there is going to be traffic. Our role is to put in operations that will take in the considerations of the residents and at the same time do what is right for the community. . Everything Joe does is first class. We can take what was a historic piece of this town and put it in the hands of someone who has taken care of this town, and gives back to this town and whose operations are first class in everything that he does is a win. Anyone who has tried to get a Boston cream on Sunday morning knows what kind of traffic there was. There is no question that it will minimize the traffic and parking issues. I am very much in favor of this application.

Mr. Wolfersberger: My only concern was that it would turn into retail has been put to rest. Having heard that they would have to go before the Planning Board…I am in favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2006-26, Of Joe Leone’s Development LLC, with conditions.

Conditions:

1. Windows are to remain so operation is visible.
2. Deliveries are to be in the rear of the building.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………Yea
Opposed: None

Application#2006-10, Anthony & Maureen Haddad, 203 Forman, Block 81; Lot 26; Applicant wishes to renovate/restore existing rooming house and change to bed and breakfast with the owner occupying the first floor. Applicant also wishes to restore the cupola that had originally graced the top of the structure. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for the applicant. Anthony Haddad, applicant, sworn. Applicant intends on continuing running the business as a rooming house. Mr. Haddad presented a visual presentation on the history of the Tower Cottage. Parents had previously owned property for 30 years. John Amelchenko, architect. Floor plan entered as A-3. 3 story rooming house. First floor – owner’s apartment. 2nd floor – 5 rental units; 2 baths and second floor deck. 3rd floor subdivided into three (3) units. Total 8-rental units plus owner’s apartment. The home is Queen Ann spindle style done in the late 1800’s. Applicant wishes to restore architectural integrity and modernize and enlarge owner’s apartment. Parlor will now be the main entrance. Home will be gutted and renovated with electrical being updated. Elevations entered as A-4.

Jeanne Kellington, attorney for some residents – Asking if the open deck in rear will now be an enclosed 2-story addition? (JA – Yes) Also inquired if there would be signage. (AH – demure small sign. There will be no neon signage.)

Theodore Jones, Forman Avenue – Inquired about increase of square footage. )(JA – 720 square feet)

Bonnie Zimmer, 206 Forman Avenue – Inquired how many tenants were presently renting. (AH – Presently cleaning so there are not any renters at this time.)

Mr. Struncius – Mechanicals are to be above flood elevation.
Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer – Required variances Front yard setback, 17.4 feet, maximum building coverage 35.9%, impervious coverage, 50.5%, building height 52.5 feet, three stories, (37.7 three stories (existing). Density will be reduced with 8 rentals units being reduced to 5.

Mr. Palisi asked for clarification between rooming house and Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Galvin replied the major difference is the cooking facility, which a Bed and Breakfast has. Mr. Savacool added that a Bed and Breakfast has time period of operation. Mr. Burdick explained that the applicant is also requesting a parking waiver, waiver for curbs and lights.

Audience Questions:
Jeanne Kellington: Are there any proposals for buffers to the left and right of the home? (RB – not at this time) Will tenants be using the backyard deck and front porch? (RB-Yes). Joe Gilinskie, 207
Forman voiced concern over parking. Steve Pardes stated that the reduction in units would improve the parking situation, not solve it.

Alison Coffin, Certified Planner, Credentials accepted. Explained the beneficial use of updating an historical structure. Height variance is being sought for architectural reason, not to expand living space. Building coverage variance can be sought without detriment. Overall increase is deminimus. In her opinion special reasons exist for granting of this variance.

Steven Kokor, 209 Forman Avenue- how does the tower actually beautify neighborhood? (AC – If you drive down the street the building does not look right)
Joe Galinski – Inquired how much of the structure was original.

Comments from audience

Mitch Winter, 208 Forman Avenue – Glad the empire State Building was not built there. Compared Haddad home to Dykman home in NYC. Stated rooms are too small at present for anybody to rent.

Bonnie Zimmer, 206 Forman Avenue – Stated that in the past 3 years there has only been three renters.

Matt Massood , 211 Arnold Avenue – He stated that he owns a rooming home that he could fill up in one day. He gets calls from the state all the time. He would hate to see a great looking piece of history because you think there is a parking problem.

Mike Cipolletti, 127 Trenton Avenue – Property adjoins the Haddad property. He is in favor of the renovations. Beautiful aspects to the renovations.

Theodore Jones, 206 Forman Avenue – The cars in the driveway is not going to work. It seems like a whole lot of building for a tiny lot. I do love the front of the building, it is an architectural gem.

Joe Galinski, – I do not want random people looking in my backyard. I do not want to live next to a huge house.

Deliberations

Mr. Simon – I am in favor of the restoration, but the parking is a problem. Not in favor.

Mr. Struncius – In favor of the restoration, he can fill the rooms. He will have a more upscale clientele. You can charge more and have a different element. I do believe that going down from the 8 to the 5 is a reduction in intensity. I am not sure how I feel. Parking is a concern. Commitment is different from the parents.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I think that the restoration is a great thing. Parking is a problem for me whether I have 5 people visiting or I am alone. If the deck were not there it would not be a problem. I would rather keep the garage. If I were convinced that we were around 32% I would be in favor. I need to know exact building coverage.

Mr. Moberg – Historical preservation Committee and the Mayor are trying to bring back the days of ere. Overall lot coverage of 34% building coverage does not bother me too much. The height of the cupola makes me cranky. It will be towering over the home; Plenty of room in the back. Negative criteria – Rooming house in a SF5 zone, but it will always be a rooming house. Renovations taking a negative and reducing it. I think it is a good idea.

Mr. Palisi – People want to keep the town family oriented. I have lived here almost my whole life. Our responsibility is to have a vision and change the town for the better. Sometimes it is taking a chance on something; I do not think this is a ploy. From the presentation you can tell you are doing it from your heart. The historical value is immeasurable. In favor

Mr. Cangelosi: We are looking into the past of our town, the needs of the community. I think any decision will be the right decision. I would love to see this house constructed. We can look at it from afar and be pleased with its look. I have to go with my gut feeling and my intentions are leaning towards the residents. I know the excess car traffic is a burden on people and I see this project as tipping the limit.

Mr. Reilly – I have been agonizing about the parking and would like to offer some advise. What is being proposed is beautiful, but the parking is difficult. Some owners rent parking spaces 2 or three blocks away. Only thing I could come up with.

Mrs. Tooker – I don’t have a problem. Parking is a problem; it is what it is. It is the nature of the beast. Historical significance is incredible. My great grandfather was here when it was built. That neighborhood has quite a few rooming houses down there. The owners and professionals are class acts and I would love to see a part of our history come back.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-10 with conditions.

Vote: Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg and Tooker……………………Yea
Opposed: Simon and Cangelosi

Conditions

1. Owner’s unit is not to be rented.
2. There is to be no access to the cupola.
3. Applicant is to construct the home consistent with the architectural plans submitted to the board at the time of the hearing,
4. The guests are not to be fed on the premises within the owners unit.
5. Any signage will not be neon or lighted.
6. Revised architectural plans are to be submitted to the Board’s Planner for his confirmation with representations made at the conclusion of the hearing.
7. The garage is to be removed and an additional parking space added to the plan.

Application#2006-11, Ocean’s III, LLC, 3 – 5 Ocean Avenue; Block176, Lot 46; Applicant wishes to add a second story to rear building of existing motel, expanding the living space of the existing five motel rooms and converting the rooms to apartments.

At this time the Board realizes that because of the length of the testimony they will not have time to hear the third applicant.

Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2006-11 September 7, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned

Attest – Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board