BOROUGH OF AVALON PLANNING/ZONING BOARD
Minutes of Work Session/Regular Meeting of May 13, 2014
Members Present: Sam Beddia
Sharon Cooper
David Ellenberg
James Fleischmann
Neil Hensel
David Knoche
Thomas McCullough
Michele Petrucci
Brian Reynolds
Susan Rhoads
Beth Tipping
Members Absent: Sharon Cooper
James Lutz
Chairman Hensel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. After a roll call of members, Chairman Hensel recited the Open Public Meetings Act Statement.
The Board first considered the minutes of the April 8, 2014 meeting. Several minor amendments to the minutes were requested. A motion was then made to approve the amended minutes by Ms. Tipping, seconded by Ms. Petrucci, with all eligible members voting in the affirmative. The Board then considered Resolution PZ #13-10 (Dilbet, Inc.) for amended site plan approval to convert two existing hotel units into an office and separate storage area, to remove a prior condition that would permit the general public to use an existing third floor sun deck and permit the development of a permanent canopy over the third floor sun deck and a permanent bar together with waivers for document submission to renovate an existing hotel resort located at 105 80th street, Avalon, New Jersey. Solicitor Dean R. Marcolongo, Esquire advised the Board that he had amended the Resolution that they had previously received on two occasions renaming the third floor as a sun deck rather than a balcony. A motion was made to approve by Mr. McCullough, seconded by Dr. Reynolds, with all eligible members voting in the affirmative.
Chairman Hensel then called Application PZ#14-04 (Edward and Eileen Rabbitt) for setback relief to install an in-ground pool on property located at 74 East 15th Street, Avalon, New Jersey. Vincent L. Lamanna, Jr., Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicants. Edward Rabbitt appeared, was sworn and testified that he and his wife had purchased a property in 2003 and desired to install an in-ground pool in the rear of the property. Besides a single family dwelling, there is a small garage in the rear that they will be converting into a cabana. Mr. Lamanna marked as Exhibit A-1, two sheets showing a sketch of the proposed cabana. Mr. Rabbitt testified that the applicants propose to renovate the garage by removing the first 7 ft. of the garage closest to the proposed pool which will be a patio area. The remaining portion of the 11 ft x 18 ft. garage will be converted into an area to store pool equipment.
Mr. Rabbitt testified that he is proposing a 6 ft. rear yard setback where 9 ft. is required and the 4 ft. landscape buffer will be contained in this area. He noted that the house behind his property had a pool which was only 7 ft. 3 ft. away from the property line. Mr. Rabbitt testified that there were three reasons for his proposed location of the pool:
1. To align it with the cabana;
2. To provide sufficient room between the pool and house for lounge chairs;
3. To provide sufficient access to the pool equipment.
Upon questioning from the Board, Mr. Rabbitt testified that the cabana is 12 ft. in height, it will have no plumbing, he intends to install a refrigerator in same and that the pool equipment will be located toward the house so that it is not within the rear and side yard setbacks.
Tom Braun, a representative of U.S.A. Pools, appeared, was sworn and testified on behalf of the application. He concurred that the pool equipment will be located within the cabana and it will be at least 9 ft. from the rear and side yard property lines. He noted that the cabana will be insulated so sound will not be a problem and the pool will be heated with natural gas.
Gary Thomas of Thomas Amey Shaw, Inc. appeared, was sworn and testified from his variance plan consisting of one sheet dated February 12, 2014. Mr. Thomas testified that the rear structure is more of a storage shed than a garage but it will be converted into a cabana as defined in the zoning ordinance. He noted that the roof will be at least a 4:12 pitch and the style of the cabana will match the house. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the applicants propose a 6 ft. rear yard setback to the water’s edge and that this setback is similar to those in the neighborhood. He further testified that if a 9 ft. rear yard setback was maintained, there would only be 4 ft. between the house and the pool. Mr. Thomas believed that the variance relief could be granted under both the C-1 and C-2 criteria, that the benefits of the variance relief outweigh the detriment and that the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Board Engineer, Joseph Maffei testified from his review memorandum of May 1, 2014 and the applicant agreed to comply with all terms and conditions set forth therein.
The matter was open to the public at which time Frank McLaughlin of 72nd Street, Avalon, New Jersey appeared, was sworn and voiced opposition to the application arguing that the Board should adhere to the Borough’s zoning ordinance.
After the public portion of the meeting was closed, Chairman Hensel polled the Board with the Board unanimously finding that the applicant had sustained its burden of proof as to both the positive and negative criteria. The Board found that the applicant had evidenced sufficient rationale for the proposed location of the pool, that the cabana would mitigate any noise pollution from the pool equipment and that the proposed location is similar to adjacent properties.
A motion was made to approve the application for variance relief for rear yard setback to the pool and for existing non-conforming condition, specifically, a rear yard setback to an accessory structure with conditions. Said motion was made by Councilman Ellenberg, seconded by Ms. Tipping, with all eligible members voting in the affirmative.
Chairman Hensel then called Application PZ #14-01 (Shore Star Properties, LLC) for variance relief for side yard setback, total side yard setback and rear yard setback to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 315 74th Street, Avalon, New Jersey. Prior to receiving testimony in this matter, Solicitor Marcolongo reminded the Board that the applicant had appeared before the Planning Board in 2011 requesting an interpretation as to which property line was the front yard, rear yard and side yards, what was the total lot frontage and did the zoning ordinance oversized lot requirements apply to this lot. Solicitor Marcolongo noted that the Board found that the 74th Street property line was the front yard, the bulkhead was the rear yard and the two remaining property lines were side yards. The Board found that lot frontage extended to the street end or 160 ft. and that the oversized lot requirements were applicable to this lot and that the side yards were required to be 21.36 ft. with a total side yard of 53.4 ft. The applicant had, thereafter, appealed that interpretation.
Solicitor Marcolongo advised the Board that in 2012 the applicant had appeared before the Board with an application proposing side yards of 16 ft. and 14 ft. and a rear yard of 15 ft. to construct a single family dwelling. That application was opposed by a neighbor and, after a full hearing, the Board had denied the application. Thereafter , the applicant had appealed that decision, and both appeals were stayed by Court Order pending the application now before the Board.
Christopher M. Baylinson, Esquire of Perskie Mairone Brog & Baylinson, appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained the nature of the application to the Board. Mr. Baylinson advised that he believes that the proposed application is substantially different from the 2012 application in that they have reduced the size of the house to increase the east side yard which has resulted in the neighboring property owners, the Nicolettis, now favoring the proposal. He noted that the footprint and floor area ratio of the structure have been reduced and that the structure meets all but three bulk variances. Blane Steinman of Blane Steinman Architects, LLC, appeared, was sworn and testified from his site plan consisting of six sheets dated December 9, 2013. Mr. Baylinson marked as Exhibit A-1, a revised site plan dated May 13, 2014 and Exhibit A-4 which evidenced architectural features and dimensions of a proposed accessory structure on the east side of the lot. Mr. Steinman testified that the applicant is now proposing a 15 ft. rear yard setback to the bulkhead, a 17 ft. side yard setback to the north and a 25.3 ft. side yard setback to the east. Variance relief is required for the north side yard setback and total side yard setback which is now at 42.3 ft. where 53.4 ft. is required.
Mr. Baylinson marked as Exhibit A-5 a sheet evidencing the footprint of the building from the 2012 application and the footprint of the new proposed development to compare its size. Mr. Steinman noted that the footprint has remained the same on the west and south sides of the property but has changed significantly on the east and north. He noted that only a portion of the house encroaches into the rear yard setback and that, in his opinion, the proposed house will not affect any property owner’s views.
Mr. Baylinson marked as Exhibit A-6, a revised zoning schedule evidencing the existing and proposed conditions and Mr. Steinman noted that the revisions have reduced lot coverage and floor area ratio. He further noted that the accessory structure complies with the zoning ordinance requirements.
Mr. Steinman discussed the building elevations and testified that only one-third of the proposed building encroaches into the rear yard setback and this encroachment occurs on the second and third floor only since the first floor is open. He also discussed the increased green space as evidenced on Exhibit A-8.
Gary Thomas of Thomas Amey Shaw, Inc. appeared, was sworn and testified from his variance plan dated March 1, 2011 and last revised February 18, 2014. Mr. Thomas testified that this is a unique property in that the lot itself is bisected by a bulkhead on an angle. While lot frontage has been determined on 74th Street to be 160 ft., the property line on the north is only 75 ft. long. Mr. Baylinson marked as Exhibit A-7, a sheet showing the view shed from neighboring properties to evidence that the views of adjacent property owners will not be impacted by the development. Mr. Thomas further testified that the proposed development provides for adequate light, air and open space, provides a desirable visual environment and protects the public by raising the building above base flood elevation and complying with new building codes. He further testified that he believes the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.
Mr. Baylinson called Robert Corrato, the owner of the applicant’s limited liability company. Mr. Corrato testified that he had purchased the property five years ago and has made significant concessions to allay the fears of his neighbors and has modified the building to comply with new FEMA requirements.
Board Engineer, Joseph Maffei testified from his review memorandum of May 1, 2014 and the applicant agreed to comply with all terms and conditions set forth therein.
The matter was open to the public at which time the following appeared:
1. Frank McLaughlin of 261 72nd street, Avalon, New Jersey testified in opposition to the application noting that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship and that the variance relief would not benefit the community.
2. Douglas Burke, Esquire appeared on behalf of Megan Nicoletti, the property owner to the east, and testified that his client is now in favor of the application.
3. Elaine Scattergood of Avalon, appeared, was sworn and voiced her objection to the application stating that no legitimate rationale had been given for the variance relief.
After the public portion of the hearing was closed, Chairman Hensel polled the Board with regard to the evidence presented. The Board found that the applicant had demonstrated that a hardship exists with regard to the property as a result of the irregularly shaped lot bisected by an angled bulkhead. These irregularities created undue pressure on development at the site satisfying the C-1 criteria. In addition, the Board found that the benefits of the variances outweigh any detriment in that the property will now be developed above base flood elevation, will be aesthetically pleasing and provides for adequate light, air and open space. The Board also found no substantial detriment to the public and, given the fact that the development of a single family dwelling on the site is permitted, there will be no substantial detriment to the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.
A motion was made to approve the application for side yard setback, total side yard setback and rear yard setback with the condition that the applicant revise its plans to show that all pool equipment is at least 9 ft. from both side yards, that the zoning schedule would be revised to evidence the correct calculations testified to and that the applicant shall comply with Mr. Maffei’s review memorandum of May 1, 2014. This motion was made by Ms. Rhoads, seconded by Mr. Beddia, with all members voting in the affirmative.
Chairman Hensel then advised the Board that Borough Council continue to have difficulty with the Planning Board’s proposal regarding bulkhead height. Chairman Hensel stated that the proposed amendments to Chapters 26 and 27 still should be considered by Borough Council. A motion was made to adopt a special resolution requesting Borough Council to again consider the proposed amendments to Chapters 26 and 27. Said motion was made by Dr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. McCullough, with all members voting in the affirmative. Solicitor Marcolongo had already prepared a resolution to that effect and that resolution was adopted that evening.
A motion was made to adjourn at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Dean R. Marcolongo
Dean R. Marcolongo, Esquire
4