Board of Adjustment

November 7, 2024 The November 7, 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, Dixon, Reynolds, McGee, Dealmeida, Neill and Struncius Absent – Kelly and Loder Also, present – Ben Montenegro, Esq, Board attorney and Karen L. Mills clerk to the Board. Court Reporter – Denise Sweet Memorialize minutes Motion by Secretary Davis, second by vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of August 15, 2024 – TD, LK, JD, JR, DM, MM and LD In favor: Davis, Reynolds, McFadden, McGee and Dealmeida Opposed: None Motion by Secretary Davis, second by vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of September 19, 2024 – In favor: Davis, Reynolds, McFadden, Dealmeida, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by secretary Davis, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-28 - Storino, Storino and Storino – 257 Ocean – Block123 Lot 36 – Applicant seeks to construct 2-story house on property. With conditions MM, JD, TD, JR, LK, RN and In favor: Davis, Dixon, McGee, Reynolds, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Neill to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2024-20 – of Parisi – 107 Parkway -Block 102; Lot 4 – with conditions In favor: Reynolds, Davis, Dixon, Neill, McGee and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2024-31- Linda Calvo d/b/a Cabana Hanna LLC – Block 17.01/Lot 52 – Applicant is seeking certification of pre-existing non-conformity of two-family use. NOT BEING HEARD THIS EVENING Motion by Mr. Davis, second by vice chair Reynolds to carry application 2024-31 of Cabana Hanna to February 20, 2025 with notice In favor: Davis, Dixon, Reynolds, McFadden, McGee, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None 2024-29 – Sandra Bischoff – 128 ½ Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 8.01 - Applicant is appealing zoning officers ruling. (Carried without notice from October 17th, 2024) NOT BEING HEARD THIS EVENING Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Ms. McFadden to carry application 2024-29 – Sandra Bischoff – 128 ½ Ocean Avenue – to March 20, 2025 without notice In favor: Davis, Dixon, Reynolds, McFadden, McGee, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None 2024-30 – William/Mary Magarino – 7 Bowling Green – Block 121/lot 26.02 – Applicant proposing two-story home where not permitted. John Jackson, Esq., attorney for the applicant stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing single-family home by constructing a second story/roof top deck. The Applicant is requesting variance relief for number of stories (1.5 stories existing/2 stories proposed) and rooftop deck dimensional variances for deck proposed. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 –Survey by Paul K. Lynch, P.L.S. dated 6/7/19; Architectural Plans by Grasso Design Group, Brian Berzinskis, R.A., dated 11/18/23. A3 – Power Point Packet (7 pages) 10/31/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Brian Berzinskis, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted, stated the lot is 2,250 SF where 1,500 is required and there is an existing single-family home on the subject property which is an elevated 1.5 story home that meets all bulk criteria for the RR-1 zone. The intent of the project is to add to the existing half-story, thereby converting same to a second story and providing for a roof top deck for the locating of the proposed mechanicals/generator. The home currently provides for a flood zone compliant elevated home with garage parking/storage on the ground floor level. This level shall remain without modification. The first floor provides for a kitchen, great room, laundry room, two bedrooms and two bathrooms. This level provides 1,100 SF of living space. This level shall remain without modification. The second level (current half story) provides for 225 SF of living space which is an open room leading from the stair case to the outdoor deck. The proposal is to construct an addition on this level which will expand the usable space to 440 SF (an addition of 215 SF). Per the plans submitted, the addition will allow for an office and full bathroom on this second floor. By ordinance, to qualify as a half story this level could be a total 330 SF (lesser of 500 SF or 1/3 of 1,100 SF first level). The second story variance being requested is driven by the additional 110 SF of living space on this second story. He testified that the roof top deck is the location for the mechanicals and generator for the home. There is no direct access to the deck from the second story. The railings proposed are to screen the mechanicals from view and to provide safety for any service worker performing service/repair of the equipment. The architectural detail of the deck with railings as proposed improves the aesthetic design of the project. Applicant agreed as a condition that access to the roof top deck shall be via ladder from the balcony deck on the second floor. Applicant agreed as a condition that the roof top deck shall not be utilized for recreational space; solely for the repair/service/replacement of the mechanicals and generator housed on said deck. Applicant agreed as a condition that the ground floor level shall not be converted/utilized for habitable living space (garage/storage only). Applicant agreed as a condition that the renovations to be constructed shall utilize the building materials and architectural details as shown on the plans submitted. He believes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the small dimensions of the lot in conjunction with the existing improvements at the subject property. He confirmed the proposed plan provides for off street parking that meets RSIS off street parking requirements. Audience questions Margarita Morales – neighbor - Opposes the construction. Stated it will interfere with her light, air and privacy. Richard Schwartz – Lived in his home for 51 years. Concerned about building outside the footprint. (Footprint not changing at all – just the addition of the dormer.) He stated they previously had large flower boxes that caused a safety issue. Audience comments Richard Schwarz, sworn – objects to the construction – very tight space between the houses – it will impact the light. Margarita Morales, sworn – No architectural value – We lived through the original construction – it was awful – took over two-years for them to build. Edward Fatell – 1 Bowling Green – Has known family for years – lived there when this house was being built – family is wonderful – see know reason why this addition should not be granted. Magaret Butler, sworn, neighbor is in favor of project Deliberations Davis – I do not see this being detrimental to the zone; I also do not see it being beneficial. I do not want screening on the roof. I do not want future owners thinking it is a party deck. Concerned about the impact of light and air. Dixon – When I first got the paper work I thought this was a second story but this is a small section (1100 sf) – plus there is a hallway that is not living space – only adding 230 sf. – not that big. I do not believe it is shadowing. This will just be an office. This will probably take less than 3 weeks to build. Do not consider it a second story. Reynolds – The lot itself exceeds the allowed coverage – roof line below the required. The addition itself is deminimis – setbacks stay the same. The windows are being shadowed as it is. Do not see any reason not to approve this. McFadden– I agree with removing the railing; understand the issues being brought up. I would be delighted to have something shadow my bedroom in the morning. I do not think it is our job to deal with construction issues. Leaning in favor of this. McGee – Aesthetically it adds a lot to the property – railing is not a good idea. Important we are looking at an elevated perspective – it will much less over Bering. This zone continues to change. People are living here year-round and need a little extra space. Dealmeida – Also thank you for removing the screening. I think it is a nice-looking project. Neill – nothing further to add Struncius – Not looking at any kind of hardship – different uses of property and making them more useable, but I think the overall addition is not large. Applicant agreed to remove the roof top railing. Conditions a. The ground floor level of the home shall contain no habitable living space (garage/storage only). b. The home to be constructed on site shall include/utilize the materials and architectural details as shown on the plans submitted. c. During the course of construction, the builder and/or owner’s vehicles/equipment/materials shall be stored solely on the subject property or on a neighbor property with formal consent of the neighbor property owner.  d. Access to the roof top deck shall be via ladder from the balcony deck on the second floor (no internal or external staircase). e. The roof top deck shall not be utilized for recreational space; solely for the repair/service/replacement of the mechanicals and generator housed on said deck. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by vice chair Reynolds to approve application 2024-30 – William/Mary Magarino – 7 Bowling Green – Block 121/lot 26.02 with conditions In favor: Dixon, Reynolds, McFadden, McGee, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: Davis Application approved with conditions 2024-32 – Jim/Stacy Bruno – 214 Laurel – Block 80.01/Lot 16 – Applicant requesting 7 bulk variances along with second curb cut. John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant proposes to raise the existing single-family residence together with construction of an in-ground swimming pool, a paver driveway with access to Laurel Court, a concrete walkway/platform and associated improvements. The Applicant requested variance relief for front yard setback (dwelling to Chicago Avenue); side yard setback (dwelling), front yard setback (detached garage), side yard setback (mechanicals) and number of curb cuts to allow for a curb cut on both Laurel Court and Liberty Lane. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Plot Plan by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P. dated 5/16/24; Survey by Morgan Engineering & Surveying, David J. Von Steenburg, P.L.S; Architectural Plans by Dean J. Daley, R.A., dated 6/11/24. A3 – Power Point Packet (12 pages) 10/31/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the the lot is 7,000 sf in lot area with three street frontages-- on Laurel Court, Chicago Avenue and Liberty Lane. There is an existing single-family home on the subject property together with a detached garage. The intent of the project is to elevate the existing home, expand the second story, add a rear yard swimming pool, associated site improvements and add a driveway and curb cut onto Laurel Court. Applicant proposes to maintain the existing curb cut and driveway from the detached garage onto Liberty Lane. He believes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the narrow dimension of the lot which has three street frontages in conjunction with the existing improvements at the subject property and that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) (c) and (i)– noting that the proposal provides for a functional and safety improvement to the site by elevating the existing home for flood zone compliance; improving overall aesthetics at the site while maintaining adequate light, air and open space; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good. Applicant agreed as a condition that the ground floor level of the home shall contain no habitable living space (garage/storage only). Applicant agreed as a condition that the proposed second curb cut requires and shall subject to Governing Body approval. He confirmed the proposed plan provides for off street parking (garage and driveway) that meets/exceeds RSIS off street parking requirements. Dean Daley, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted, stated that per the plans submitted, Applicant proposes to raise the existing single-family home together with constructing an in-ground swimming pool, a paver driveway with access to Laurel Court, a concrete walkway and platform, and associated improvements. Per Sheet A-4 of the plans submitted, the ground floor plan provides for a two-car garage, foyer, staircase and storage areas. Per Sheet A-4 of the plans submitted, the proposed first floor plan provides for a kitchen, dining room, sitting room, living room, laundry room, three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Per Sheet A-4 of the plans submitted, the proposed second floor plan provides for three bedrooms, two bathrooms and an open office space. Applicant agreed as a condition that the home to be constructed on site shall include/utilize the materials and architectural details as shown on the plans submitted. He agreed as a condition to provide to the Board Engineer calculations confirming that the design presented in the plans submitted complies with the Borough’s 85% rule (1st vs. 2d floor). Applicant agreed as a condition that the detached garage on site shall contain no habitable living space (garage/storage only). Deliberations Davis – Good presentation – interesting application on the lift – maintaining existing characteristics – a lot going on a small lot. Little concerned about the east elevations but everything is within the setbacks. Dixon – What we have is a home that will be lifted and FEMA compliant. Lane is not a well- traveled road so know problem with the curb cut. Just adding a dormer, no reason to comply with 85% rule – small house. Overall so not have a problem. Reynolds – Definitely a hardship with 3 frontages. Getting cars off the street. As far as the second story it is an aesthetic thing. Nice addition – not a big fan of the back stairs. McFadden – generally in favor of the plan – not a fan of the curb cut on the lane. Not bulky house. McGee – Vast improvement – curb cut I am not a fan – safety issue – losing parking close to boardwalk. Dealmeida – Do not have an issue with second curb cut – nice looking house- Neill – I do like the design – different material being used to break up the elevation. Struncius – I agree with Mr. Dixon – grandma and grandpa to not factor in to zoning decisions. You can decide to rent it. What does factor in is that it is a corner lot with three frontages. I think owners will be careful backing out of the driveway. Architecturally it is an improvement. In favor Motion by Ms. McFadden, second by vice chair Reynolds to approve application 2024-32 of Jim/Stacy Bruno – 214 Laurel – Block 80.01/Lot 16 Conditions a. The ground floor level of the home shall contain no habitable living space (garage/storage only). b. The proposed second curb cut (onto Laurel Court) requires and shall subject to Governing Body approval. c. The home to be constructed on site shall include/utilize the materials and architectural details as shown on the plans submitted. d. Applicant shall provide to the Board Engineer calculations confirming that the design presented in the plans submitted complies with the Borough’s 85% rule ordinance. e. The detached garage on site shall contain no habitable living space (garage/storage only). Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board.