May 19, 2005

MINUTES

The May 19, 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 and Leonard.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the minutes of May 5, 2005 meeting.

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon, Cangelosi and Leonard……………..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Cangelosi to memorialize the extension of Resolution #2002-47 of John Boylan with conditions

Vote: Moberg, Wolfersberger, Simon, Cangelosi, Leonard…………………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2004-32,Theresa Hrapsky, 139 Ocean Avenue, Block 149, Lot 19; Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling & construct new, two-story, single family dwelling. Carried without notice to June 16, 2005

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry application #2004-32, Theresa Hrapsky to June 16, 2005 without notice.

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

Application #2005-08, Sandra & Bob Bischoff, 128.5 Ocean Avenue, Block 121, Lot 8.01; Applicant wishes to convert existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Cangelosi to carry application #2005-08, Bob & Sandra Bischoff to the meeting of September 15, 2005 without notice.

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

Application # 2005-01, Marilyn Rouvrais, 419 Carter Avenue, Block 13.03, Lot 10; Applicant constructed a 4′ x 16′ platform with stairs in rear of existing single family dwelling after final C.O. Carried with notice to August 18, 2005

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Simon to carry application #2005-01, Marilyn Rouvrais, to the meeting of August 18, 2005 with notice.

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

Application # 2005-02, John Aleffi, 108 Central Avenue, Block 98, Lot 16; Applicant wishes to add 8′ x 8′ covered porch to existing covered porch.

Lillian Aleffi, property owner, sworn. Stanley Kuch, builder, sworn. Mr. Kuch stated that in a previous conversation with Mike Gardner that he was informed that it would be OK to remove and build a new porch if he stayed within the foot print. Mr. Kuch stated that since over 50% improvements had been done to the home, the house had to be raised 40" to BFE regulations. A 12′ X 12′ addition has been added to the kitchen. Mr. Kuch went on to explain that that porch would be built out of Timber tech decking, with white vinyl lattice. Mr. Moberg inquired if the addition would block her neighbor’s light and air? Mrs. Aleffi said it would not. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired if the house would be in front of other houses on the block? Mr. Kuch stated that it is comparable to other homes on the block. Mr. Kuch said there would be thirteen stairs.

Audience Questions – none

Mr. Leonard questioned if they were allowed to have two 10′ x 8′ sheds. Shouldn’t there have been a variance? Mr. Galvin commented that occasionally things get missed. Mrs. Aleffi went on to say the sheds were 15-year-old pre-fab sheds. Mrs. Aleffi said they do not have a garage or basement and that they use them for storage of pool supplies. Mr. Simon suggested that they continue with matters at hand. Mr. Galvin said we could address all variance issues. Mr. Leonard read the ordinance (19.11 pg. 182) that stated that one shed was allowed per property. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that one shed is against the neighbor’s garage and it is the same on the other side. Mr. Moberg asked if we could approve the sheds. Mr. Galvin informed the board that they are existing sheds and that the variance could be considered now.

Deliberations:

Mr. Moberg: Home is aesthetically pleasing with no negative impact on surrounding properties. Sheds are necessary due to the fact they do not have a garage or basement and the sheds have been there for 15 years. The number 13 feet for the stairs is what I am looking for. Mr. Wolfersberger: I agree with existing conditions of sheds with garages on both sides. Porch will be exactly same place as previous porch. I really do not have a problem, 13 stairs and adjust accordingly. Mr. Cangelosi: Variance before us deminimus. You were careful not to trip other variances. In favor

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Simon to approve application #2005-02 with the following conditions: 1. Steps not to exceed 13 feet.
2. Deck, stairs and lattice to be white vinyl.

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

Application #2004-05, Marilyn Burke, 141 Ocean Avenue, Block 49, Lot 21 & 22;Applicant wishes to construct a new second story to two existing single family dwellings located on a lot that contains three principal structures.

Gordon Gemma, attorney for the applicant. Since Mrs. Tooker has recused herself and that now there are only 5 board members, he reserves the right when they are done with testimony to receive an extension until there are seven board members. Exhibits entered, A-1, application and submission package, A-2, Presentation board (Site plan, and Elevation certificate), A-3, second floor plan, A-4, first floor plan, A-5, Rendering of front side of house, A-6, Zoning Table, A-7 (pictures, a, b, c). First variance – side and rear setback, second – expanding non-conforming use-"D" variance. Applicant complies with lot coverage. Mr. Wolfersberger: What is ultimate intended "use". Marilyn Burke, sworn: As a rental property and then I hope some time my son will move in. Marilyn went on to describe the property around her, south of the property there are two-family homes, to the east and west there are two-level homes. Mr. Wolfersberger commented that when he road by, the only two-story home belonged to the applicant. Mrs. Burke went on to explain that they would be adding a kitchen, bath, bedroom and living room. In further questioning by Gordon Gemma, Marilyn Burke went on to describe that her home is setback 69′ feet from the road and that the home is located far back enough on the property that when the home is two-stories it would not create that "canyon effect". Mr. Leonard inquired to the reason or hardship that she wants to add on. Mrs. Burke: The house is very small and there are not many closets. It would also upgrade the area. Mr. Simon: How many bedrooms are in the front house? Mrs. Burke: two Mr. Gemma: How many bedrooms are on the property Mrs. Burke: 9 Mr. Gemma: With addition? Mrs. Burke: eleven, with five parking spaces. She rents to single and married people. She went on to explain that she wants to upgrade electrical and plumbing. I want to lift the house up. Everyone in the area is worried about flooding. Mr. Cangelosi: That improvement to BFE is just to the one property? M. Burke: Yes Mr. Moberg: The exterior looks nice, You say you have five parking spaces with 11 bedrooms, if I use motel calculations you should have sixteen parking spaces. M. Burke: When I rent I tell them they have one spot. Mr. Cangelosi: This application is deficient in the number of parking spaces. Mr. Wolfersberger: I am concerned with intensity if use.

Audience Questions –

David Cavagnaro – 118 Parkway – In support of application. If you can get one home above BFE it is an improvement. Applicant’s property is well kept.

Max Gagnon – When you look at any application you should consider what it could do for the community. She keeps her property nice and is cautious about who she rents to.

Anthony Abdy – Realtor – This unit is not rented now because it is so small. Her properties are kept well and she is doing a good job for the town.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry application#2004-05 to the meeting of September15, 2005, without notice.

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

Application #2005-07, Joseph & Nancy Licinski, 112 Sanborn Avenue, Block 153, Lot 4; Applicant wishes to construct a 16′ x 16′ addition with 9′ x 16′ deck to rear of existing single family dwelling. Applicants wish to enclose existing patio to create a three-season room. They no longer can tolerate the sun and bugs. Mr Galvin: Will it block anyone’s sun and light? N. Licinski: No Mr. Moberg: What is located by the encroachment? J. Licinski: A fence and concrete blocks Mr. Wolfersberger: I am the building coverage person and 37% is very high, I don’t have a problem with 26′ in back but the building coverage is high. Mr. Moberg: I have no problem with 26′ in the back. It is only a one-story dwelling. This small addition will not change look of home. I understand the hardship and the family concerns. Mr. Wolfersberger: It is open underneath? K. Tooker: Some of the addition is going over existing concrete? N. Licinski: Yes J. Licinski: Yes Mr. Moberg: Our figures are coming up with 30%. J. Cangelosi calculated building coverage and he comes up with 29%, which differs, from buildings figures. D. Galvin: If you are correct and it is under 30% then we are just dealing with rear setback variance. K. Tooker: Who calculated your building coverage? N. Licinski: I believe Elaine in building. R. Simon: I think it is a small discrepancy. It is a nice ranch. J. Cangelosi went over the calculations again and confirmed 32.5%. J. Wolfersberger: That’s better. Mr. Galvin: The Building Department is to recalculate building coverage. The Board determined building coverage to be 32.5%. The Board was willing to grant building coverage. I would suggest you look at it both ways. As a condition the Board was willing to grant variance up to 37%.

Deliberations:

J. Cangelosi: I am in favor of this application as it is. Slight discrepancy, our calculations 34.5 – 35%. I do not see any negative impact on neighborhood. Mr. Moberg: Minor addition to non-oppressive home. Aesthetically pleasing, in favor.

Motion by Mr. Simon, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2005-07 with the following condition: Building Department is to recalculate building coverage. The Board determined building coverage to be approximately 32.5%. Board was willing to grant building coverage variance as requested to be no greater than 37%.

Vote: Moberg, Simon, Cangelosi, Tooker……………………………………Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger and Leonard……………………………………….Nay

Application #2004-24, Masucci – Requesting an interpretation of previous resolution. A side deck that was on the original approved plans has triggered a 25′ side variance. The concern is the building has gone forward and the applicant is between a rock and a hard place. Architecturals and site plan showed deck. J. Wolfersberger commented it is deminimus and adds to character of home on the side. G. Moberg: Applicant was asked to make the side of the house pleasing. We meant to approve the variance but didn’t. J. Cangelosi: I remember the discussion going on and on about the side of the building. I do not remember the conversation about the deck, but I would not object. B. Leonard: I don’t object either.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to amend resolution #2004-24 to include side variance and directing the Board attorney to send a letter to Building Department.

Vote: Simon, Moberg, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard…Yea

Application #2004-16, Friendly, 1410 Ocean Avenue, requesting extension on resolution.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to grant a six-month extension.

Vote: Moberg, Simon, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Leonard………………Yea

Meeting adjourned 9:40pm.

Date: May 20, 2005 Attest:_____________________
Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board