Will the 5 th Time be a Charm?

Charm Do you ever come to a time when you call for a final decision? Erin Dougherty asked the Planning Board this week, after the bulk variance being sought by a neighbor was continued for the fourth time, this time until the December 4 meeting.

The application to which the neighbor was referring is for 99 Center Avenue, to build a seven foot by four-foot deck on the second-floor rear of the building, replacing a four-foot porch in front of the apartment’s only exit.

Neighbors had complained at previous meetings that the deck was more than simply replacing an exit to the apartment, noting it also extended too close to a neighbor’s property, overlooked their own properties for no reason, was not in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood, and violated their privacy.

The variance is needed inasmuch as the apartment itself is in violation of the current code since it was built in the 1940s before the code as in place. Originally a loft room over a two-car garage built by the previous property owner, it was later converted to a four-room apartment and rented for many years.

The property owner, in presenting the request for a variance and approval of the deck, has made several changes in attempts to compromise with neighbors and still enable a deck to replace the porch. At this week’s meeting, the owner presented plans that showed an exterior battery-operated four by four lift which would be used for emergencies. That change came about in response to a complaint about removing an ill or injured person on a gurney down the spiral stairs which are still in the plans. Testimony at this week’s meeting indicated the lift would enable emergency personnel to move a person on a gurney with overhang at both ends of the lift.

Alternating between calling the building a carriage house and a garage with an apartment, the professionals representing the applicant also drew objections from nearby residents saying the upper deck was in keeping with the neighborhood, with one neighbor pointing out other decks in areas not necessarily adjacent to this residence had views of the waterfront or woods, rather than other backyards and other residential house second floor windows.

One resident read from the list of positive and negative reasons for granting variances in Atlantic Highlands, and noted the deck did not represent a hardship, and gave no inherent beneficial use to the neighborhood. She also indicated the use did not fit in this location and there did not appear to be any reason to grant a variance from current law.

When members of the planning board also indicated their dislike of some features of the variance, some saying it seems the spiral staircase was not in the best place, does not appear right for the neighborhood, and “doesn’t sit well” as one planner said, the attorney was granted his request for a five minute recess so he could confer with his client. Upon returning, he asked that the vote be continued another month. Residents objected, with Dougherty saying “this is not fair to neighbors, we are all friends, we are neighbors, it is a hardship” for them to have to come out to yet another meeting and continue their discussions and objections to granting the variance. “Do you ever end it? She asked.

Planning Board Attorney Michael Steib said that while there is no state statute indicating any durations, the planning board could set its own timetable.

After further discussion the board agreed to continue the variance application until the Dec, 4 meeting, with Steib saying it appears the planning board would want to make its final decision at that time.

In the only other variance heard that evening, the board unanimously approved the request for a variance for the Pittinger property at 46 Second Avenue, after the property owners modified their original bulk variance request to accommodate several objections that had been made at the hearing last month. Residents who had objected to lot coverage and water runoff, in addition to the exact location of the proposed driveway, indicated at this meeting they approved the changes which ensured runoff was only to the street and not adjoining properties, the public sidewalk would not be detrimentally affected, and the setbacks for the drive were modified to reduce lot coverage and move it closer to the house, still providing room for two cars and enabling the work to continue without the need for a variance. .

In response to granting unanimous approval, not only did the applicant and his professionals thank the planners for their work, but they also thanked the residents for their input and their time over the three meetings before approval was granted. Residents expressed their thanks to the applicant and his professionals for listening to and changing their plans to accommodate the neighborhood’s wishes.

You can also Find ViniVidiScripto on the Following Platforms …

Charm Charm Charm Charm Charm Charm charm charm charm