Board of Adjustment

February 15, 2024 The February 15, 2024 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: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Struncius Absent – Davis and Dealmeida Memorialize minutes Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Driber to memorialize the minutes of October 19, 2023 – In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Driber, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of November 2, 2023 In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McGee, Driber, Neill, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-29 of Rovere at 119 Boardwalk – with conditions In favor – Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2024-03 – Rosa Crowley – 1401 St. Louis - Lot 15; Block 19– Applicant looking for approval of impervious/building coverage. Motion by Mr. Driber, second by vice chair Reynolds to carry application 2024-03 of Rosa Crowley – 1401 St. Louis - Lot 15; Block 19– to April 4, 2024 without notice In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None 2023-35 – Richard/Anne Colavita – 1707 Beacon Lane – Applicant looking to park on front lawn. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Notice of Violation dated 8/7/22; Photos of subject and neighboring properties; Easement for Screen Wall, Ground Cover and Lawn A3- Photos of Property 2/6/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Richard Colavita, applicant, sworn, stated that he and his wife are the title owners of the subject property and he is fully familiar with the subject property and surrounding properties. He and his wife purchased the site/new construction in or about 1997. Initially, the site had a gravel driveway approximately 12’ by 95’. In 2000, he and his wife received approval (App No 2000-54) from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a rear yard swimming pool and fence surround. He testified that sometime between 1997 and the installation of the pool, he had the gravel driveway converted to a concrete driveway. He testified that he inquired with the building/zoning departments and was advised verbally that no permits or additional approvals were required for the concrete driveway. (No documentation) In or around 2000, the Borough’s governing body eliminated on-street parking on a portion of the west side of Beacon Lane (including in front of his home). This change eliminated two on-street spaces that were directly adjacent to his front yard. The subject property is across the street from the oceanfront properties on Beacon Lane and in close proximity to the Maryland Avenue public beach access. Based upon its location, there is a great need for parking during the summer months in this area. Making reference to photos submitted, he noted that other homes in the area have driveway designs that provide for significant parking in a similar location as proposed by this application. He indicated that the existing driveway (approximately 12’ wide by 95’ deep) provides for 4 off street parking spaces. He indicated that the front setback to the home/porch is 20.2’ where 25’ is required. He noted that was driven, in large part, due to the rear easement impact on development of the lot. He indicated the setback to the front stairs is approximately 17’. He testified that his intent in the future is to remove a portion of driveway (western-most 40-50’) to convert and utilize said space as yard space. He proposed to off-set the future loss of those two driveway parking spaces with the two additional parking spaces in the front yard that he is proposing with this application. Mr. Dixon said you can still park in the street if we give you front yard parking. Mr. Dixon said all residents park in the street to save the driveway for company. Parking in the front yard violates our ordinances. If you parked on your lawn, you will be over the sidewalk. I do not see any hardship. Ms. McFadden does not think this is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. McGee inquired if he would agree to a condition to remove the concrete. Mr. Colavita replied maybe in two years. Mr. McGee would want to see the plan before agreeing to it. The board had concerns over making the front yard a parking lot. The home already has enough driveway parking. The Board does not make approvals based on what might be planned in the future. No persons from the public appeared to be heard on the application. Deliberations Kelly – You live in an area that was developed that has a parking issue. Streets are too narrow. This happens everywhere. Concerns over fire truck access. They moved cars from one side for emergency vehicles. I do not think it is good to make these changes. Dixon – Borough ordinances says no cars should be on front lawn or 5 feet from the property line. Our driveway already parks 4 cars. We should let you put them on your front lawn and remove two from your driveway makes no sense. Town has an ordinance for that reason. Easy to run over someone on the sidewalk, Applicant has shown no hardship. Four cars can fit and only two people in the house. Reynolds – Major concern is that you only have 20 feet to the house. The problem being aesthetics and safety. You may be driving a Honda but an F150 truck is longer than 20 feet. You already have a four- car driveway. Driber – You buy a home here understanding it is a resort community – because you made a wrong decision years ago it is not up to us to make it right. I agree with my colleagues – it is not a good look. Your plan should have been more comprehensive. You said it would take a year or more to get it together. McGee – I am inclined to agree – I am not qualified to design a home and it is not our job to. You are looking for an increase in parking – 4 spaces are a luxury in this town. If you had come with a plan that depicted a 0% increase, I might have looked at it different. McFadden – I agree with most point that have been made. You have adequate parking and it would be a detriment to the aesthetics. Struncius – You were stating that you would remove part of the parking lot to decrease impervious – but the way you answered the question you did not want to do it for a couple of years – you wanted to change nothing and park in the front yard – not the right look, there is no hardship. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Driber to deny application2023-35 – Richard/Anne Colavita – 1707 Beacon Lane – In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application denied 2024-09 – Cindy/David Clapp – 402 Central Avenue – Block 95; Lot 11 – Applicant looking for certification of pre-existing non-conformity of two principal structures. John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed proofs. The applicant seeks N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 approval certifying that the existing two principal residential structures on a single lot constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structures as same legally existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance which rendered the use and structures nonconforming. Exhibits entered Exhibit A1 – Certified Application Exhibit A2 – Aerial Photos; Municipal Records; Rear Unit Leases; Prior Survey and Survey affidavit Exhibit A3 – Power Point Packet (18 pages) Exhibit A4 – 1920 Ordinance Cyndy Clapp, applicant, sworn, stated that the subject property contains two principal residential structures on a single lot. At the front of the lot, there is a single-family home (approximately 1999 SF). At the rear of the lot, there is a second single family dwelling, (approximately 938 SF). Through research, she has learned that the Borough Ordinance in 1920 (see Exhibit A4) allowed two single family units on one lot for lots with depth greater than 100’. The subject property has a depth of 145’ and as such would have qualified legally for two single units as currently exists on site. A 1940 Ordinance provided that any legal existing non-conforming use may be continued. The Borough Ordinance changed in 1971 to prohibit two principal dwelling units on one lot. She testified that the two principal residential structures have legally existed since before 1937. In support of that testimony, she recounted that during a renovation of the property she found newspapers insulating the walls dated 1937. She recounted the ownership of the property back to the 1970’s ownership of the Highton’s, who later sold to the Kiefer’s, who sold to Applicant. She was able to speak to Mr. Highton who confirmed that during his ownership there were always two separate single-family units on site and the rear unit was always rented by his family as a separate unit. She confirmed that she has for many years (since her 2002 acquisition) obtained required C.O.’s for the two units on site and produced the most recently issued copies of same. She proposes no modifications to the structures or site improvements at this time. She is solely seeking a certification that the existing two principal residential structures constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structures as same legally existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance which rendered the use and structure nonconforming and said use has been consistently maintained and never abandoned. She wishes to continue to rent the rear unit (and be legally allowed to rent the front unit in the future, should the need/desire arise) which has precipitated the need for a formal approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68. Conditions 1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made, and all testimony given before the Board at its meeting of February 15, 2024. Deliberation Kelly – old house - very familiar with property – remembers it being a two-family Dixon – I think the applicant has shown us plenty of proofs. Mote than satisfied the board Reynolds – Proofs have been met Driber – I have no problem McGee – I have no issues Neill – A shame y0u had to go in front of the board McFadden – No issues Struncius – a shame that you had to come in front of the board but now you will have a legal document. Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Vice chair Reynolds to approve 2024-09 of Cindy/David Clapp – 402 Central Avenue – Block 95; Lot 11 In favor: Kelly, Dixon. Reynolds, Driber, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved 2023-32 – Mark/Barbara Curcio – 1710 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03; Lot 9,03 – Applicant is seeking variance relief to construct a raised 2 ½ story, single-family dwelling with paver driveway and 1190 square foot upper story deck. Curcio is carried from November 16, 2023 without notice John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the changes and stated that the applicant had settled the differences with the HOA. He reviewed the previous testimony. Stated the configuration of the deck is safer; DEP prefers this with the pilings. Applicants Professionals Greg Cox, PA and Charles Lindstrom PE appeared. Conditions 1. The Applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 11/13/23, unless specifically exempted herein. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the following special conditions: a. Applicant shall provide a DEP permit (if required) or a letter of No Interest (if not required) for the proposed development. b. Applicant shall modify the plot plan to accurately identify the relocated bridge from rear deck to dune deck. c. Applicant must apply to the Borough governing body and obtain approval for the proposed relocated curb cut. No audience questions/comments Deliberations Kelly – Thinks the improvements are better – likes the reductions of the decks. Dixon – Obviously this is a beautiful home and the improvements are outstanding. Making it a flood compliant home. House is preexisting. Do not believe it will have a negative effect on the neighbors. Reynolds – Same footprint. There are some reductions. Driber – Beautiful structure – I thought the bridge was the only issue McGee – Beautiful home Neill – Beautiful home – no issues McFadden – I agree with comments – reduced impervious coverage Struncius – No additional comments Motion by Mr. Neill, second by vice chair Reynolds to approve application 2023-32 ofMark/Barbara Curcio – 1710 Beacon Lane – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions 2023-20- Cathy Margaret Loughran – 19 Danby – Block 121 -Lot 5.05 – Applicant looking to install a/c unit and generator. Exhibits Entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Resolution 2020-25 A3 – Power Point Packet (8 pages) 2/13/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Margaret Loughran, applicant, sworn, stated that it is her intent per the plans submitted to add an emergency generator and air conditioner condenser on an elevated platform at the rear of the rear yard deck as depicted. She believes this is the best and most efficient location. The original approval contemplated the air conditioner condenser and generator to be located below the deck; however, based on the required elevation for the platform deck, there was not enough clearance for the equipment to fit below the rear yard deck. In moving the platform deck, as depicted on the plans submitted, beyond the rear deck; said proposal increased the total building coverage from 51.18% as approved to 52.44% where 50% is permitted. Referencing Exhibit A3 (page 2), she noted the aerial photo shows the narrow and undersized dimensions of the subject property and surrounding properties. Referencing Exhibit A3 (pages 3 and 4), she noted the location of It is her intent per the plans submitted to add an emergency generator and air conditioner condenser on an elevated platform at the rear of the rear yard deck as depicted. She believes this is the best and most efficient location. The original approval contemplated the air conditioner condenser and generator to be located below the deck; however, based on the required elevation for the platform deck, there was not enough clearance for the equipment to fit below the rear yard deck. In moving the platform deck, as depicted on the plans submitted, beyond the rear deck; said proposal increased the total building coverage from 51.18% as approved to 52.44% where 50% is permitted. Referencing Exhibit A3 (page 2), she noted the aerial photo shows the narrow and undersized dimensions of the subject property and surrounding properties. Referencing Exhibit A3 (pages 3 and 4), she noted the location of neighboring property air condensers/platforms that are similar in scale and location as that proposed by the subject application. Referencing Exhibit A3 (page 5), she noted the dimensions and location proposed for the platform. She noted that the platform meets the setback requirements of the zone. Referencing Exhibit A3 (page 6), she indicated that same is a photo rendering of the proposed platform with generator and air conditioner condenser. She agreed as a condition to maintain a permeable surface below the elevated generator/platform so as not to increase impervious coverage on site. She agreed as a condition that the generator shall be exercised at 1-week intervals for a duration of 5-10 minutes on a weekday between 10am – 4pm. She agreed as a condition that the proposed elevated platform for the generator and air conditioner condenser shall be in compliance with the Borough FDPO. She noted the importance of the generator for her sister who is wheelchair bound and utilizes a hoist and electric bed for circulation both of which utilize electricity and are essential for her health and well-being. She opined that the proposal can be granted without any substantial detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. She agreed as a condition to provide her neighbor (Ms. Napolitani) the name of the JCPL representative overseeing the required pole relocation at the site as part of the home construction. She noted the importance of the generator for her sister who is wheelchair bound and utilizes a hoist and electric bed for circulation both of which utilize electricity and are essential for her health and well-being. Audience questions/comments Rob Montefusco stated that once again he did not receive a notice. Neighbors appeared concerned about the noise from the generator and location. Sandy Napolitano was concerned about the pole and electrical wires. Was informed that the board has nothing to do with that but Margaret Loughran will provide her with contact information. Deliberations Kelly – Glad to see the improvement with the pole. Dixon – Placement of a/c and generator meet the conditions Reynolds- I believe that generators are a necessity especially in your case. No problem with this application. Driber – Can’t complain about this application – I see the need for a generator. McGee – In favor Neill – No opposition Struncius – Deminimis increase – your situation is unique – but is good for future owners. Conditions a. Applicant shall maintain a permeable surface below the elevated generator/platform so as not to increase impervious coverage on site. b. Applicant shall provide her neighbor (Ms. Napolitani) the name of the JCPL representative overseeing the required pole relocation at the site as part of the home construction. c. The generator shall be exercised at 1-week intervals for a duration of 5-10 minutes on a weekday between 10am – 4pm. d. The proposed elevated platform for the generator and air conditioner condenser shall be in compliance with the Borough FDPO. Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. Driber to approve application 2023-20 of Cathy Margaret Loughran – 19 Danby – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board.