Board of Adjustment

December 21,2023 The December 21,2023 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, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis, Chairman Struncius, vice chair Pasola, Mr. Driber, Ms. McFadden, Mr. Neill and Mr. Dealmeida Absent – McGee Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Esq., Board attorney and Ray Savacool, board engineer Memorialize minutes Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the minutes of September 21, 2023 – In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Struncius, Davis, Driber and Neil Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by Mr. Davis, second by vice chair Pasola to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2023-12 of Mulvihill 1000 St. Louis with conditions In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, Driber, Neill and McFadden Opposed: None Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Driber to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-28 of Anthony/Jessica Ekemejian at 1206 Ocean Avenue with conditions In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, Driber, Neill and McFadden Opposed: None Applications 2023-37 – Michael Colucci – 500 Forman Avenue – Block 59; Lot 14.01 – Applicant installed gazebo in yard. According to the Application, the applicant is seeking the following variances: A. Maximum allowable building coverage where 30% is allowed and 35.86% proposed (31.2% existing). B. Front yard setback where 25’ is required and 19.42’ is proposed. C. Gazebo in rear yard whereas gazebos are not a permitted accessory use in the SF-5 zone. D. Fence height where 3’ (front yard) and 4’ (side yard) are permitted and 6’ is proposed. E. Minimum side yard setback where 15’ is required and 3’ is existing condition. F. Minimum front yard setback (Cincinnati Ave) where 25’ is required and 8.5’ is existing condition; (Forman Ave) – 17.5’ is existing condition. G. Minimum required lot depth where 100’ is required and 90’ is existing condition. H. Minimum required lot area where 5,000 SF is required and 4,500 SF is existing condition. John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant has requested variance relief to maintain a gazebo and fencing previously installed without a permit at the existing single-family property. Variance relief is required for a gazebo where same is not a permitted accessory structure in the zone; building coverage; front setback (gazebo) and fence height. Existing nonconformities previously approved for the site and to be continued without modification are lot area, lot depth, front yard setback and side yard setback. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Plot Plan, by KBA Engineering Services, LLC (Joseph J. Kociuba, P.E., P.P.) dated 9/6/19 (last revised 11/6/19) A3 – Power Point Packet (5 pages) 11/16/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Michael Colucci, applicant, sworn stated that the lot is a corner lot, with street frontage on Forman Avenue and Cincinnati Avenue. The proposed plan seeks to obtain approval for a rear yard gazebo, paver patio and fencing that was installed without required permits. Upon receipt of the violation notice from the Borough, Applicant immediately applied for approval to the Board for the gazebo mistakenly erected without variance relief. He testified that the gazebo as shown in the photos submitted (Exhibit A3) is a solid wood structure with metal roofing. He agreed as a condition that if approved, applicant will be required to file for a building permit and undergo inspections to confirm said structure meets building code requirements. Applicant will need to make any modifications necessary to the structure to comply with same. Applicant recounted that he had been before the Board for approval for the construction/renovation of the single-family home on site (Application 2019-20). He noted that while the site (with gazebo) does not meet the zone requirement for building coverage, the site does comply with the zone requirement for total impervious coverage. He indicated that need for the gazebo is to provide for a shaded area in the rear yard to enjoy the outdoors in the warm weather. The fencing installed (6’ in height) as depicted on the plans submitted is appropriate for the area due to the dual street frontage and proximity to the train tracks. In addressing the bulk variances required, he described the existing location of the home on the corner lot to opine the proposed gazebo and fencing was reasonable in nature for the location and overall design. He noted how the design of the home proposed minimized the deviation from the ordinance requirements while improving aesthetics and functionality at the site. No audience questions /comments Deliberations Kelly - Have no problem with this. Dixon – Not a boxed in structure – do not see it being a detriment. Already getting a fine. Davis - Agree with everything that has been said so far – not Driber – Waste of our time – wish more people would investigate prior to doing things. Neill – Drive past this every day. No problem. Pasola – I agree about the fence – no trees for shade which the gazebo will provide with spoken conditions McFadden – Agree with everything that has been said and believe this is a necessary variance. Dealmeida – I do not have a problem with it. Struncius – It is a lot of building coverage for a small lot. It is on a highway – I do not think it is a detriment. The town needs to clarify the definition of a gazebo. Not thrilled but will support it. Conditions 1. The Applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 11/16/23, unless specifically exempted herein. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the following special conditions: a. Applicant is required to submit for building permit/inspections and comply with all requisite building code requirements for the accessory gazebo and fencing installed and existing on site. Motion by vice chair Pasola, second Mr. Driber to approve application 2023-37 of Michael Colucci – 500 Forman Avenue – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Davis, Driber, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions 2023-38 – David/Briann Marchetti – 308 Richmond Avenue – Block 110; Lot 14 – Applicant wishes to install a shed in yard with concrete slab. Davis Marchetti, applicant, sworn, stated that he would like to place a shipping container in his back yard to use for storage. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 –Survey, by Seneca Survey, Frank J. Ernst, P.L.S., dated 8/24/98 (hand marked); Photos of proposed metal storage container (shed) and existing rear yard. A3- Diagram of Container Footprint 11/16/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Applicant stated that they have an existing single-family home on the subject property as depicted on the Survey submitted. There is also an existing wooden shed in the northeast corner of the property. It is Applicant’s intent per the plans submitted to construct/install a metal storage container as shown in the photo submitted upon a concrete slab. The proposed location is at the rear southeast corner of the subject property as depicted on the plan submitted. The proposed storage container (shed) is to be set 3’ from the side and rear property lines. The container proposed is 20’ by 8.5’ and is 8’ in height. The proposed container is proposed for excess storage. He acknowledged that a more common wood shed of lesser dimension could be constructed that would provide additional storage while meeting side and rear setbacks and ordinance requirements for shed dimensions. No audience questions/comments Deliberations Kelly – This does not appear to be a storage shed. We have restrictions on storage sheds. There would have to be electric run in to it somehow. Not in favor Dixon - It is too big to begin with. It is a metal container – if it was a normal looking shed you would have a good chance of being approved. Pasola – Agee with Mr. Dixon – I would like to see you come back with a shed. Davis – I give you credit for coming in with the big ask. There are lots of good applications for storage sheds – don’t see how this would improve the zone. Driber – Not much I can say. Neill - This would need to be dressed up better. McFadden – It is the second shed on the property and well above the allowed square footage. Dealmeida - I would like to see it look better also. Struncius – Unusual ask – shipping container – location matters, size matters. This is a second shed. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Driber to deny application 2023-38 of David/Briann Marchetti – 308 Richmond Avenue In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Davis, Driber, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application denied 2023-39 – Chris Cochran - 337 Hawthorne – Lot 37; Lot 110 – Applicant is seeking to renovate existing dwelling and repair damages to the dwelling due to recent vehicular accident John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed application and needed variances. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 –Architectural Plans by Aquatecture Associates, Inc., Gregory Cox, AIA, dated 10/18/23 (last revised 10/25/23); Survey by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P. A3 – Power Point Packet (8 pages) 11/16/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. John Amelchenko, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted. Stated that the lot is a corner lot, with street frontage on Hawthorne Avenue and McLean Avenue. The home was significantly damaged by a commercial vehicle that left the adjacent roadway and crashed into the existing single-family home. Making reference to the architectural plans, he explained the renovation to the damaged structure with additions. He noted that the first-floor plan provides for a revised front porch/ entry; kitchen, dining room, living room, mudroom, half bathroom, and open-air covered deck. He noted this covered deck is the additional building coverage in the site design proposed and that the second-floor plan expands the floor plan and provides for 3 bedrooms and 2 full baths. In comparing a photo of the existing home with the architectural elevations for the proposed home, he noted the significant aesthetic improvement to the structure. He further opined that the improved design is in better keeping with the redevelopment in the immediate area. As to the C(1) criteria for the variances being requested, he pointed out that the lot is both undersized and a corner lot with an existing home and detached garage on site. As such, the renovation to address the damage caused by the truck crash was constrained by those site limitations. He further noted that the fence deviation is appropriate for the site layout based upon the corner lot development of the site. As to the C(2) criteria, he stated that the completed renovations will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site and in keeping with the redeveloping character of the neighborhood. He noted that the completed renovations will be to current code and thus improve the safety conditions on the site. As shown on the plans, the detached garage shall remain without modification. In addressing the bulk variances required, he described the existing location of the home to be renovated on the corner lot to describe how full compliance with the front and rear setback was impractical. He noted how the design of the home proposed minimized the deviation from the ordinance requirements while improving aesthetics and functionality at the site. No audience questions comments Condition 1. The Applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 11/16/23, unless specifically exempted herein. Deliberations Kelly – Sorry for your loss – this will improve your home. Good luck Dixon – did a nice job re-figuring the home. Back yard is a nice idea. Looks really good. Pasola – I think it is beautiful – not a McMansion – nice style – you definitely need the fence. Nice asset for PPB Davis – I agree with all that has been said. The fence makes sense – beautiful design. Neill – Nice improvement and I agree with the fence variance McFadden – Making a great positive out of a negative Dealmeida – Nice design Struncius – corner undersized lot – have a chance to really make an improvement. Fence makes complete sense. Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application 2023-39 of Chris Cochran - 337 Hawthorne with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Davis, Driber, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk to the Board Meeting adjourned at 9:25pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board