July 21, 2005

MINUTES

The July 21, 2005 Regular Board of Adjustment meeting opened at 7:45pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Board Members: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon, Cangelosi, Tooker, Palisi and Cangelosi Alternate: Leonard Absent: Dyer

Application #2005-18, Dom & Prudy Fiumano, 210 New Jersey Avenue, Block 42, Lot 15, has filed an appeal in reference to this application. Applicant wishes to add on to existing second story to include a bedroom, bathroom, sitting area and roof terrace (deck). Prudence Fiumano, sworn. She wants to add a shower to existing bathroom, bedroom and small front second story deck. She stated the previous non-conformities were grand fathered. Non-conformities that exist now will not be increased. Dean Joseph Daley, sworn, credentials accepted. Architects drawings entered as A-2. Existing 2-story structure, applicant wants to square off second story over existing first story. Second story porch will be built over existing first story porch. Mr. Struncius explained to Mrs. Fiumano why she needed a variance. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired if the second story porch will be looking into the neighbor’s window. Mr. Daley said it would not. Mr. Palisi inquired what the setbacks of the neighbor’s were. Mrs. Fiumano said the neighbor’s steps go almost right to the sidewalk. Mr. Daley said the neighbor’s setbacks are approximately 5 feet. Mr. Cangelosi wanted to know why the applicant is so hostile. Mrs. Fiumano said that her neighbor’s do not follow the law. She went to building Department and the Building Department took a month to look at her plans, this is what caused her frustration. Mrs. Fiumano stated that the porch will remain open and the home will be resided in white vinyl siding and all new improvements will be aesthetically pleasing.

Rose Iantosca, 205 New Jersey Avenue stated that the board should approve this application. She said the Fiumano’s keep a beautiful house and that the improvements will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Deliberations:
Mr. Wolfersberger: After riding by the home, which is well kept, I think it will improve the appearance. I would be in favor. Mr. Struncius: I think this will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. You are improving the usability of the home. Mr. Palisi: I do not think the questioning of the board is endearing. We make our decisions by the information provided and by what is good for the town.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application#2005-18.

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

Applicant #2005-11, Francis Rodman Rupp, Esq., 105 Baltimore Avenue, Block 154, Lot 10; Applicant wishes to construct a new single family dwelling. Mr. Ambrose, attorney for applicant, Augustus Columbus Hayes Investment Group. The essence of the application is for a front setback variance. Home is located on a corner. Mr. Leonard inquired if they had thought of building the home facing Baltimore Avenue because the one side of the home is not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Sanko, sworn. Mr. Struncius said the board understands the hardship of a corner lot. He said Mr. Leonard’s concerns are that this house is a great big box with no character. Mr. Ambrose stated that it is a modular design. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that the house needs to have character, and right now it does not. The side of the home is 57 feet void of any character. Mr. Ambrose said he does understand their concerns; they are not prepared to continue right now and were hoping they would be able to come back at a future date. Mr. Moberg said if the homeowner could turn things around by having the home face Baltimore Avenue. Mr. Ambrose asked for the requests to be clarified.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application#2005-11 to October 20, 2005 without notice.

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

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. (Carried without notice) Steven A. Pardes, Attorney for applicant. Mr. Pardes reviewed prior appearance before the board. He went on to say that the Bahmer’s no longer are proposing a modular home; they have provided architectural drawings entered as A-2. Current plan has setback of 17feet 6 inches, which faces Carter. New plan has 20-foot side setback, 30-foot rear setback, with deck, 20-foot setback and need variance. Deck is open. Plan before the board now has 29.5% lot coverage. Currently there is a detached garage, the new plan proposes garage to be under the home. The applicant has complied with the board’s wishes. We have increased rear and side setback and lessened the lot coverage. The new plans show the new schedule. Mr. Cangelosi inquired where the mechanicals will be placed. Mr. Bahmer replied that they would be on the first floor above the garage. Patricia Bahmer, sworn. She said her understanding is that the flood elevation is 6 or 7 feet. Mr. Palisi pointed out that the flood certificate states that it is one foot. Mr. Bahmer stated that the driveway would be on Lake Avenue. Mr. Palisi inquired what the base of the house would consist of. Mr. Palisi stated that now the house is 6 feet elevated when the flood elevation certificate states that the flood elevation is one foot. Mr. Struncius stated that the elevation might be wrong, but they need to be sure. Mr. Wolfersberger said if their house is 6 feet up and all the other houses are one foot it would look strange. Mr. Pardes is sure that it is ten feet, but Mr. Post, the surveyor is not there to confirm that it is a mistake. Mr. Solt, area resident well acquainted with flood elevation regulations,
Area that you are in is an AO Zone; you could be subject to a flood tide of one to three feet. How many insurance claims have you had in 20 years? Mr. Bahmer replied that he has not had any claims because he did not have insurance. Mr. Palisi asked where he gets his information. Mr. Solt said he knows the elevation is 10 feet throughout the flood zone in Point Pleasant Beach. Mr. Bahmer said he will go back to the surveyor and get the accurate measurements. Mr. Simon: He is under lot coverage. As long as he has plantings along the foundation, I do not think it is a negative. I do not have a problem with it. Mr. Palisi: We need to know what the end result will be. Mr. Wolfersberger: If the elevation changes it could changes the architectural style. Mr. Struncius: We just had this because on a prior application and they had to change and they came back with a totally different drawing. The pitch of the roof was different. Mr. Pardes suggested that a condition could attached that if the elevation changes to the extent that it would effect the architectural style we will come back to the board. Mr. Moberg is confident that the certificate is wrong. Mr. Miggut said there will be a condition that any change over two-feet in grade will result in returning to the board.

Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger: We want to thank you for the effort you have put into this. You neighbors have nothing but nice things to say. I am in favor with stipulations. Mr. Struncius: The home is bordering large development. Whole Street is changing, in favor. Mr. Palisi: I echo prior thoughts. Sometimes this is a learning curve for us. You guys have a wonderful neighborhood. Small summer homes are becoming full time residents. I think that is wonderful, In favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Struncius to approve application #2004-38 with the stipulation that any change over two feet in grade, will result in applicant returning to the board

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

Application #2005-13, Paul Wolf, 207 Trenton Court, Block 91.03, Lot 4; Applicant wishes to construct a 14′ 6" one story addition and extend the existing deck by approximately 165 square feet. Dennis Collins attorney for the applicant. Paul Wolf, sworn. Mr. Wolf has resided in the home since 2000. Mr. Wolf is getting married and will have an eight-year-old stepdaughter. This addition is to essentially add a bedroom, bathroom and some closet space. Mr. Wolf states that the home is in keeping with the neighborhood and will not be affecting his neighbor’s light and air. The variance is straight forward; the building coverage overage is the addition. We are leaving it to the sound discretion of the board. Mr. Palisi: What percentage is the deck? Mr. Collins: I am not sure if the building department included the deck. Mr. Palisi: How low is the deck? Mr. Wolf: It is on the ground. Mr. Struncius: If it is on the ground it doesn’t count. Mr. Wolfersberger: The problem with building coverage is the garage. I was hoping there is something we can do to reduce it. Mr. Cangelosi: You are keeping the profile of the house low to the ground. Mr. Moberg: There is no variance required for rear yard setback, so it is not affecting the neighbor’s in the rear. I believe 6% is minimal. Mr. Cangelosi: Lot depth is previous existing condition. Side yard variance previously exists. Mr. Collins: Yes, but the addition will run down that existing side yard setback. Where will the air conditioner be located? Mr. Collins: On the side of the driveway. Mr. Moberg: We will make it a condition that the a/c will be located on the driveway side. Mr. Collins: Pre-existing impervious is approximately 47%. Mr. Collins: If you approve the addition impervious will be 52.8% lot coverage. Mr. Palisi: I actually think it is 20 feet to the deck because of the railing. Mr. Wolfersberger: Everything else exists except for building and impervious coverage? Mr. Collins: Yes Mr. Moberg: To summarize we are looking at eight feet in the rear and 6% building coverage. Mr. Struncius: Is there someone who can recalculate the coverage to see if it is correct. If the deck was included and the coverage is less that would really help. There are some people who will not be happy with 6% overage. (Dean Daley, architect, who was in the audience, was kind enough to volunteer his services to recalculate building coverage). Mr. Daley recalculated and determined the buildings to be 29% coverage, not including the deck. Mr. Palisi: We want to make sure that the deck is not being counted because of the height.

Audience Comments:
Mr. Solt, sworn, once the house is approved you would not even know the addition was there.

Mr. Collins just wanted to be sure that the resolution is clear that nothing has been reduced. That the board did not think that the deck was part of the building coverage do to the height.

Chairman Moberg wanted to clarify that the approval of this application is based on the recalculations of Dean Daley, and that building coverage was calculated at 29%, not including the deck.

The Board was polled and it was unanimous that the building coverage is 29% without the deck.

Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger: I know this will be a nice improvement. I do not think it will affect the light and air of their neighbor’s. My vote will be based on calculations of 29%, without the deck. Mrs. Tooker: I think this will be a nice addition.

Motion by Mr.Cangelosi, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application#2005-13 with conditions.

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

Application #2005-26,John & Melissa Colvin, 114 Trenton Avenue, Block 68, 11,11.01,12 & 13 Applicant wishes to demolish the existing family dwelling and detached garage and subdivide the existing four lots into two. On the larger lot the applicant would like to construct a new single family dwelling and in-ground pool. The new lot will currently remain vacant. Steve Pardes, attorney for applicant. Existing house straddles property line. They were under the impression that they could sell the fourth conforming lot. I received a call from the Board Engineer and was informed that lot 13 was included to appear before the board. The property we are talking about is triangular, so there are only three property lines. I do not have a clue how lot width was calculated. The ordinance presumes there is four lot lines. We are applying for the variances presented. Front yard, depth, width and rear yard setback. Dean Daley, 213 New Jersey Avenue professional planner, sworn. Photos A-2 through A9 entered. Photos show existing home from different perspectives and the hardship the applicants experience during heavy rains. The new home will comply with flood regulations; will be an aesthetic improvement, compatible with neighboring homes. Triangular shape of property creates hardship. Home will be under the 30% coverage. Steve Pardes stated they have included in the footprint and come up with 25%. Total proposed height is 33.4 feet. Melissa Colvin, 114 Trenton sworn. Melissa commented that her husband is rather robust and she is worried about his safety climbing pull down stairs. They now have metal pull down stairs that are bending from his weight. John Colvin, sworn, refers to the picture that shows the flooding on Christmas Day. He wants to put the house up high and hope the lot they want to sell will fund the improvements. Michael Cipoletti, 125 Trenton, Commented that Trenton Avenue is only 50 feet wide and that an 11 foot front yard setback is really too close to the street. Mr. Pardes: There is only one point where the setback is 11 feet. I do not think you will get that imposing feeling. If there is a hardship variance, this is it. The way the house is sitting to neighboring houses they are behind their setbacks. Mr. Cangelosi: How many square feet is the home? Mr. Daley: Downstairs is 850 square feet, the garage is 540 square feet and the second floor is 1495 square feet. Mr. Palisi: Thinks being a little further off the street would help. Mr. Moberg: I have no problem with the way the house is laid out. They are only covering 26%. Mr. Wolfersberger: I am still concerned about access to the attic. I have a pull down ladder. Mr. Pardes: Can we take a separate straw pole in reference to the full staircase to the third floor. Mrs. Tooker is concerned because they have turned down so many people for stairs to the attic. Mr. Solt commented on the council meeting where he heard it mentioned that they are going to pass an ordinance to permit habitable third floor space.

Deliberations:

Mr. Cangelosi: Applicant team has spent a great deal of time desigeing a home for a triangular lot. No problem with fixed stairs due to the hardship. In favor. Mr. Moberg: I am looking at this as a hardship. Applicant only used 26% of lot coverage. No negative impact, in favor. Mr. Palisi: I feel pretty much the same way. It is a big beautiful home. I have a problem with a big home being that close to the road. I would suggest that you move it back to 14 feet at the closest point. Mr. Wolfersberger: I have my concerns, but I am inclined to vote yes.

Mr. Moberg stated then the only condition is that the home is to be moved five feet towards the Easterly boundary.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Simon to approve application #2005-26 with conditions.

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

Meeting adjourned at 11:14pm

Date: July 22, 2005 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board