IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION GRANTING

APPLICATION NO. PB15-11 VARIANCE AAPPROVAL

OF JOAN PENTA MCCOY AND

PETER MCCOY

Block 8, Lot 21

WHEREAS, JOAN PENTA MCCOY AND PETER MCCOY, hereinafter the "Applicant", has proposed the development of property located at 31 Bayside Drive, in the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, County of Monmouth, and State of New Jersey which property is further known and designated as Block 8, Lot 21 on the Tax Map of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the Planning Board of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands for variance approval to permit the demolition of an existing residence and its replacement with a new residential home on the same foundation footprint, which requires the following variances:

1. Lot area of 10,641 sq. ft. where 30,000 sq. ft. are required (existing condition).

1. Lot frontage of 78.85 ft. where 100 ft. are required (existing condition).

3. Lot shape diameter of 42.5 ft. where 65 ft. are required (existing condition).

4. Lot coverage of 1,891 sq. ft. where 1,446 sq. ft. are permitted and 1,903 sq. ft. exists (existing nonconforming condition reduced).

5. Impervious coverage of 1,866 sq. ft. where 1,770 sq. ft. are permitted (existing condition).

6. Front yard setback of 19.4 ft. where 25 ft. are required and 20.7 ft. exist for second story cantilever (new 1.3 ft. variance).

contrary to Chapter 150, Article V, Section 150-78 and Exhibit 5-2 of the Development Regulations of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, and

WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-3 Residential Zone District and single family residential homes with associated accessory structures are a permitted use in the Zone, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the Planning Board of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands on July 14, 2016 due notice of said meeting having been given in accordance with New Jersey Statutes, the Open Public Meetings Act and the Municipal Land Use Law and a quorum of the Planning Board being present, the application was heard; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant’s witnesses were sworn, and the Planning Board having heard the testimony of the Applicant’s witnesses and having examined the exhibits submitted by the Applicant, and having considered all of the evidence presented in favor of or in opposition to the application, the Planning Board has made the following findings of fact:

1. The Planning Board has received and reviewed the following documents, exhibits and reports:

1.1 Zoning review of Zoning Officer Marianne Dunn, dated March 30, 2016, marked as Exhibit A-1 in evidence.

1.2 Variance application of Joan Penta McCoy and Peter McCoy, dated March 31, 2016, marked as Exhibit A-2 in evidence.

1.3 Steep slope review plan for Peter McCoy, prepared by Richard E. Stockton & Assoc., Inc., dated January 4, 2016, marked as Exhibit A-3 in evidence.

1.4 Architectural Elevation and Floor Plans, prepared by Mathew T. Cronin, A.I.A., dated December 7, 2015, revised January 19, 2016, marked as Exhibit A-4 in evidence.

1.5 Report of CME Associates, dated May 27, 2016, marked as Exhibit A-5 in evidence.

1.6 8.5 x 11 inch sheet with two photographs of the existing residence, marked as Exhibit A-6 in evidence.

2. The premises in question are located at 31 Bayside Drive in the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey, which property is further known and designated as Block 8, Lot 21 on the Tax Map of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands.

3. The subject property is located in the R-3 Residential Zone District and single family residential homes with associated accessory structures are a permitted use in the Zone.

4. The premises in question have approximate dimensions of 75.97 ft. x 23.31 ft. x 156.10 ft. x 12.01 ft. x 34.64 ft. x 148.90 ft. and is irregular in shape with its greatest width along its frontage on Bayside Drive and narrowing as the property recedes to the south. The property exhibits a number of characteristics which make it impossible to develop without the grant of variance relief. More particularly, the lot is an existing undersized lot having a lot area of 10,641 sq. ft. where 30,000 sq. ft. is required in the Zone. It also has an existing undersized frontage of 78.85 Ft. where 100 ft. are required and an undersized lot shape diameter of 42.25 ft. where 65 ft. are required. In addition to the foregoing, the property is impacted by substantial steep slopes as it recedes southerly from Bayside Drive. This results in a reduced developable area on the property. In addition, due to the steep slopes on the property, the lot coverage and impervious coverage calculations further limit the extent to which this property can be developed without the requirement for variance relief. As a result of all of these conditions, including the lot’s exceptional narrowness and exceptional topographic conditions and physical features, the Planning Board finds that an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting this specific piece of property and the structures lawfully existing thereon exists such that the strict application of the Development Regulations of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, and exceptional and undue hardship upon the Applicant as it would prevent the re-development of this parcel with a reasonably sized structure consistent with the neighborhood.

5. The Applicant presented the testimony of property owner Peter McCoy and Architect Matthew Cronin. They testified that there is an existing home on the property. That home is aged and in deteriorating condition and the property owner would like to demolish the existing home and replace it with a new structure built in accordance with current construction standards. In doing so, they engaged the services of Matthew Cronin to design a structure that would not expand what exists, but instead utilizes the footprint and portions of the foundation of the existing residence.

6. The new home will be raised such that there will be a garage and storage area at the bottom level which is classified as a “cellar” and does not constitute a “story”. The Board questioned the Applicant and the Applicant’s architect at length to insure that the garage and storage area would constitute a cellar and is satisfied that is the case. Thus, the structure will not exceed the height limitations of the Ordinance. The Planning Board also noted that one of the architectural features of the new home would be a cupola. The Planning Board confirmed that the cupola is not of sufficient size to constitute living area and is decorative only and will not be useable living space. Therefore, it is not included as part of the height calculation for the structure.

7. The Applicant provided further testimony that the rear foundation of the existing structure will remain and there will be no equipment used to further disturb the existing steep slopes on the property. Any work in the sloped area will be done by hand. The Applicant further confirmed that there will be no work performed on the existing side stairs, that the existing shed will be permanently removed and that the existing driveway will be repositioned and the former driveway footprint replaced with grass and/or landscape material, thus reducing overall lot coverage from existing conditions.

8. The Applicant presented testimony that the structure will contain three bedrooms and that the parking requirements for RSIS are met through the garage and proposed new driveway. The Applicant also advised that they desire the new driveway to be gravel rather than completely pervious blacktop or concrete.

9. As set forth previously herein, the Planning Board finds that the subject property suffers from a hardship due to existing conditions, including its narrowness, shape and topographic features. Therefore, the Applicant has satisfied the positive criteria for the variance relief. The Planning Board notes that with the exception of a 1.3 foot second floor cantilever, all of the variance conditions associated with this application are existing conditions which will either remain unchanged or be reduced. Thus, the only change is the 1.3 foot cantilever on the second floor of the proposed new structure which the Planning Board finds to be de minimis and to be an attractive architectural feature of the proposed home.

10. The Planning Board further finds that the Applicant has satisfied the negative criteria for the grant of the requested variance relief. The Planning Board finds that the subject residence has been in existence for over 20 years and has set the character of Bayside Drive. The proposed new structure will be in the same location as the prior structure with the de minimis change of the second floor cantilever, which will not have any significant or substantial impact upon the streetscape or the surrounding properties. Consequently, the Planning Board finds that there will be no substantial detriment to the public good flowing from the grant of the requested variance relief as post-development conditions will be substantially the same as pre-development conditions.

11. The Planning Board further finds that the grant of the requested variance relief will not result in any substantial impairment of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As previously set forth herein, the property has been in existence for many years with the same conditions that are being granted in this approval. Thus, there will be no substantial impact upon the Zone Plan or Zoning Ordinance flowing from the grant of the requested variance relief. The Planning Board notes the photographs presented in evidence as Exhibit A-6 which show the existing residence and the residences on either side, which have a similar appearance in terms of size and dimension such that the proposed new structure will be consistent with the character of Bayside Drive and the other homes located thereon. Therefore, there will be no substantial impairment of the Zone Plan or Zoning Ordinance flowing from the grant of the requested variance relief.

12. As a result of all of the foregoing, the Planning Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the positive and negative criteria for the grant of the requested variance relief and that the variances can and should be granted at this time.

13. The Planning Board further finds that all property owners within 200 ft. of the premises in question were given proper notice of the Hearing of this Application and were provided with an opportunity to present testimony in support of or in opposition to the appeal.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands on this 11th day of August, 2016 that the Application of JOAN PENTA MCCOY AND PETER MCCOY be and is hereby approved, which approval is expressly conditioned upon compliance with the following terms and conditions:

GENERAL CONDITIONS –

1) This approval is subject to the accuracy and completeness of the submissions, statements, exhibits and other testimony filed with, or offered to, the Board in connection with this application, all of which are incorporated herein by reference and specifically relied upon by the Board in granting this approval. This condition shall be a continuing condition subsequent which shall be deemed satisfied unless and until the Board determines (on Notice to the Applicant) that a breach hereof has occurred.

2) In the event that any documents require execution in connection with the within approval, such documents will not be released until all of the conditions of this approval have been satisfied unless otherwise expressly noted.

3) No taxes or assessments for local improvements shall be due or delinquent on the subject property.

4) The Applicant shall pay to the municipality any and all sums outstanding for fees incurred by the municipality for services rendered by the municipality’s professionals for review of the application for development, review and preparation of documents, inspections of improvement and other purposes authorized by the Municipal Land Use Law. The Applicant shall provide such further escrow deposits with the municipality as are necessary to fund anticipated continuing municipal expenses for such professional services, if any, in connection with the Application for Development as may be authorized by the Municipal Land Use Law.

5) The Applicant shall furnish such Performance Guarantees and/or Maintenance Guarantees as may be required pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law and the Ordinances of this Municipality for the purpose of assuring the installation and maintenance of on-tract/off-tract improvements.

6) No site work shall be commenced or plans signed or released or any work performed with respect to this approval until such time as all conditions of the approval have been satisfied or otherwise waived by the Board of Adjustment.

7) Any and all notes, drawings or other information contained on any approved plans shall be conditions of this approval.

8) Nothing herein shall excuse compliance by the Applicant with any and all other requirements of this municipality or any other governmental entity.

9) In the event any de minimis exception has been granted from the Residential Site Improvement Standards Regulations in connection with this application, a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards, 101 South Board Street, CN 802, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0802 within thirty (30) days of the date hereof. Said copy of this resolution shall be clearly marked on its face with the words “SITE IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTIONS”.