Board of Adjustment

January 16, 2025 Reorg and Regular meeting The January 16, 2025 Reorg/ 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: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Chairman Struncius, vice chair Reynolds, Ms. McFadden, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Dealmeida and Mr. Loder Absent – Davis, McGee and Neill Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Esq., Board attorney and Ray Savacool, board engineer Reorganization of the Board Appointment of Board Clerk - Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to appoint Karen L. Mills to the position of Clerk In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, McFadden, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Appointment of Board Chairman - Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Paul Struncius to the position of Board Chairman In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Appointment of Board vice –Chair – Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Mr. Reynolds to the position of Vice-Chairman. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Appointment of Board Secretary – Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Mr. Davis to the position of board secretary. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Appointment of Board Attorney – Motion by Mr. McFadden, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Ben Montenegro to the position of Board Attorney. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Appointment of Board Engineer - Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Ray Savacool of the firm T & M associates to the position of Board Engineer. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Ms. McFadden to designate the Asbury Park Press and the Ocean Star as the Board’s official newspapers. In favor: Kelly, Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by Ms. McFadden second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize application 2024-33 of Sharp – 617 New Jersey Avenue – In favor: McFadden, Dixon and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Ms. McFadden, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize application 2024-34 of Mina – 1-3 New York Avenue - In favor: McFadden, Dixon and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Ms. McFadden to memorialize application 2024-35 of Garino – 1617 Beacon Lane - In favor: McFadden, Dixon and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2025-02 – Danielle Calcagno – 219 Washington Avenue – Bock 26; Lot 10 - Applicant installed in-ground swimming pool – seeking variances John Jackson, Esq., attorney for the applicant stated that she is seeking the following variances. 1. Minimum pool setback where 10' is required and 5’ is proposed to the Chicago Avenue frontage. Maximum impervious coverage where 50% is permitted and 52.2% is proposed (reduction from 56.27%). 2. Accessory rear yard setback for pool equipment where 5’ is required and 0.5’ is proposed. 3. Maximum front yard fence height where 3’ is permitted and 6’ is proposed on the Chicago Avenue frontage. 4. Front yard setback to principal dwelling where 25’ is required and 24.6’ exists (existing condition). 5. Accessory side yard setback to the garage where 5’ is required and 1.4’ exists (existing condition). 6. Accessory rear yard setback to garage where 5’ is required and 3’ exists (existing condition). 7. Minimum side yard setback for a pool where 10’ is required and 7.5’ exists (existing condition). 8. Maximum building coverage where 30% is permitted and 39.85% is proposed. The Applicant is seeking variance approval related to a new pool that was previously installed without necessary municipal permits. The Applicant sought a retroactive Zoning Permit from the Borough, but was denied as the pool installation resulted in a number of nonconformities with the Zoning Ordinance which required variance relief. According to Applicant’s counsel, about 3 to 4 years prior to this application, Applicant’s prior pool was failing and required immediate repairs. The Applicant hired a contractor for the repairs, but the contractor could not fix the existing pool and advised the Applicant that the pool needed to be replaced. Contractor replaced the pool; however, it was not properly anchored and begin to come out of the ground. The Applicant was dissatisfied with that contractor and obtained another contractor who installed another new rectangular pool. All of this work was performed without any municipal permits. The Applicant’s counsel noted that the application proposes to replace the concrete patio with permeable pavers and change the driveway to gravel, resulting in a reduction in impervious coverage; and that the pool’s close proximity to Chicago Avenue (rather than a  neighboring property) negates any potential detriment from the requested pool setback variance. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Emergency Pool Replacement Plan and Site Plan by Payne Engineering P.C.; A3 – Power Point Packet (5 pages) 1/14/25 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. William T. Payne, P.E., applicant’s Engineer, sworn, stated that the Applicant is the title owner of the subject property; subject property is in the SF-5 Zone. The newly installed pool is a steel wall, inground pool with vinyl liner and buttresses. The pool is built to ensure it cannot pop up due to a water table increase and is built far more efficiently in terms of stormwater management than the prior pool. He noted that the driveway is being changed to gravel and the existing concrete patio is being replaced with permeable pavers, resulting in a significant reduction in impervious coverage. Applicant agreed as a condition that the driveway will be changed to gravel and that the concrete patio will be replaced with permeable pavers. He believes that the 6’ fence proposed on the Chicago Avenue frontage conceptually meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the pool equipment has been in the same location for 35 years and appears to be in the most appropriate location. Applicant agreed as a condition that the fence has to be relocated onto the property line along Chicago Avenue. Robert Calcagno, applicant’s father, sworn, stated that he is the prior owner of the subject property. He had the pool installed in or around 1994 and obtained the required permit from the Borough. He acknowledges now that the original pool was not installed in conformity with the 1994 permit, but thought that it was acceptable as it was inspected by prior building inspector, William Cobb. He noted that the pool had severe hydrostatic pressure problems, which eventually resulted in significant problems. Danielle Calcagno, applicant, sworn stated that in 2019, the pool began to leak significant amounts of water. This was around the last time her family had use of the backyard, before the installation of the new pool. In 2023, she had emergent work performed by a pool contractor in order to repair the prior pool. However, she testified that the contractor ended up cracking the prior pool when attempting to make the repairs. Upon the contractor’s recommendation, the Applicant had the contractor replace the prior pool with a new rectangular shaped pool. However, this pool was not properly anchored and began to lift out of the ground. In addition, the new pool was only 3’ in depth which was not discovered by the Applicant until after it was installed. The Applicant hired a new contractor to install the current rectangular shaped pool. No permits were obtained for any of this work. No persons appeared in opposition to the application. Conditions 1. The fence along the Chicago Avenue frontage must be relocated to on or within the Applicant’s property line. 2. The driveway must be changed to gravel. 3. The current concrete patio must be replaced with permeable pavers. 4. The Applicant must obtain any required building permits from the Borough in regard to the pool. Deliberations Dixon – You gave me quite a bit of information I was searching for. You are trying everything to correct this. McFadden – I echo Mr. Dixon’s comments. I am not happy how things transpired; as are you. It would be a hardship to remove the pool. Reynolds – Glad the fence is moving off the property line. No issues. Pasola – I agree with what has been said. It is an unfortunate situation Kelly – The lawn and landscaping reflects on the owners; It is beautiful. Sorry you are having problems. The water table is high and you will have problems with in-ground pools. Dealmeida – I appreciate your testimony – no reason to relocate the pool; reducing impervious. Loder – Nothing to add Struncius – Stories do not move me. I look at this from the ground up. I certainly would allow the 6-foot fence. I then would look at the 5-foot setback – distance greater from the street that gives it a buffer. Impervious coverage being improved. Equipment has been there since your childhood. Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by vice-chair Reynolds to approve application 2025-02 – Danielle Calcagno – 219 Washington Avenue with conditions In favor: Dixon, McFadden, Reynolds, Pasola, Kelly, Dealmeida and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions Meeting adjourned at 9:25pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board