May 18, 2006

MINUTES

The May 18, 2006 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:35 PM. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were regular Board members: Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Chairman Moberg, Mr. Palisi Alternates: Spader, Reilly and Vacarro. Absent: Struncius and Cangelosi.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2005-51 of James DeSantis.

Vote: Wolfersberger……………………………………………………………Yea
Opposed: ………………………………………………………………………None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve and memorialize the minutes of May 4, 2006.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Spader and Leonard.
Opposed: None

Mrs. Tooker arrived at 7:40 PM

Application #2004-05, Marilyn Burke; Applicant wishes to construct a new second story to two existing single family dwellings located on a lot that contains three principal structures.
(Applicant is requesting to be carried without notice)

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Spader to administratively dismiss application #2004-05 without prejudice.

Vote: Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Spader……………………………………………………………………………………….Yea

Mr. Wolfersberger stepped down from the following application.

Amend Application#2004-40, Glen & Denise Krieger, 214 Yale Avenue; Applicant wishes to install air conditioner units on Platform on Chicago Avenue. Denise & Glenn Krieger, sworn. The applicants want to amend their application to allow the a/c unit to be placed on Chicago Avenue between two windows surrounded by shrubs. Photos entered A-3. (4 photos) Mr. Krieger stated that the height of the air conditioner units would not be concealed with a 4-foot fence due to the fact that they need to meet the flood elevation requirement. Aesthetically it would not look good to put an air conditioner encroaching on a window. Mr. Spader – What is the distance between the two windows? (GK – 7 feet). Mr. Palisi –Please describe what you plan to do on the side of the home? (GK – Plant two trees and flower beds along the length of the home.)Mr. Moberg – You agreed to a four-foot fence with the a/c units placed behind it. Why didn’t you design a home so they would fit? (GK – Modular home, previously designed.) Mr. Moberg- the units will sit 11′ 2" if placed on Chicago? (GK –Approximately, Yes)

No Audience questions
No audience comments

Deliberations

Mr. Palisi: We were pretty specific about where we wanted the units placed. I am happy to hear there will be landscaping along the side of the home on Chicago. I am comfortable with it.

Mr. Reilly: I agree with that. I think in fairness to the neighbors it will be better with a full landscaping job.

Mr. Vacarro: I like the whole look of the house. I do not think it will be aesthetically pleasing to have them on the side. Not in favor.

Mr. Moberg: I feel the rear yard is the proper place for a/c units. I would like to see it remain in the rear as stated in the original resolution.

Conditions: 1. Applicant is to plant evergreens of sufficient height to screen a/c unit.
2. Applicant is to plant 2 trees as described at hearing.
3. Submit landscape plan to the board’s engineer for his review and approval.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve amendment to application #2004-40.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Spader and Reilly…………………………………………………………Yea
Opposed: Moberg, Tooker and Vacarro……………………………………………………….Nay

Amendment approved

Amend Application#2004-52, Kenneth Poray, 705 Ocean Avenue; Block 67; Lot 2
Applicant has placed two wall-mounted signs on building (one on east & and north side of building) Resolution #2004-52; condition 6 states "Applicant signage must comply with the ordinances". Also, applicant wishes to utilize certain cooking appliances.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney. Ken Poray, sworn. Mr. Poray went on to explain that his business is suffering because he is not able to provide his customers with an array of food items. He said that he has had 500 people leave his establishment because he could not serve griddled and sliced meats. He envisions that when people see Point Beach Café that they expect other offerings. He wants to have a small griddle, not industrial. He also wants to keep the existing sign that exceeds the allotted square footage. Mr. Spader questions if they have a deli will they be serving subs? (KP – Sure) Mr. Moberg questioned Mr. Savacool what the percentage of window covering is allowed. (RS – 25%) Mr. Moberg said the first time it was an Internet Café; second a café with baked goods, now you want sliced meats. What will the fourth time be? We keep adding things that are not allowed in the RR3 zone. It keeps expanding. Ken Poray states that everybody compliments the décor. Everybody has been happy with the upkeep of the property. Mr. Palisi stated that in previous testimony Mr. Poray had said he had done market research. Now you say people have not been getting what they expect. Was it poor research? You said you need all these things to keep your business going? My concern is that now it is a moderate use with no smells from grills. I understand that you are in a tough spot. Out number one concern is that development in town is appropriate. I have some serious concerns. Mr. Poray said that without a small grill we would have serious issues. Otherwise I will be back to build condos. Mr. Palisi told Mr. Poray that he can comeback for anything he likes. Mr. Spader inquired why the garbage was not kept in the shed as stipulated in his resolution. Mr. Poray said he would correct that immediately. Ray Savacool inquired if Mr. Poray had checked the building Department to the requirements to install a grill. (Mr. Poray – yes) Mrs. Tooker – I specifically remember when you came in before. All you said is coffee and pre-packaged sandwiches. We told you we already had a café. You were using the Panini press already. Mr. Palisi: You were using these things already? How were sales? You are asking to take a leap of faith. You said you did market research before. Now you are saying it wasn’t right. You are asking us to change the definition of a piece of property forever. Mr. Poray responded that they could offer an alternative to what is on the other end of town.

Howard Levine, 1418 Ocean Avenue. Frequents Café. I think this business is an asset to the people that live in town. I do not see this request as being unreasonable.

John L. Mullen, 1428 Ocean Avenue. Frequents the Café. There has been a question of his credibility. After two years of being his neighbor I can say that he is credible and he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Elliot Blatt, 111 Forman Avenue. New resident that enjoys Ken’s Café. It would be great to get a breakfast of eggs and hash browns.

Doug Poray, Ken’s Dad. An observation that I have made is that some people that come off the boardwalk walk in the café and then walk out. I asked the manager what was wrong and she said they did not have what they wanted to eat.

Ken Sobieski, 26 Trenton Avenue. Nothing against him personally. If he gets a restaurant I am afraid that everyone else will want one.

Mr. Moberg entered two items into evidence B-1 & B-2. B-1 is the menu and B-2 is an advertisement showing hot foods are served and Internet access, contradicting previous testimony. Mr. Poray replied that they are heated by microwave. He also stated that an Internet café has terminals; they have wireless access that is different. Mr. Palisi stated that Mr. Poray opened his business late last year. Mr. Poray has not been open for a season yet to determine if he will be successful.

Mr. Poray stated that he does not intend to deceive anyone. I did not knowing deceive anyone. Mr. Poray requests that the two requests are considered separately. Mr. Savacool said the ordinance says it can be 10% of the side of the building.

Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger: There are going to be some lessons learned. I am concerned that an RR3 zone is expanding. Skoko’s had a griddle and was very busy. I am concerned if the property gets turned over with an expanded use. Thus far I am not in favor.

Mr. Moberg: We envisioned a coffee shop for people who came off the beach and it sounded like a good idea. I believe the Internet café use is still in effect. When it was off premise sandwiches and muffins it sounded good. No you want a breakfast shop, a sub shop. I believe it is too extensive of use.

Mr. Reilly – I do not question his credibility at all, but I have a tough time extending this use any further than we already have in that zone. I would have a tough time voting in favor of this.

Mr. Palisi: I think you have done a great job, but have not given yourself a chance yet. You opened in August and missed most of the season.

Mr. Simon – I am also not in favor of this application.

Mr. Spader – I am also not in favor.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger second by Mr. Reilly to deny application that pertains to the use.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Spader and Reilly…………………Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger to allow the sign to remain and that the applicant complies with the ordinance in reference to the signage in the window.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Spader and Reilly…………………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-06 – John & Clare Golden, 9 Hayes Court. Block 121; Lot 10.05. Applicant wishes to add a partial second story addition to existing single family, one story dwelling and refurbish existing decks. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. John Golden, applicant, sworn. Both he and his wife are retired teachers and plan to move down here full time. They wish to make their bungalow into a three-bedroom home; two baths. Pictures of property entered, A-3 (1,2,3,4 & 5) Mr. Golden has owned the property for 26 years. Kenneth Scott Kwiecinski, licensed architect sworn. Architectual features: 1 ½ story cape-cod, dormers off sides of the home for bathrooms and closets, vinyl cedar impression shingles. Building within existing footprint. Mr. Moberg inquired if all mechanicals would be brought up to code. (KK – Yes) Mr. Spader asked if the deck would be refurbished. (KK- Yes)

Audience comments:

John P. Gibson, neighbor. He met the Golden’s in 1998. Great people; need to do this work to live here year round. They have his full support.

Deliberations:

Mr. Simon: I am not in favor of two-story homes in this area. Not in favor of application.
Mr. Palisi: I do no have a problem with two-story homes. Hayes Court is one of the nicer sections in that part of town. Aesthetically a great addition; in favor; positive for the town.
Mr. Spader: Applicant didn’t try to over build the property to a full two-stories. It will improve the neighborhood and they are getting the shower off the property line.
Mr. Moberg: Anytime you can get people to move in year round it is a plus. Taking an old bungalow and bringing it up to code; little tight quarters up there. Architecturals are well done. Looks like a 1 ½ story.
Mr. Wolfersberger: I have some reservations. Zone still requires 20 feet in height. It is a trend, but I do not know if it is a trend that we want
Conditions: 1. Home is to be sided with cedar impressions.
2. Deck is to be replaced with composite material type deck and vinyl.

.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Palisi to approve application $2006-06 with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Spader …………………Yea
Opposed: Simon…………………………………………………………..Nay

Application # 2005-44 – Patricia Stumpp & Bertha Hudak, 227 Baltimore Avenue; Block 103; Lot 20: Applicant wishes to construct an addition to existing 1 ½ story single family dwelling. Steven A. Pardes, attorney, for applicant. Dean J. Daley licensed architect and planner. Clients want to increase the living area. Master bedroom and master bath would be expanded. Living and dining room area would also be expanded. Applicant wishes to relocate here full time. Colored renderings entered (A-3 & A-4). Setback on Baltimore is preexisting and the Frontage on Niblick will be 22.86′. To add more of an aesthetic entry we have added a slightly covered front porch. Building coverage will be 30% and lot coverage will be 38.6%. No negative impact to neighbors. Mr. Palisi: What type of siding? (DD – Cedar impressions). Mr. Moberg-No increase in non-conformities? Mr. Pardes: Just on Chicago.
Mr. Wolfersberger: Do you find it absolutely necessary to create a new non-conformity? Corner lots are driving me crazy. Mr. Daley: The way the house is laid out it is difficult to get sufficient dining area. Main reason for that additional bump out is to break up that elevation. Mr. Palisi: Would you say the homes on Niblick are closer to the street? Mr. Daley: It varies. Mr. Reilly: Wouldn’t it be possible to build a smaller kitchen? Mr. Daley: Yes. The problem is we are trying to get more dinning/kitchen area. Mr. Reilly: I am with Mr. Wolfersberger on this. Mrs. Tooker: I think you have done a beautiful job.

No audience questions or comments

Deliberations

Mrs. Tooker: It really looks beautiful. It is a huge improvement. In favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger: It is a big lot, but it’s not a big lot on Niblick Street. I still have a concern about the Niblick Street setback.

Mr. Reilly: I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger, I have that concern as well.

Mr. Simon: We are trying to improve corner lots and I think architecturally that the break is important.

Mr. Palisi: I think it is one of the nicer corner lot proposals we have seen.

Mr. Moberg: I don’t have a problem with it either. I do not think the two feet will block anyone’s sight. I do not have a problem with it as it stands.

Motion by Mrs. Tooker, second by Mr. Simon to approve application #2005-44 with conditions.

Conditions: 1. The exterior facade of the home is to be cedar impressions.
2. The two trees located on the Niblick side of the home are not to be removed.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker and Spader……………………………………….Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger and Reilly………………………………………………………Nay

Application #2005-50, White Sands Oceanfront Resort & Spa, 1201-05 Ocean Avenue; Block 27; Lot 1. Applicant wants to expand banquet room by removing a wall and incorporating existing bar space. The bar area would be moved to area where gym was located. The new area would allow buffet breakfast service to patrons. The atrium area is also utilized for cocktail parties. The applicant added a third massage room on the second floor. Second floor restaurant has hung neon signs in each window. The applicant also seeks to replace existing roof top canopy with operable glass enclosure.

Robert C. Shea, attorney for applicant. Massimo Francis Yezzi, Jr. Architect and Professional Planner.
P-1 illustrates existing bar, which will be turned into a reception area where it will open up into the dining area. Present location of bar is not an ideal location because of cross traffic. Seating will not increase. Configuration of layout will just be changed. A-3, Old exercise area. It is to become breakfast bar/ bar for hotel patrons. Continental breakfast will be served. Frank Chiaia, sworn. Gym was relocated a few years back. P-3, outside deck/dining area off of restaurant area. Presently it has canvas awnings, but we wish to do break away glass enclosure. Seating will remain the same. Outdoor area will not be heated. Mrs. Tooker: This is like the pool enclosure? Mr. Chiaia-Yes. Mr. Moberg – I do not know if I would be happy to sit and have to look through this enclosure. Mr. Chiaia- You have a good point. This was the only thing that was structurally strong enough. We are just giving the client a choice of where they want to sit. It has a greenhouse effect. Mr. Shea: There was an issue of a third massage room where two massage rooms were approved. Mr. Yezzi: Originally two massage rooms with two bathrooms were approved. When we were told that they had to be handicapped bathrooms we opted to use the space for a third massage room. Mr. Palisi: Let me get this clear, you were approved for two massage rooms and two bathrooms and you built three massage rooms and no bathrooms without permission. There was also a question of neon signs on the second floor at Spano’s restaurant. Mr. Palisi: Was there ever a condition that said you were not allowed to have them? Mr. Shea: They are hung inside but can be seen outside. The signs are approximately 9" x 14". There are about 6 signs. Mr. Yezzi: I see no detrimental impact to the master plan with granting these requests Mr. Palisi: Questioned if the bar would be open to the public. Mr. Chiaia: It would be impossible to check everyone to see if they are a guest. The bar will not be open late and will not be marketed. Mr. Palisi: You tend to push the envelope. Mr. Chiaia: I did not put up the neon signs, but I take responsibility. I want to be a good neighbor. Mr. Palisi: Essentially what we are doing is creating a new area for hotel guests to drink when there is a wedding going on.

Audience Questions

None
Audience Comments

Christopher Kazior – No complaints about the White Sands. I do remember the bar that used to be there and I remember the fights and people coming out at 2am. I do not want to go back to that. I also do not understand why they have neon signs if they were not approved.

John O’Grady – Just wants to comment on the neon signs. We are in an SF5 zone. The White Sands is totally surrounded by single-family homes even though they are in an RR3 zone. I think they are putting commercial in an SF5 zone.

Christina Ranuro – The last thing I want is noise. The hotel is not that way.

Deliberations:

Mr. Moberg: As far as separate issues I think they can be. I have been going to weddings for a long time and understand the need to have room to mingle before you go into the party. The outdoor things upstairs are damn ugly. I wish Mr. Spano were here to say if he wants them. I would be happy if we could eliminate a majority of the signs.

Mr. Reilly: I am OK with everything except the signs. When it affects the neighbors it needs to be addressed.

Mr. Wolfersberger: If the resolution says no signs, there should be no signs. I would consider them exterior lights because you can see them outside. I do not have a problem with the internal stuff. I also think the sliding things are ugly. I do think the seating should remain at 40 seats. I also think the signs should come down.

Mr. Vacarro: I also agree with Jim. The neon signs should come down.

Mr. Palisi: You run a great place, I just want you to play by the rules. I do not have an issue with the interior changes as long as there is no live music. I am sure that if you put those glass things up and they are ugly, you will be the first one to take them down. I don’t want this to be the first step in trying to get that upstairs enclosed.

Frank Chiaia: I this is a make or break situation, I will take them down. If I could draw a compromise I will or if I have to take them down I will.

Mr. Moberg: What kind of outside signage are they allowed.

Mr. Savacool: There is no break down on restaurants. I could not find where neon signs are prohibited.

Mr. Palisi: Is there a restriction on color.

Mr. Savacool: I know they cannot be red or a color of a traffic sign.

Application will be bifurcated to separate the signs from the other requests.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Vacarro to carry the sign part of application #2005-50 to June 15, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Vcarro………………………………Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2005-50 with conditions.

Vote: Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Vacarro……………………………………………………………………………………….Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned 11:30 PM

Attest – Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board