March 16, 2006

MINUTES

The March 16, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:33pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Regular members: Simon, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker Alternates: Leonard and Spader.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the minutes of March 2, 2006.

Vote: Simon, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Spader………………………Yea

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2005-37, in the matter of Anthony Conte, 108 Forman Avenue with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Spader……………………..Yea
Not Voting: Palisi, Cangelosi and Leonard
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote amending application #2003-29, in the matter of Carl LaManna, 709-711 Arnold Avenue.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard and Spader…………………Yea
Not Voting: Moberg and Palisi

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment, that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving application #2005-41 in the matter of Crescenzo Group , LLC, 311 Broadway with conditions

Vote: Moberg, Cangelsoi, Tooker, Leonard and Spader
Not: Voting: Simon and Palisi

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment, that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving application #2006-01 in the matter of Mark Zarantenello, 506 New Jersey Avenue with Conditions

Voting: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Spader…………………….Yea
Not Voting: Palisi, Cangelosi and Leonard

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment, that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving applications #2005-28, 29 & 30 in the matter of Ocean Ventures and Andrew Labowsky with conditions

Voting: Moberg, Cangelosi, Leonard and Spader………………………………Yea
Not Voting: Tooker, Palisi and Simon

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment, that it hereby memorializes the action and vote denying application #2005-39 in the matter of PLRJ, 504 Sea Avenue

Voting: Moberg, Cangelosi and Leonard……………………………………Yea
Not Voting: Simon, Tooker, Spader and Palisi

Application #2005-15 – Marie Lauletta, 76 Inlet Drive; Block 176; Lot7 partial 8; Applicant wishes to create a full two-story to existing, two family dwelling by raising roof & cantilever 2nd story over existing porch and square off porch on first floor.
(Carried with notice) Gordon Gemma, attorney for applicant. Dean Daley architect, sworn. A-1, Application A-2, Plans, Elevations A-3, A-4 Photo Board. Dean Daley stated that the home was built in the 1950’s and needs a lot of work (plumbing, electrical & window replacement). There are also insulation issues. Access to property is off of Inlet Drive. There is also an easement that goes along the back. Parking is available on site. Impervious coverage is slightly over 70% not including the easement. Surrounding property is a mix use (residential, apartments, restaurants). Existing property is a two-story structure. Front elevation – Two-story structure, central gable roof, character that would fit into community. The side of the home that you see when you drive by. Second floor that extends over porch. Applicant is requiring a variance for 2% or 80 square feet, but is willing to remove 80 square feet of macadam if the Board requires to avoid an variance for impervious coverage. Applicant will add some landscaping to soften up the front. Plans; First floor- 2 units – living, kitchen, dining area and full bath. Second floor – 3 bedrooms, full bath and set of stairs to attic. Not seeking a height variance. Variances requested – Impervious coverage. Pre-existing variances – Lot area, lot frontage and lot width. Not being expanded. Functional reason for doing this; Client wants to move down here year round. Attic is 818 square feet, 6 feet in height, where 500 square feet is required. Attic will be utilized for storage and applicant will be willing to have pull down stairs if required by Board. Chairman Moberg requests that Mr. Gemma explain the parking and the requirements. Daley: Gravel stone area when you pull in has parking for three cars and opposite side of home has parking for 5 cars. Parking requirement is 2 per unit, which would be four under RSIS requirements. Mr. Cangelosi inquired that if the applicant removed the 80 square feet of macadam would the applicant lose any parking spaces (Mr. Gemma: No) Mr. Spader asked about the Point Beach ordinance that prohibits parking in the front yard. Mr. Gemma replied that even if the applicant does not park in the front that she has adequate parking. Mr. Palisi stated that the lot is undersized and the applicant is looking to put 6 bedrooms and an attic, seems like a lot. Mr. Gemma stated that the important thing is they are not going over the 30% in lot coverage. Mrs. Tooker said it sounds like they are talking about the SF5 zone when it is an MC zone where single-family homes are prohibited. Mr. Palisi commented that even though the zone recently changed, two-family homes were never permitted. Victor Furmanec, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials excepted. Mr. Furmanec stated that he took the pictures shown on A-4 in early September 2005. There are 9 pictures depicting applicant’s home and other homes and commercial uses in area. Mr. Furmanec said they are requesting a "D" variance – expanding non-permitted use that is existing. Special reasons – Promotion of appropriate use of the property. Lot not suitable for commercial use. Pipes are subject to cracking, electrical system is still a non- grounded system and the building is crumbling, upgrading these systems reduce chances of fire and are community benefits. The appearance will be upgraded and promote the community. He does not believe there will be any detriments. Mr. Palisi: The fact that the ordinance was just passed, I am conflicted with the fact that they are doubling the occupancy, how do I justify that. Mr. Furmanec – It is a very cramped space – you can get by for seasonal use, but it does not lend itself to extended use. It will allow the applicant to utilize the home in a normal fashion. In terms of density it is lower than some of the surrounding properties. Mr. Gemma inquired would this size lot lend itself to commercial use. Mr. Furmanec stated it would not because it was undersized. A-5 Aerial Photo board, A-6 Individual picture showing neighboring home. Marie Lauletta, applicant, sworn. Mr. Spader inquired how many CO’s there were. (Lauletta – 2)Marie stated that she wants the extra room because she has a large family and needs the room when they visit. Mr. Palisi stated his concerns for 6 bedrooms plus attic is a disaster waiting to happen. He will be more comfortable with 5 bedrooms, 500 s.f. of attic space and pull down stairs, and then she would have his vote. Mr. Moberg said as of now there is over 1,000s.f.of attic space and it would be easy to throw down some sleeping bags. Lauletta replied that the reason she wanted a bigger attic was for storage. Mr. Moberg said the next owners of the house might use it for other things. Simon – Our concerns that when you sell it some time down the road the new owners might use it differently. Lauletta – I love it there, I intend to live there for a long time.

No audience questions

Mr. Gemma requested short break to talk to his client.
Mr. Gemma – After speaking to his client, even though she desires application as proposed, she is willing to amend application as follows: Reduce lot coverage by removing 80 s.f. of macadam or what is needed to prevent a lot coverage variance; make sure that she abides by ordinance and there will not be parking in front; reduce attic to 500 s.f. or less and have pull-down stairs; Agreeing to have 2 and 3 bedroom mix. We hope the Board finds this sufficient.

No audience comments

Deliberation
Cangelosi: Property has existing 2-family usage. She has right to improve property. Alterations will enhance neighborhood. Proposed changes will not have negative impact on neighborhood. On site parking is a positive; concessions are substantial and keeping in tone with board’s questions. In favor as outlined. Leonard: I am glad to see that property is being improved. I am in favor of landscaping, pull-down steps; I would feel more comfortable if there were two-bedrooms on each side. Spader: I agree with that; two-bedrooms on each side, no parking in front and pull-down stairs; Condition that only one unit be a rental. If property was to change hands it could be a disaster. Moberg: Inquires if a deed restriction limiting one unit to owner occupancy and one rental possible. (Galvin: Yes) Spader: Just to be clear, I said I would be more comfortable with 2 units on each side. Palisi: To me a deal is a deal and I said I would be comfortable with 2 and 3 bedroom units. To me the fact that the owner agreed to a deed restriction, I would vote in favor. Cangelosi: The fact that you are willing to have a deed restriction speaks volumes. I just want to remind everyone that this is a strong comeback from an applicant is who doing everything to enhance the community.

Conditions:

1. Applicant is to remove 80 s.f. of macadam to set the impervious coverage at no greater than 70%.
2. The attic is to be used for storage space only.
3. The attic is to be limited to 500 s.f. to be accessed by pull-down stairs only.
4. The applicant is to install landscaping in the front yard to be viewed and approved by the board’s engineer, which it to be structured to ensure there will be no parking in the front yard.
5. One of the unit’s is to be 3 bedrooms and the other to have no more than 2 bedrooms.
6. One unit is to be owner occupied and this is to be recorded by deed restriction, which is to be reviewed and approved by the board’s attorney prior to recording, which must be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-15 with conditions.

Vote: Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader
Opposed: Simon and Leonard

Mr. Struncius arrived at 8:20pm

Friendly Letter – Mr. Galvin explained that at the time the Board could not grant approval for them to put a fence on county property. We had them get permission from the county. The County had given them approval, but only for while the Friendly’s live there. Mr. Galvin suggest the Board require the Friendly’s to re-record their deed with a notation that the permission for the fence does not run with the land and the new owners might be required to move the fence. This communication between the Board’s and the Friendly’s attorney has been required since the Friendly’s want to keep the fence.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Struncius to require the Friendly’s to provide a deed notification for future owners.

Vote: Simon, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader
Opposed: None

Application #2005-42 – Angelo & Anna Danza, 217 Trenton Avenue; Block 80; Lot 8. Applicant constructed a pool house (accessory structure) in excess of allowed height.

Dennis Cantoli, attorney for applicant. Assessory building is over height requirement. Requesting variance relief from height restriction. It was built at same time as the house and no problems were found. 19.1 feet from Chicago Avenue where 16 feet is required. Some how it was missed. Photographs of pool house entered as A-3 (a-f). Mrs. Tooker: I clearly asked Mr. Danza at a previous meeting point blank if his pool house was 16 feet and he said it was. Mr. Cantoli stated that whatever was built was approved. Cangelosi: There were no terms and conditions laid out for the cabana. Mr. Cantoli said that when they previously came for the variance on the fence someone raised the question of the height of the cabana. There had been no problem with it before. I do no think he has done anything outside of what he was supposed to do. Everyone must have missed this because it passed inspections. Additional picture entered A-3 (g). Mr. Cantoli: This is not over powering an adjoining property. The severe pitch of the roof makes it look higher. Mrs. Tooker: I do not see a hardship. Mr. Cantoli: An error was made, but the town approved these plans. You assume that if you are in violation that it would be picked up. Mr. Struncius: I am also wondering how a 6-foot fence was approved on Chicago Avenue. Mr. Cantoli: There was an old wooden fence, he just replaced it and made it conforming. He did what Elaine Petrillo told him to do. Mr. Galvin: The Board does not do enforcement. Letter from Elaine Petrillo entered as A-4 stated that the fence could be 6 feet. Mr. Palisi: Lets be honest, he doesn’t want to spend the money to cut the roof off. Mr. Cantoli: He is in the business. Tooker: He is in the business and he didn’t know. Mr. Cantoli: The fact is he built according to the plans he submitted.

Joan Koidl, neighbor. There are pull down stairs and they store cushion up there. There is a bathroom. I sold the original house that was in very bad condition. There was a six-foot fence there. There was a very large garage there.

Mr. Cantoli: An error was made. We are asking that we be permitted to keep it. There is no one here to oppose it. The home has improved the aesthetics of the area. He did nothing intentionally wrong as far as this pool house is concerned. It was not picked up by anyone. The hardship is to change the roofline of the home and I do not think it is necessary.

No audience questions

Deliberations:

Mr. Simon: We have to look at this as if it is not built yet. We would not of approved it to be three feet higher.
Moberg: If this were a brand new application, any auxiliary structure would be looked at in a negative manner if they were requesting three feet. I do not believe it would be a hardship to remove three feet of a small structure that is only used for storage.
Mr. Leonard: I agree with everything that has been said.
Palisi: If this was deminimus I would be more willing to let it stand, our decision is not based on whether it is there or not.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to deny application #2005-42.

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

Application #2005-43 – Oscar Dino, 206 New Jersey Avenue, Block 42; Lot 17. Applicant wishes to add a 35 sq. foot addition to the rear of an existing single-family dwelling. Mrs. Tooker has stepped down from this application. Oscar Dino, sworn. Dean Daley, architect, sworn.
Mr. Dino explained why he wants to expand. He wants to be able to access the bathroom from inside the home. At the present you can access it from the deck. Works well in the summer but not when the weather gets colder it creates a problem. Wife will be retiring and this will be the primary home, also they want to replace the furnace. Dean Daley, applicant wants to make the bathroom usable and move furnace to better location. Mr. Galvin: Applicant will be increasing building coverage from 44.6% to 45%. There are no other changes to the setbacks? Mr. Dino: No other changes. Mr. Moberg: Do you feel this improvement would cause any negative impact to any of your neighbors. Mr. Dino: I do not believe so and it is not visible to anyone.

No audience questions

Deliberations:

Mr. Struncius: I was looking for something that was extra. Would not be fair to have you pull up sidewalks to lower percentages and you bought it that way. The things you are doing are deminimus. In favor
Mr. Spader: I am in favor also. With the window in the new room I thought the shower was going away. Mr. Daley: The window is in the wrong place. I think we would flip the plans. Original intent was not to touch the shower.
Palisi: I know how important that room is to me. In favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-43

Vote: Simon, Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Leonard and Spader……….Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-47 – George & Linda Meyer, 404 Central Avenue; Block 95; Lot 10; Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling. Mrs. Tooker has returned for this application. George & Linda Meyer, sworn. George Meyer explained that they want to make this their permanent home. They have owned the home since 1994. Wife is originally from Point Boro and they have made the decision to relocate here. Home is in a terrible location next to Jaeger Lumber. To set it back 25 feet back it would be sitting in a hole. Jaeger Lumbers Wall is right next to them and the cement block wall would be an obstruction to the appearance of there home. It is an imaginary hole in reference to the line up of the homes on that block. In the back yard is a magnificent 100-year-old tree. Mrs. Tooker: Enough said. Mr. Meyer: We just want to maintain the existing setback. The A/c will between our home and Jaeger’s wall. The 2% is with respect to the deck. The proposed deck is 18 feet on the right side, coming across 30 feet and halfway it will be reduced to 16 feet. If we reduced it by 2% we would lose a third of the deck. Deck will be made of pressure treated wood, with all weather vinyl railing. Height of deck will be 4-feet. Will not be able to look into neighbor’s home. Not much to see back there. We need to add a bath and bedroom for my wife’s aging mother. Mr. Leonard: You have a clean slate here; I have a hard time believing you cannot design a house to meet lot coverage. Mr. Meyers: Shed in back is 10′ by 12′ (a little less than 2%). Palisi: Is it fair to say that the some of this open front porch and deck create the 2%. It makes it more aesthetically pleasing; it is fair to say that your overages are open structure, which adds a lot of character. I understand Mr. Leonard’s point of view. Mr. Leonard: It isn’t a 5,000 s.f. lot, it is a 7,250 s.f. lot and he still cannot stay at 30%. It is a big lot. Mr. Moberg inquired about the flood elevation.

No audience question

Mr. Spader questioned height of home. Mr. Meyers said he would change the pitch of roof to comply with height. Mr. Struncius: What we see and approve tonight is what you are bonded to build. Mr. Moberg: 35- feet by ordinance. Mr. Struncius: Referred to Mr. Burdick’s calculations and said that they come out to 37%, which we see nowhere. It looks more like 37%. I see the Building Department might have utilized the 16-foot by 30-foot deck to calculate coverage, and you testified that it is 18 feet. Mr. Galvin: I have an idea of what you could be satisfied with. Mr. Moberg: 32% was deminimus, 37% is a different story. Mr. Struncius: The deck is pushing it over. Mr. Palisi: If you stepped it all the way down and replaced it with pavers you would bring coverage down. Mr. Galvin: You are now working on that one variance. Mr. Struncius: If the deck goes down below a foot you would be removing one of the variances. Mr. Meyer stated that he and his wife are in agreement that they will eliminate the deck and replace with pavers. Mr. Moberg: That should bring building coverage down to 29.6% Mr. Palisi: not including the shed Mr. Meyers: I would like to keep it if I can. Mr. Cangelosi: The shed is 1.6% Mr. Palisi: The shed is against that wall. Mr. Meyers: Yes Mr. Moberg: Building coverage would be 31.2% including the shed. Mr. Struncius: There are still going to be steps. They will need some way to get out of the house; round it back to 32% and let them keep the shed.

No Audience questions or comments

Deliberations

Mr. Moberg: With the concessions made and bringing down the building coverage down and having the hardship of being next to the lumber yard; I see no negative impact. Will cause no site line problems. A/c units to be placed on the westerly side. In favor.
Mr. Struncius: I am in agreement with everything said. Biggest issues were the setbacks. In favor.
Mr. Cangelosi: The hardships that the Meyer’s live with are substantial and the relief’s that have been provided with this approval are modest.

Conditions:

1. The deciduous tree shown on the plan is to be maintained and the applicant’s should take precautions to preserve the tree from being disturbed during construction.
2. The application is to comply with the BFE of 10 feet.
3. The building is not to exceed 35 feet in height, which is required by the ordinance.
4. The plan is to be revised to eliminate the deck.
5. The building coverage, including the steps to the patio and including the shed is not to exceed 32%.
6. The a/c unit is to be located as shown on the plan along the westerly property line.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2005-47 with conditions.

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

Application #2006-09 – Narda Basile, 11 Danby Place; Applicant wishes to obtain confirmation of existing duplex use of property as valid prior non-conforming use.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. This is not a variance application rather it is NJ 40:55 D-68; Valid prior non-conforming use, but the statute says the zoning official can only confirm for one year after the ordinance change, after that it is the Board of Adjustment that has to confirm it is a valid non-conforming use. CO’s have always been obtained for both units. Home built in 1936. There are separate electrical services, only one water and sewer bill, but there is twice the normal charge, recognizing there are two units. Everything points to it has been two units for a considerable amount of time. One witness, Mrs. Ball who is 100 years old is in the Claremont Care Center, she has sent a letter. Luckily we have another witness.
Mr. Michael English – Familiar with property, he was a renter in 1971 and it was a two-family then.
Mr. Pardes: The assessment records reflect it was a two-family.
David Cavagnaro: 118 Parkway. When home was originally purchased with Miss Basile I was a co-owner and it was a two-family.

Jack Breda: I have an interest because I am the listed realtor. I have been in the business since 1965. I have sold this home previously and it was a two-family. Home built in 1936 as a two-family. I have an intricate knowledge of the property.

Deliberations:
Mr. Palisi: Given the evidence of the credibility of the people who just gave testimony that believe it always has been and will be a two-family.

Mr. Moberg: Mr. Pardes expertise and presentation of information makes me believe that it is a two-family.

Motion by Mr. Moberg, second by Mr. Palisi to certify that the home at 11 Danby place is a valid pre-existing non-conforming use.

Vote: Simon, Strunicus, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:55 pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, BOA Clerk