Board of Adjustment

September 21, 2023 The September 21, 2023 the Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Kelly, vice-chair Pasola, Mr. Dixon, Mr. McGee, Mr. Driber, Mr. Neill and Ms. McFadden and Chairman Struncius Also, present –Ben Montenegro, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills Denise Sweet – court Reporter Live streaming link - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCflODKbSFakXUEKiyxSYdUA/live Memorialize resolutions Motion by Mr. Neil, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2023-22 – Jill Watson – 607 St. Louis – Block 78; Lot 2 – Applicant looking to replace existing a/c unit that is in setback with conditions In favor: Kelly, Driber, Dixon, McGee, Neill and McFadden Opposed: None Motion by Mr. McGee, second by Mr. Neil to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2023-21 – 50 Inlet Partners LLC – 50 Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 20 – Applicants looking to elevate existing home and expand square footage to 1792 sf. Residential not allowed in zone. Approved with conditions In favor: Kelly, McGee, Dixon, Neil and McFadden Opposed: None Agenda 2023-26 – Stan Osofsky -101 Atlantic Avenue – Block 63; Lot 1 – Applicant looking to install 6-ft fence in side yard. Applicant has received previous variances. Stan Osofsky, applicant, sworn, reviewed his application and the reasons. The way the rear of the yard is configurated when moved to the rear of the house it leaves an open space to the side door which can be a safety issue. It will not be installed past the rear of the home – the first floor is cantilevered so that technically is the rear of the home. Ray Savacool explained to the board the request via submitted photos. No audience questions Deliberation Kelly – Complimented the applicant and his house. Stated this fence will be very similar to the homes in the vicinity. In favor Driber – When I first saw this case I thought no way, until I went down there and there are gates all over the place. No objection Dixon – My only concern was proximity to the sidewalk – I have no issue McGee- If this was my house, I would also make this request. I am fine with this Neil – My only concern would be the affect on the site triangle – since that concern was eliminated, I am fine with this. McFadden – Pretty much in agreement with the rest of the board. In favor Pasola – In this day and age you need a fence there – no problem Motion by Ms. McFadden, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2023-26 – Stan Osofsky -101 Atlantic Avenue – Block 63; Lot 1 – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Driber, Dixon, McGee, Neil, McFadden and Pasola Opposed: None Application approved with conditions 2023-34 – Palmenberg – 202 Homestead Avenue – Block 125: Lot 7 – Applicant is looking for a certification of pre-existing non-conformity for the garage apartment. Adam Steuerman, attorney for applicant, reviewed proofs for certification of pre-existing non- conformity. Scot Palmenberg, sworn, testified to proofs. He was told by previous zoning officer that if the rear unit is destroyed it will not be able to be replaced. No audience questions Deliberations Kelly – number of problems with new people in the office. I have to go with what I see Driber – He said nobody ever remembers wo they spoke with. As far as this complaint I have no problem. Dixon – I understand why the old BOA wanted to get rid of the use. Since the house was not enlarged and they resolution was not acted on I will approve. McGee – Since the house was not expanded – I believe it is a pre-existing non-conformity. Neil – I understand the process – In favor McFadden – Now I understand why the massive amount of paper – in favor Pasola – I appreciate the way it is laid out – you have to follow the rules. Motion by Mr. Neil, second by Mr. Driber to approve application 2023-34 – Palmenberg – 202 Homestead Avenue – Block 125: Lot 7 – In favor: Kelly, Driber, Dixon, McGee, Neil, McFadden and Pasola Opposed: None 2023-25 – Lombardi Residential – 409 Richmond Avenue – Block 03; Lot 18 – Applicant installed shed without permits in setback. John Jackson, Alexander Ehrhardt attorney for applicant, reviewed application and variances requested. A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Survey by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P, P.C. (dated November 12, 2021) A3 – PowerPoint (5 pages) 9/20/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Robert Lombardi, applicant, sworn, explained the need for a shed to store lawn furniture and bikes for the tenants upstairs. Originally, they had an area in the interior for storage but the construction official informed them that nothing can be stored by the stairwell. Ray Savacool, Board Engineer clarified that it is a D1 use variance for the expansion of the use. Applicant agreed that since the residential space in the building was approved under a use variance during application 2017-08, the addition of the shed would necessitate use variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1). Applicant testified to the Board that the shed is to be used by residential tenants for storage of bicycles, beach equipment and chairs, and other items. Applicant testified that due to the lot’s frontage on a municipal parking lot, there is limited space for storage for tenants. Applicant testified that the shed conforms to height and area requirements. Applicant agreed as a condition that the shed will comply with the 5 ft. rear yard setback. Applicant testified that the shed is located near two non-conforming garages that are substantially larger than the shed, which is conforming in height and area. The two non-conforming garages on neighbors’ properties shield the shed from view of Applicant’s neighbors. The shed will not be visible from the public parking lot. Audience questions comments Applicant’s neighbor in the rear, Gloria Woods, sworn, objected to the application unless the Board conditioned approval on the shed complying with the rear setback. Deliberation Kelly – Has no objection to the shed. Driber – I really don’t care if you move the shed or not. I do not believe it is an objection to anyone or damages anything. Dixon - minor request – Have no problem with it McGee – I also have no issues Neill – I am OK with it – I do not think he should move it – the neighbors shed is double the size. McFadden – in good faith I think it should be moved since you said it. It is a cute little shed. Pasola – Being the applicant agreed to move it I have no problem. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application 2023-25 – Lombardi Residential – 409 Richmond Avenue – Block 03; Lot 18 with conditions. In favor: Kelly, Driber, Dixon, McGee, Neil, McFadden and Pasola Opposed: None Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2023-25 – Lombardi Residential – 409 Richmond Avenue – Block 03; Lot 18 with conditions In favor: Kelly, Driber, Dixon, McGee, Neil, McFadden and Pasola Opposed: None Application approved with conditions 2023-27 – Dina Rovere – 119 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 15.05 – Applicant looking to build new house requiring building and bulk variances. John Jackson attorney for applicant, reviewed requested variances and it was determined that the applicant would need a flood waiver that had not been noticed for. Applicant will re-notice for the January 18, 2024 meeting. #2023-13 – Holmes – 903 Bay Avenue – applicant installed fence without permits in site triangle. Applicant did not appear Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board