Board of Adjustment

April 18, 2024 The April 18, 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, McGee, Dealmeida and Struncius Absent – Neill Memorialize minutes Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Ms. McFadden to memorialize the minutes of February 1, 2024 – In favor: Dixon, Kelly, Reynolds, Driber, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by secretary Davis, second by Ms. McFadden to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-02 Gregory Kubinak – 105 New York Ave. with conditions – In favor: Dixon, Davis, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. McGee, second by Ms. McFadden to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2024-05 of Lakefront Holdings LLC – 200 Washington Avenue with conditions. In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, McGee, Dixon, Driber, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Ms. McFadden, second by Secretary Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2024-07 of Arthur/Kaitlin Gant - 506 Cramer Avenue – with conditions – In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, McGee, Dixon, Driber, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Driber, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2024-14 –of John/Carol Sosinski – 219 Sanborn – In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, McGee, Dixon, Driber, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Secretary Davis to memorialize resolution #2024-22 – of 601/603 Arnold Ave. LLC – memorialize COAH Agreement – In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Davis and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda Application #2024-06 – John/Mary DiTosto – 8 Pilgrim Pathway – Block 121; Lot 18.03 – Applicant proposes to build new two-story single- family house with outdoor deck, Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 –Plot Plan for Variance, by MCH Engineering Inc, Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E. (dated 6/24/21); Architectural plans by Grasso Design Group (dated 4/5/24) 4/15/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. John DiTosto, applicant, represented himself and stated that he is the title owner of the subject property. The subject property is located in the RR-1 zone. Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. The subject property is a vacant lot with frontage on private lane Pilgrim Pathway and the lot is 35’ by 49.4’ with a lot area of 1,731 sq. ft. Applicant is seeking to construct a new elevated two-story dwelling. Ground level provides for garage/storage, with stairs and elevator with rear covered porch. As shown in the plans, the project will provide for ground level garage and storage with two levels of living space above. The living space provides for 3BR/2 Baths and a kitchen/ living space as shown on the first-floor architectural plans. The upper level provides for a loft/1 Bath/front covered balcony and rear balcony. He agreed to modify the height of the proposed home (initially proposed at 27.5’ which triggers a “d(6)” variance) to 27.4’ to require a “c” variance for same. He noted that the mechanicals comply with the ordinance and are depicted on the plot plan submitted and 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 an aesthetic design. He agreed as a condition that the exposed foundation shall be covered with façade stone as depicted on the architectural plans submitted (4 sides). Conditions 1. Applicant shall modify the height of the proposed home (initially proposed at 27.5’ which triggers a “d(6)” variance) to 27.4’ to require a “c” variance for same. 2. The architectural details as presented on the plans presented shall be included at the time of construction. This includes the exposed foundation which shall be covered with façade stone as depicted on the architectural plans submitted (4 sides). 3. The applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 4/15/24, unless specifically exempted herein. Deliberation Dixon – As far as the 2nd floor – new house you should comply but it gives you additional family room – no problem with it Davis – I agree – I am OK with the height – modern day living space – I wish we would just get plans that say bedroom instead of loft. Reynolds – I agree with that – I am OK with the deminimis overage with the height. We are not looking to expand the setbacks. Kelly – this is a tough area zoning wise to build. You are making adjustments and it is an attractive home. Driber – I don’t trust that that space will not be used as a bedroom – just another opportunity to against what the rules say. McGee – The 60 extra square feet on the second floor – it has a closet and bathroom so it is a bedroom. Dealmeida – I think it is a reasonable plan. McFadden – I also do not believe that it is a loft – it is a bedroom – I WOULD BE IN FAVOR Struncius – It is a bigger lot – they meet all the setbacks, the building and impervious are under. Reduced the height – really it is deminimis things with the height being adjusted. Motion by secretary Davis, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2024-06 – John/Mary DiTosto – 8 Pilgrim Pathway – Block 121; Lot 18.03 – with conditions In favor: Dixon, Davis, Reynolds, Kelly, McGee and Struncius Opposed: Driber Application #2024-04 - Shawn Casey – 62 Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 14.01 – Applicant seeks to construct 2nd story addition with 2nd story balcony – second story cantilevered deck and outside staircase to second story. Alexandra Servidio, esq, attorney reviewed application and requested variances. A d(2) variance for the elevation and renovation/expansion of an existing nonconforming single family home and construction of an elevated two story dwelling with a non-habitable storage/garage area on the ground floor level whereas single family residential use is no longer a permitted use in the MC zone. Bulk variances are proposed as follows:  i. Minimum lot area where 10,000 SF is required and 2,275 SF is proposed (existing) ii. Minimum lot width where 100’ is required and 35’ proposed (existing) iii. Minimum lot frontage where 100’ is required and 35’ is proposed (existing) iv. Minimum lot depth where 125’ is required and 65’ is proposed (existing) v. Minimum side yard setback where 10’ is required and 4’ (west) and 7.1’ (east) are proposed vi. Minimum rear yard setback where 25’ is required and 16.4’ is proposed vii. Maximum building coverage where 40% is allowed and 40.31% is proposed The applicant proposed to elevate and expand an existing nonconforming single-family home and construct an elevated two-story dwelling with a non-habitable storage/garage area on the ground floor level, two levels of living space, a balcony, a cantilevered deck and stairs to the second story; whereas single family residential use is no longer a permitted use in the MC zone. Exhibits entered Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application; Exhibit A2 –Survey by Jeffrey S. Grunn, P.L.S. of Lakeland Surveying (dated 7/6/23); Plot Plan by Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E. of MCH Engineering Inc. (dated 9/7/23); Architectural Plans by Kevin C. Roy Architect LLC (dated 9/6/23); Exhibit A3 – Power Point (9 pages) Matthew Hockenberry, Professional Engineer, credentials accepted, stated that as shown on the plans submitted, the proposed home is a two-story home elevated with a ground floor level that provides for a storage space (less than full garage parking space dimension). The second-floor plan provides for a family room, kitchen, one bedroom, one full bath, decks and laundry room. The first-floor plan provides for one bedroom, and one full bath. A review of the elevations identifies the architectural details and balconies/decks incorporated for functional and aesthetic purposes. He believes that the proposed development is consistent and similar in style to the newer development in the immediate area and that the proposed development is an aesthetic improvement to the site and surrounding area and that the elevated home with full flood zone/ FEMA compliance is a safety improvement to the site and surrounding properties. The existing site is located in the MC zone and currently contains a single-family residential home that is a prior-nonconforming use in the MC zone. The home predates 2002, when the Ordinance was changed to eliminate single family use as a permitted use in the MC zone. The applicant proposes to elevate and renovate/expand the existing nonconforming single- family home and construct of an elevated two-story dwelling as depicted on the plans submitted. He noted that the proposal provides for two parking spaces in the front driveway and that 6’ on the right side of the property is part of 12’ wide easement for access to the property to the immediate rear of the subject property. He noted that the existing 1 story home provided for 700 s.f. while the proposed improvement provides for a total 1,150 s.f. Mr. Dixon would like to see the staircase located outside of the house moved to the rear of the property. Secretary Davis inquired if the decking provided for recharge. Chairman Struncius has concerns about the plumbing on the first building floor. Worried it can be turned into a two-family. Ms. McFadden inquired if the Juliet balcony in the rear has access to view the neighbors outdoor shower? (Does not believe so) No audience questions/comments Conditions 1. Applicant agreed as a condition to convert the front driveway from asphalt to stone to reduce total impervious coverage on site to comply with 70% maximum allowed. 2. Applicant agreed as a condition that there shall be no kitchen facilities on the first floor nor any conversion of the first floor living space into the ground level storage space (one bedroom/one bathroom/closet for washer-dryer only) without a return to the Board for amended approval. 3. Applicant agreed as a condition that if the elevated foundation is greater than 3’ from grade, Applicant shall either use façade stone from grade to start of siding or lower the siding to the 3’ level (all 4 sides of home). Deliberation Dixon – reduced impervious – not crazy about the staircase. Davis – Fairly modest proposal. Second form of egress is a safety issue. Reynolds – In regards to being in the MC zone – lot too small for commercial use. I like the design and think it is well suited for the area. Bringing another house to flood compliancy. Kelly – This one lends itself to a rental space on the second floor. I am going to wait and see. Driber – Unless you can get more than 3 boats on that property, I do not know what you would do with it. In favor. McGee – Down the road I am worried about the possibility of it being used as a two-family. With the condition I do not have a problem with this application. DeAlmeida – I don’t have any problems with it either. McFadden – I had major concerns originally about coverage and the outside staircase and you addressed that right away. Struncius – We have been asking for direction for a long time in this zone. Pre-existing structure - like a railroad car to me and the staircase gives it an aesthetic element. Hopely, you give it some trim that breaks it up. This is a box. Understandable that walls go under walls but it could use something. Biggest issue with the case is aesthetics. Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2024-04 - Shawn Casey – 62 Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 14.01 with conditions In favor: Dixon, Davis, Reynolds, Kelly, Driber, McGee and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions Application #2024-10 – 21 Ocean Avenue LLC – 21 Ocean Avenue = Block 176; Lot 54 – Applicant seeks variance relief to raise dwelling in-place along with elevating deck; adding pavers, concrete and pool. Alexandra Servisio, attorney for applicant, stated that they are looking for a d(2) variance for the elevation and renovation/expansion of an existing nonconforming single family home and construction of an elevated two story dwelling with a non-habitable storage/parking area on the ground floor level whereas single family residential use is no longer a permitted use in the MC zone. Bulk variances are proposed as follows: i. Minimum lot area where 10,000 SF is required and 3,277.3 SF is proposed (existing) ii. Minimum lot width where 100’ is required and 45’ proposed (existing) iii. Minimum lot frontage where 100’ is required and 45’ is proposed (existing) iv. Minimum lot depth where 125’ is required and 65’ is proposed (existing) v. Minimum front yard setback where 25’ is required and 5.7’ is proposed (existing) vi. Minimum rear yard setback where 25’ is required and 24.6’ is proposed (existing) vii. Minimum rear yard (deck) where 25’ is required and 21.1’ is proposed viii. Minimum side yard setback where 10’ is required and 2’ and 6.8’ are proposed (existing) ix. Maximum building coverage where 40% is permitted and 43.63% is proposed; The applicant proposed to elevate and expand an existing nonconforming single-family home and construct an elevated two-story dwelling with a non-habitable storage/parking area on the ground floor level whereas single family residential use is no longer a permitted use in the MC zone. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application; A2 –Survey by Marc J. Cifone, P.L.S. of Lakeland Surveying (dated 8/8/23 – last revision 9/11/23); Plot Plan by Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E. of MCH Engineering Inc. (dated 11/13/23); Architectural Plans by Dario L. Pasquariello, R.A., A.I.A. (dated 11/28/23). Matthew Hockenberry, PE, sworn, credentials accepted stated that the proposed home is a two-story home elevated over a ground floor level that provides for a garage parking space (two RSIS compliant parking spaces), storage, and staircase. The first-floor plan provides for a great room, kitchen, one bedroom and full bath, mudroom, half bath, foyer and decks. The second-floor plan provides for three bedrooms, one full bath, a powder room/half bath, and den. A review of the elevations identifies the architectural details and decks incorporated for functional and aesthetic purposes. He stated that the proposed development is consistent and similar in style to the newer development in the immediate area and that the proposed development is an aesthetic improvement to the site and surrounding area; the elevated home with full flood zone/ FEMA compliance is a safety improvement to the site and surrounding properties. The existing site is located in the MC zone and currently contains a single-family residential home that is a prior-nonconforming use in the MC zone. The home predates 2002, when the Ordinance was changed to eliminate single family use as a permitted use in the MC zone. The applicant proposes to elevate and renovate/expand the existing nonconforming single-family home and construct of an elevated two-story dwelling with a non-habitable storage/parking area on the ground floor level. He noted that despite the limited lot size, the proposed development meets the Ordinance criteria for impervious coverage. Applicant agreed as a condition to revise the plan to eliminate the initially proposed swimming pool and replace same with pervious pavers and as a condition that the ground level shall provide no habitable living space (two garage parking spaces and storage only). He noted that the proposal provides for two parking spaces in the ground level garage which is an improvement to the existing condition and that not only is the immediate area developed primarily with single family uses as proposed; but the Master Plan Re-Examination Reports in both 2015 and 2021 recommended allowing for the single-family use (existing bungalows) in the MC zone with possible overlay zoning to address development/design standards. The new home proposed is fully compliant with flood zone/FEMA requirements which is a safety benefit for the site and surrounding properties and that the proposed development as depicted on the plans submitted will be a significant aesthetic and functional improvement to the site. He believes that the subject property is particularly suited for the proposed development due to the small dimensions of the parcel, and the existing residential development pattern, while providing a functional design that benefits not only the subject property but the adjoining owners as well. Ms. McFadden questioned the aesthetic and if it would match the presentation? (Yes) Audience questions/comments Marie Lauletta, sworn – neighbor is worried about the pool being so close to the fence for safety and noise. Concerned with the balcony that has no view. It just looks over her patio. Michael Quirk, neighbor, sworn – Is concerned for safety since they are located next to a parking lot. Worried about people leaving the bars having access to the property. They are proposing three entrances. Believes that the stairs can be moved. Alezandra Servidio, Esq. gave closing statement. Conditions 1. The improvements are to be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board as part of this Application. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Board Engineer report, by Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., dated 4/15/24, unless specifically exempted herein. 3. The Applicant shall comply with the following special conditions: a. Applicant shall revise the plan to eliminate the initially proposed swimming pool and replace same with pervious pavers. b. Applicant shall modify the plan to provide for a 16’ wide curb cut, in compliance with the Ordinance. c. The two off street parking spaces shall be provided for within the ground level floor plan as shown; there shall be no driveway parking (as the dimensions do not allow for RSIS compliant parking spaces). Deliberations Dixon – What we have is big house on small lot. Applicant removing cement, eliminating the two parking spaces. Cars will only park in garage. Overall, it is an improvement. Davis – Testimony in reference to Marine commercial space. First impression was we were trying to put too much into the space. We are lifting existing house and making it flood compliant upgrade. Reynolds – We have an existing building; straight up lift which you have to have. Appreciate the applicant removing the pool. The work that has been done already looks good. Kelly – Even though this is marine commercial this has been there. It seems to be less commercial. This particular project is not expanding the existing use. I think they have done a nice job improving it. Parking will always be a problem in the summer. Driber – I only have on questions – the pool is removed – do you plan on keeping the 6-foot fence. (Yes) McGee- I was also nervous about the pool. I think Dario did a nice job preserving the historical integrity. I was glad to see the pool go. Dealmeida – Based on the conditions I take no exceptions. McFadden – My concerns were addressed. Struncius – We are getting a flood compliant home – the pool was addressed. The deck is deminimis – it is not a party deck. With the flood compliance and the aesthetic upgrades, I am fully in support of this. Motion by Mr. McGee, second by vice chair Reynolds to approve application #2024-10 – 21 Ocean Avenue LLC – 21 Ocean Avenue = Block 176; Lot 54 with conditions. In favor: Dixon, Davis, Reynolds, Kelly, Driber, McGee and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with condtions Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board