Board of Adjustment

March 21, 2024 The March 21, 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, McFadden and Struncius Absent – Davis, Dealmeida and Neill Memorialize resolutions Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-09 – Cindy/David Clapp – 402 Central Avenue – Block 95; Lot 11 – In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Driber, McGee and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Kelly to2023-32 – Mark/Barbara Curcio – 1710 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03; Lot 9,03 – with conditions - LK, JR, JD, DD, MM, RN and PS Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Driber to approve application 2023-20 of Cathy Margaret Loughran – 19 Danby – Block 121 -Lot 5.05 – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Driber, McGee and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2024-14 – John/Carol Sosinski – 219 Sanborn – Block159; Lot 11 – Applicant wishes to build FEMA compliant house on corner lot requiring front yard setback. John/Carol Sosinski, applicants, sworn. John Sosinski reviewed the variance and the reason why they cannot be compliant. The house is located on a corner lot which makes it impossible to comply with both frontages. House will remain in same footprint – lifted and a second story added. No audience questions/comments Deliberations Kelly – Pretty standard situation. Dixon -This is an easy one – good project Reynolds – Hardship that it is a corner lot. No problem Driber – No problem with this. McGee – Also no problem -raising a house and making it flood compliant McFadden – No brainer - improving the structure and making it flood compliant Struncius – No comment Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application 2024-14 – John/Carol Sosinski – 219 Sanborn – Block159; Lot 11 In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None 2024-02 – Gregory Kubinak – 105 New York Avenue – Block 43; Lot 3 – Applicant installed pavers in rear yar – 65.26% impervious coverage where 50% is allowed. Gregory/Karie Kubinak, applicants, sworn, reviewed his application and explained how the backyard became all pavers. Stone and paver company offered to give them extra pavers and i. A1 – Certified Variance Application ii. A2 – Rear Yard Photos (Existing Pool and Pavers) iii. A3 – Existing Conditions Plot Plan (65.26% Impervious Coverage) iv. A4 – Proposed Plot Plan (53% Impervious Coverage) v. 3/18/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Applicant Gregory Kubinak, sworn, stated that he and his wife are the title owners of the subject property. He and his wife engaged a contractor to install a rear yard swimming pool and pavers and obtain all necessary permits. The contractor obtained the necessary zoning/building permits for the project. The plot plan utilized for obtaining said permits identified a limited amount of rear yard pavers surrounding the pool to be installed. That plot plan identified impervious coverage compliant at 49.8% (50% allowed) total for the site. During the course of the project, the contractor installed rear yard pavers far in excess of that shown on the plan submitted for permits. At the time of final inspection by the building department, it was determined that the as-built condition exceeded the plan submitted and exceeded the allowable impervious coverage in the zone (50% allowed and 65.26% existing as installed). Applicant stated that he was unaware that the contractor’s modification to the paver installation would violate their permit and require removal or variance relief. Applicant submitted a revised plot plan proposal (A4) that would bring total impervious coverage to 53% while maintaining the pool and a significant portion of the rear yard patio pavers. As shown on the revised plot plan (A4), the areas shaded in yellow provides for the removal of: portions of the rear yard pavers and the entire front yard asphalt driveway. These areas will be replaced with beach stone. He agreed as a condition to maintain a permeable surface below the stairs/decks on site so as to achieve the 53% impervious coverage proposed. His intent is to also apply to the governing body for approval to relocate the curb cut to provide for a straight rectangular driveway. He agreed as a condition that this stone driveway on site shall be a delineated driveway (through both edging and distinction of materials as between the driveway and front yard space). He agreed as a condition that no parking shall be allowed in the front yard, other than within the confines of the delineated driveway. He agreed as a condition that the proposed relief requires a permit/drainage plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Borough engineer. He acknowledged and agreed as a condition that impervious coverage on site may not exceed 53% as depicted on the revised plot plan (A4) and no additional impervious coverage may be added to the site in the future without relief from the Board. Chairman Struncius stated that if you looked at the original plan and then this survey you can see it does not match. The Board is not happy with presented plan and the applicant has requested o be carried to have time to redesign. Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to carry application #2024-02 of Gregory Kubinak to April 4, 2024 at 7:30 pm without notice. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None 2024-07 – Art/Kaitlin Gant – 506 Cramer Avenue – Block 91.01; Lot 19 – Applicant installed accessory structure (shed/clubhouse) in rear yard. Arthur Gant Sr., applicant, sworn stated that he is proposing to construct a shed/children ’s clubhouse (14’4” by 22’3” with 12’10” height). The Applicant requested variance relief for the shed area, height and length. An existing front setback for the primary structure is proposed to remain without modification. The following were submitted in support of the Application: A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Survey (hand marked notations); Hand sketch of proposed shed/clubhouse; Hand sketch of framing plan for shed/clubhouse; Photo of Site (existing conditions) 3/17/24 Board Engineer (Conflict) Report of Joseph May, P.E. The lot is 50’ by 206’ and has ample space in the rear yard for the shed/clubhouse proposed. After purchasing the property, he removed a large playset from the rear yard. It is his intent per the plans submitted to construct a shed/clubhouse for his children to have a place to congregate/play with their friends. It will be constructed of wood and have a wood floor (as such, it is not by definition a garage). He volunteered as a condition that there will be no water/plumbing/or heat servicing the shed/clubhouse. He noted that the siding and roof shingles shall match that of the primary single- family home on the lot. He agreed as a condition that no additional accessory structures shall be allowed to be constructed on site without a return to the Board for amended relief. He agreed as a condition (per Paragraph 13 of the Board Engineer report) to provide an as-built survey to confirm dimensions/setbacks/coverage calculations. He stated that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) and (c) – noting that the proposal provides for a functional improvement to the site; the lot is very deep with adequate open space; and the building coverage and total impervious coverage is far below maximum allowed by ordinance; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good. He also believes that there are no negative impacts created by the minimal deviations from strict compliance with the zoning ordinance and that the benefits advanced by the proposed development outweigh any detriments. Conditions a. There will be no water/plumbing/or heat servicing the shed/clubhouse. b. The siding and roof shingles shall match that of the primary single-family home on the lot. c. No additional accessory structures shall be allowed to be constructed on site without a return to the Board for amended relief. d. Per Paragraph 13 of the Board Engineer report, Applicant shall provide an as- built survey to confirm dimensions/setbacks/coverage calculations. Deliberations Kelly – We are looking at this as a shed – it is too large. That is the variance. Will we get to see what it will look like? It is on the back of the property and will be just one building. Dixon – Taller then a shed and twice the size – he has a huge lot and backs up against a commercial parking lot and will not affect any properties. Reynolds – We are not big on forgiveness. This lot is large – shed will be raised and allowing flow underneath it is so far under coverage – not a bad idea. Driber – Considering the size of the lot – I just do not see a problem. McGee – Large lot – smaller than a garage would be. If he built a garage he would not be here. As long as the conditions are met. McFadden – Big lot – no coverage issues. My only concern is this big structure next to the fence. Struncius – I am calling it a shed because we need something in our ordinance to connect it to. It is smaller than a garage. You would see a garage if it was back there and that can be 16 feet high – coverages are low. This is your single assessor structure without going back to the board. Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Driber to approve application 2024-07 – Art/Kaitlin Gant – 506 Cramer Avenue – Block 91.01; Lot 19 with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None 2025-05 – Lakefront Holdings LLC – 200 Washington Avenue - Block 19; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to build new dwelling requiring Front yard setback (Baltimore) 13.3 ft where 25 ft is required. Second Floor Habitable Area to Principal Building area 109.70% where 85% maximum permitted. Building Height 33.38 ft where 32.5 is permitted. Roof top deck setback 0 ft where 5 ft is required. No rooftop railing shown. Railing required would appear to exceed maximum height. Roof pitch 5:12 where 6:12 is minimum required. Fence in front yard 4 ft where 3 ft is permitted. John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application and requests. A. The following were submitted in support of the Application: A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Photo Renderings of Proposed Home; Plot Plan for Variance, by MCH Engineering Inc, Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E. (dated 10/2/23); Topographic Survey, by Lakeland Surveying; Architectural plans by Sica Industries A3 – Power Point Packet (16 pages) A4 – Photo rendering (Rear elevation without rooftop deck per revision during hearing) 3/18/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated that Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. The subject property is a corner lot with frontage on Washington Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. The lot is 50’ by 125’ with a lot area of 6,250 sq. ft. Applicant is seeking to demolish all existing structures on site to construct a new elevated two-story dwelling, ground level garage/storage, open porches and a rear yard pool. The project will provide for ground level garage and storage with two levels of living space above. The living space provides for 5BR/4 Baths and a functional living space as shown on the first and second floor architectural plans. He noted the following plan revisions to eliminate certain variance conditions: The front upper story deck has been reduced so that total upper story decks do not exceed 200 sq. ft. Eliminated the rear roof top deck as per Exhibit A4. Plans modified to meet  32.5’ height by reducing first floor to 8 ’ ceiling height, lowering the ground level floor, and providing for 5/12 roof pitch. He noted that the mechanicals are on the west side of the roof and accessed for maintenance via the attic. The front setback nonconformity proposed is similar to the front setbacks of homes existing on Baltimore Avenue in the immediate neighborhood. In comparing the proposed home as shown on Exhibit A3 at pages 1-5 with the existing home and detached garage on site (See A3 at page 7), he stated that the proposal is a significant aesthetic improvement to the site. He noted that the size, character and scale of the home proposed is consistent with homes in the neighborhood. He pointed out the architectural details provided which visually mitigate the size of the home; and provide for a luxury coastal design. Conditions 1. Applicant agreed as a condition to provide a landscape plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board engineer. 2. Applicant agreed as a condition that the proposed curb cut relocation on site must be submitted to and approved by the governing body. 3. Applicant agreed as a condition to provide curb and sidewalk for both street frontages to the property line. 4. Applicant agreed as a condition to eliminate the roof top deck from the plan as per Exhibit A4. 5. Applicant agreed as a condition to obtain either an NJDEP wetlands permit or Letter of No Interest. 6. Applicant agreed as a condition that the architectural elements and finishes shall be as submitted with Exhibit A3. 7. Cedar Impression siding Nicholas Hartman, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated that h e is a representative of the builder for the subject project, Sica Industries and is fully familiar with the site, the project, the surrounding properties and the architectural plans proposed. He described the floor plans for the three-level home, with ground floor garage and storage with two levels of living space. He described the architectural features/finishes as a coastal luxury design, utilizing cedar impressions siding, architectural roof shingles, white window trim, metal seam roof elements, white azek trim, dark gutters and stone foundation facing; all as shown on Exhibit A3. Deliberations Kelly – Happy to see what is being done here. I like the color of the house – one of my concerns is flooding. Dixon – I was very concerned initially but I am very impressed with the reductions in setbacks. Still have a problem with the 85% of the 2 nd floor – beautiful house. Glad the roof top deck is eliminated. Reynolds – Good looking house. Happy with the reductions. Driber- I wouldn’t have approved it with the roof top deck. Nice looking building. McGee- I agree with vice chair Reynolds with a few things. I think the 85% rule was more for the bungalow section. I also would not approve the roof top deck. McFadden- I agree with what has been said. I knew the previous owner and this is an improvement. Struncius- Getting a compliant safer home with the upgrades. Again, I have been struggling with the 85% rule – I do not think it is for the bungalow section I think it was to control the mass. I will approve it for all the benefits we get. With conditions that have been cited I will be in favor. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2025-05 – Lakefront Holdings LLC – 200 Washington Avenue with conditions. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McGee, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board.