Board of Adjustment

October 17, 2024 The October 17, 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: Davis, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, McGee, Neill, Loder and Struncius Absent – McFadden and De Almeida Also, present – Ben Montenegro, Esq, Board attorney and Ray Savacool, Board PE and Karen L. Mills clerk to the Board. Court Reporter – Denise Sweet Memorialize Minutes Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by secretary Davis to memorialize the minutes of August 15, 2024 – In favor: Davis, Dixon, Renolds, McGee and Kelly Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the minutes of July 18, 2024 – In favor: Davis, Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Neill, Loder and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Secretary Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of June 6, 2024 – In favor: Kelly, Davis, Reynolds, McGee, Neill and Loder Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by secretary Davis to memorialize the minutes of June 20, 2024 – In favor: Davis, Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Neill, Loder and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Loder, second by secretary Davis to memorialize the minutes of May 30, 2024 – In favor: Davis, Reynolds, Kelly McGee, Loder and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application2023-28 – Ekmejian – 1206 Ocean Avenue – Block 28.01; lot 2 – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Davis, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-27 of Kendall Smith – 417 Arbutus Avenue – Block 162; Lot 15 – with conditions – In favor: Davis, Kelly, Reynolds, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Neill to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-26 of Jon/Carolyn Studham – 10 Harvard Avenue – Block 136; Lot 102 – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Davis, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2024-28 - Storino, Storino and Storino – 257 Ocean – Block123 Lot 36 – Applicant seeks to construct 2-story house on property. John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for applicant stated that they are seeking the following variances. 1. A d(6) variance for height and c (2) variances for stories and side yard setback for the construction of a flood zone compliant two story dwelling. 2. Variances are proposed as follows: i. Maximum building height whereas 25’ from BFE is allowed and 28.2’ is proposed; ii. Maximum stories where 1.5 stories is allowed and 2 stories are proposed; iii. Side yard setback whereas 5’ is required and 2.5’ is proposed. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family dwelling on site and construct a new flood zone compliant two-story home on the property located within the RR-1zone. Exhibits entered 3. Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application; 4. Exhibit A2 – Plot Plan/Architectural Plan by Ten10 Architecture, LLC (dated 5/13/24) (two sheets). 5. Exhibit A3 – Power Point (7 pages) Planner Daniel Wheaton, sworn, credentials accepted stated that the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story dwelling on site. The existing structure contains 4 bedrooms and has nonconformities for front yard setback, side yard setback, impervious coverage and stories. The existing structure does not comply with the DFE in the subject flood zone. Applicant proposes a new two-story dwelling substantially in the existing footprint which will be constructed in full compliance with current building codes and flood zone requirements. Per the plans submitted, the first floor provides for a kitchen, living room, den, one bedroom and one and half bathrooms; the second floor provides for 4 bedrooms, laundry room and two bathrooms. He noted that the proposed application eliminates existing nonconformities for impervious coverage and front setback; while improving the side setback nonconformity (1.55’ existing and 2.5’ proposed). A review of the elevations identifies the architectural details incorporated for functional and aesthetic purposes. He noted that the designed open front deck elevated from ground level provides for improved light, air and open space on site; while separating that front deck use from the public sidewalk. 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 and safety 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 and the proposal provides for compliant off-street parking for the proposal while not reducing on- street parking. The site can reasonably accommodate the proposed new two-story dwelling as evidenced by its compliance with building coverage, impervious coverage and off-street parking; while at the same time improving aesthetics and flood safety at the site. No audience questions/comments Deliberations Davis – Complimented the planning testimony – Sandy has changed the look of the town – I think this is a well thought out and attractive house. Given the special circumstances of this property, it all makes sense. This house is a huge upgrade from what is existing. I am sure we will find houses along ocean avenue following suit in the near future. Dixon – Being the house is being pushed back and given the improvements and the reduction of impervious coverage is a great think. You are going to have a modern home – and it will clean up the front – it is a busy are – plenty of parking – nice project. Reynolds – I have a couple of minor concerns – but we are getting a flood compliant - aesthetically pleasing home. Kelly – Being a fireman I appreciate this – this particular effort has merit in this regard. I do not think we are destroying the vista by adding a story on. McGee – We are drastically reducing the impervious coverage – I feel it is safer having access on the side of the house. I believe we will start to see this type of development. Neill – My issue was the second story – the upgrade is not changing what is already in place. Loder – I am in favor of this application. Struncius – I am thinking how much more of a second story are we getting – We are getting, flood and fire safety. It has aesthetic value. Even though it is in a train car style we are getting other feature and modernization. Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2024-28 of Storino, Storino and Storino – 257 Ocean – Block 123 Lot 36- with conditions In favor – Davis, Dixon, Reynolds, Kelly, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None 2024-20 – Parisi – 107 Parkway -Block 102; Lot 4 – Applicant seeks approval for cabana and variances for new house. John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for applicant reviewed requested variances 1. A d(1) use variance for approval of the construction of the pool cabana structure, whereas pool cabanas are not permitted in the SF-5 Zone. 2. A c(2) bulk variance for roof pitch on the single-family home proposed where the ordinance requires that the pitch of the principal dwelling roof shall not be less than 6 (vertical) on 12 (horizontal). The applicant proposes to construct a pool cabana in the rear yard of the site. The pool cabana use is not permitted by the ordinance in the SF-5 zone. The applicant proposes to construct a new single- family home per the plans submitted that has a roof pitch (based on dormers included in the design) that does not meet the ordinance pitch requirement. Exhibits entered Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application. Exhibit A2 – Plot Plan/Grading Plan by MCH Engineering, Inc., by Matthew C. Hockenbury, P.E., (dated 1/29/24); Survey by Lakeland Surveying (dated 1/3/23); Architectural Plans by PDR Designs Architecture, by Paul D. Rugarber, AIA, (last revision date 9/17/24). Exhibit A3 – Power Point Packet (14 pages). Paul D. Rugarber, AIA, applicant’s architect, sworn, credentials accepted stated that the existing site is located in the SF-5 zone. The proposal is to construct a new single-family home on site together with a rear yard swimming pool and pool cabana with outdoor fire place/outdoor kitchen as depicted on the architectural plan submitted. As shown on the plans, the proposed structure is open air on two sides. One side provides a louvered wall façade with brick half wall. One side is partially enclosed by the proposed outdoor fireplace and partially open. The outdoor kitchen/counter seating is on the open patio beyond the covered portion of the cabana. Applicant volunteered as a condition that the cabana use is solely accessory to the swimming pool and shall not be enclosed in the future/utilized for living space and/or overnight accommodations. The site, as designed with the proposed cabana, requires no other variances. He testified that there is no water or sewer proposed for the cabana; just electric for outdoor lighting and a gas line for the outdoor built-in barbecue grill. Applicant agreed as a condition that the fireplace as constructed shall contain a chimney cap in accord with building and/or fire code. He opined that the proposed cabana is appropriate in size, scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood development. As to roof design and failure to fully comply with the 6 on 12 requirement, he noted that a portion of the roof does comply; however, the design incorporated several dormers for better aesthetic appeal and functionality of the floor plan. He contrasted the architectural details that would be lost to revise the roof to fully conform to the ordinance. He noted that the non-compliance does not render the visual impact of the design to be that of a flat or unattractive roof line. He believes that the overall roof/architectural design is a better zoning alternative to achieving full ordinance compliance for roof pitch. He confirmed that the plans as revised have eliminated any additional variances for the project (sole variance relief requested is for the construction of a pool cabana and for roof pitch proposed). He noted that the half story designed is 383 SF (less than the 500 SF allowed by ordinance). He confirmed that the ground level shall include no habitable living space. He shall modify the plan to eliminate reference to a “work shop”, designating the ground floor space as “storage only.” He believes that the proposed building with pool cabana will not negatively impact the light, air, and open space of the surrounding properties and that this site is particularly suitable for the proposed project due to the size of the lot and layout of the existing single-family home and rear yard swimming pool/paver patio. Audience questions /comments Conditions 1. The single-family home, pool cabana and all site improvements are to be constructed in accordance with the architectural 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 8/13/24 and 10/9/24, unless specifically exempted herein. 3. The applicant shall comply with the following special conditions: a. The cabana use is solely accessory to the swimming pool and shall not be enclosed nor utilized for living space and/or overnight accommodations. There shall be no plumbing (water or sewer) to the pool cabana. b. Applicant shall provide a grading plan, subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer for ordinance compliance. c. The fireplace as constructed shall contain a chimney cap in accord with building and/or fire code. d. The ground level shall include no habitable living space. Applicant shall modify the plan to eliminate reference to a “work shop”, designating the ground floor space as “storage only.” Audience questions/comments Next-door neighbor questioned the drainage plan – has concerns with water on his property Deliberations David – Large home– Has no issue with roof pitch. In favor of gazebos. Not in favor of third floor decks – I know it is on a Master bedroom – so a little different. - I understand that people like to have these benefits Dixon – Not concerned with the home itself – concerns with the cabana – these things seem to be getting bigger. A majority we have approved were to get out of the sun – now we have fireplaces – I think they will become a hangout right next to the neighbors. Firepits burn wood and it goes throughout the whole neighborhood and it stinks. You cannot open your windows because your house gets filled with smoke. Now it is an entertainment center – I cannot go for that. Reynolds – I have no trouble with the cabana – chimney seems high enough. Kelly – I was concerned with the size of the chimney. There appears to be enough room with your neighbor’s driveway that they will clear it. McGee – No problem with roof line. No problem with cabana/gazebo. Neill – One concern is the third story balcony. As Tom said it is a Master bedroom not a place for a social gathering. Loder – Nothing to add Struncius – Do not see the roof line as flat with the architectural features. We all think differently about things. We can have people under the deck – Also have a fire pit. I do not think the features of a cabana create a partying problem. I have no problem with it and there are no coverages issues. 2024-29 – Sandra Bischoff – 128 ½ Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 8.01 - Applicant is appealing zoning officers ruling. Mr. Dixon stepped down from this application John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application. Applicant purchased property in 2003. Pizza parlor below, apartment upstairs. He stated Michael Gardner approved the pizza parlor area to be rebuilt. After Sandy they put a couple of partitions downstairs to create bedrooms. 2005 they applied for a two-family and was denied. They are seeking an interpretation of single-family home. Does not agree with the zoning officer’s ruling/determination that living area downstairs violates the flood plain ordinance and that it is a non- conforming use. He wants to get it approved as a legal single-family structure. Previously open area with bathroom. What they are looking for now is two-bedrooms – Brain Martin inspected and said what was there was not approved by Michael Gardner. She was instructed to submit a flood plain application/elevation. These improvements were below the flood plain so it was denied. A single story was allowed and this is a two-story. Ray Savacool does not believe the Pizza Parlor space should have been converted to living space without board approval. He believes the prior building official did make a mistake by letting them finish the area. What they actual built was not approved. Sandra Bischoff, applicant, sworn, gave overall account. 2004 purchased this property – prior owner was in the process of renovating into a single family. Everything was approved – 1 family home built in 1970. This was over 20 years ago – sold to us as a single-family home. We used it as a summer home and rental. We applied for a two-family home in 2005 and got denied. We have used it for our own family; never rented as two-family. After Sandy we went to rebuild – did not receive substantial damage letter. She said downstairs is like it always was except for the partitions. She said that everything was done by a professional. She stated that they rent very cautiously and said she never rented as a two-family. Does not have a stove downstairs. There is a food prep area (Sink, frig and microwave) no stove. No photos have been submitted of the downstairs. Secretary Davis questioned the lack of permits for the bedrooms. John Jackson believes it is a legal single-family house. Ray Savacool stated that the zoning officer denied the permit because the previous permits do not depict what was built. Ben Montenegro believes there should have been an approval by this board to utilize both floors as a single- family use. Secretary Davis questioned if they could move forward by supporting the zoning officer and move forward with the variance to approve the two-story use. Chairman Struncius stated that would be a vote. That would not be automatic – it might not lead down the path that you are after. Chairman Struncius said he believes we should go forward with the vote Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Secretary Davis to uphold the ruling of the Zoning Officer In favor: Davis, Dixon, Reynolds, Kelly, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Chairman Struncius stated that reading the previous resolution identified that two-stories was not permitted. There was no vote on two stories. Mr. McGee questioned the stairs from the pizza parlor. Sandra stated there were always stairs. Ben Montenegro said they could move forward with the variance relief but recommended carrying to November 7, 2024 to make a stronger application. The Board would like some photos of the downstairs. Motion by second by to carry application #2024-29 of Sandra Bischoff – 128 ½ Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 8.01 – to November 7, 2024 without notice. In favor: Davis, Loder, Reynolds, Kelly, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board.