Tuesday March 11th 2025 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board of adjustment chairman avalone will you please call this meeting to oror I'd be happy to this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 public BL 1975 adequate notice of this
meeting has been provided to the coaster in Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulletin board and Municipal website all notices are on filed with the board secretary official action may be taken on the following matters before this board I ask everyone with a cell phone to please mute it for
the duration of this meeting and this meeting is being recorded by APV roll call uh Wendy Glassman is recused from this application Daniel Harris Russell Lewis is recused from this application Jill Potter here Tim slick here Natalie
pasini here John Hall here Vice chair Scully here chairman avalone here all right um we have one application tonight 614 5th Avenue Christopher Viola Mr Carris welcome
back good to be back by may have thecan well carry from the last meeting oh that's true your notices were deem complet at the last meeting we Carri okay the application this me without further
not all right what I'm going to do just initially go through what it is that we are looking for and then I have two witnesses tonight my client Chris Viola and also I have a planner testify through the application as indicated my client is Chris Viola the property is at
614 F half it's a three family home it's in the R2 Zone uh it is not a historical district The Proposal is simply to add a second FL deck the roof in which the
deck is uh is located is an existing fiberglass type roof flat roof that will not change the door is previously approved there doesn't matter basically a real now if when we go through the prop
you'll notice there's little any outdoor space this would add immed outdoor space to the proper because it is a free family it is a legal free family a D2 varing according to the board plan is required
as an expansion of a non-conforming use the irony is this when you have an A R2 area to failing you are allowed to add an Adu we'll have testimony from the you were allowed to add an Adu cessary dwelling
unit under the ordinance that was passed last year here in asur ASB Park so legally if this was a two family you could convert it to A3 family in exactly the same configuration as it is right now and put on that roof deck and you
would not need any type of2 that's not true that's not true you expand from a two if it's permitted to to but that's what he said let me just say if it is a two family house and an R2 you are allowed to add an U unit to it yes yes
access draw okay so to make it basically a three family type property two the existing two plus the third okay certain requirements as long as the owner occupies the premises it can be within
the same building has to have a separate entrance so qualifies on this property you would then be allowed to do a roof you would not be please let me finish it would not be an expansion of a nonconform use at that point because the
two family plus the Abu would be legal here because it is a designated free family it's not a two family plus an Adu then the whole thing is moot Mr Caris it would be it would be if it was a two family your argument is move it's
a three family let's move on no the reason I bring it up is because the criteria that we look at is whether or not the plan the intended improvements are negligible or
insubstantial those create an exp an exception to uh an expansion of a nonform use there are two ordinance for making number one if you could do it anyway as two family plus the Abu is negligible but if the board finds it is
not negligible nor insubstantial we would assert that we would be entitled to a D2 variance nonetheless right just want to lay that out there and how we view this application all right as it stands now this is a D2 Vari it is it's
the board's position it is a D2 variance we take the position number one it is in sub you've applied for a variance for a D2 variance Mr you we are not doing an interpretation of the ordinance inter you're asking for an interpretation
you're saying if the board deems so that is again moot you're here for a variance correct we are here for a D2 variance but we are allowed to assert that it is insubstantial and negligent we have the right to do that make that legal argum
there's nothing that stops us from doing as the as part of your criteria for the grant of the D2 variant correct okay with that being said I have two witnesses as I indicated I am fall number one Isola who the owner of the
property and I back please do [Music] very similar sir please raise your right hand you Solon swear affirm testimon about to give this the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth state your name for the record it
Christopher V thank you you put your hand down let me swear in my stat please raise your right hand you saw me swear testimony about matter the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do I do please State your names for the record and your affiliation with the board Donna Miller board planner Jerry
fra engineer thank you Jack CH Chris can you please tell me your affiliation with the property I the owner of the property and you been that property for uh since 2015 and can you describe the property for us uh it's a
three family house on the corner of Fifth and bond and it is a legal three Family House am I correct that I I purchased it in 2015 as a free family house that's correct do you reside there Mr Viola I do yes You' resided there
since I purchased the property okay and the application tonight is to add a deck on the second floor am that correct that's correct and why don't you describe the second FL uh when I purchased the property we renovated um the apartments on the first
floor initially and then we renovated the second floor we converted an existing roof that was over the front de front porch into a flat roof uh with fiberglass and that was done in 2016 and did you get a permit to do that yes we
did what about you were there that was approved um in 2016 when we did the construction you received a permit to do the deck to do a FL roof to do a flat roof on the porch on the second floor covering a first floor porch so it was
an existing when I purchased it there's a first floor porch do you have that permit for the construction yes to convert it I to converion we're not talking about there's a construction permit will allow you to put a flat roof that's what I
meant the conversion from a regular porch roof to a flat roof do we have the permit here or no I don't have but I I have it F and what was the point of of doing a flat roof with the intent to do a future deck okay well I
have okay and is that what the is that what the perment said with the intent to use it as a as a balcony or as a out not we here request is not allowed to use it as a okay but it was permit was granted to do
a flat roof but no was granted how was it how was it actually the permit is to do Renovations of the house unfortunately uh the plans are not
available so we don't know the full scope of what the exterior Renovations were permitted I don't know if it was actually approved to change the style of the roof it may have been but the permit specifically say
it's no second floor deck that's correct absolutely so why would you do a flat roof on a porch if it has no balcony well he indicated the intention was to at some point have a de and then you
went ahead and did it right but we're here now in order to get baring Rel for that time I I understand that Mr Carris but I'm a little lost in the woods right now you you got a permit to do a flat roof
but they told you ruction permit right I Zing permit but the zoning permit was denied no no a zoning permit to do Renovations of the building so it was a zoning permit which led them to get a building permit to do the construction
work that they correct but and it specifically stated a flat roof on the porch it said no second floor deck so plan so I don't know if
they showed adding a door changing the style of the roof I I don't know what was involved in the scope of the renovations that he asked for the perm just says Barbara said barer um wrote on it no second floor debt so I'm inclined to believe that the
plans indicated making a roof flat and putting a Debt M doing the railings adding the door whatever access but we don't have those plans I don't know but the permit specifically said no no
patio or no second floor deck and that was back in 2016 correct and that's when you put the railings up and everything or that was no the railings did not go until during Co not get a response and when when was
that Co was was a couple years 20 so you just went ahead and did that I did did um someone from the City come out and inspect the railings the whole thing the de so the construction in 2016 I did yes that
was Co and that was completed in a gr okay there is a CO for all that okay but when you put the deck on did the City come out and look at that also they inspected the flat roof they then never inspected the deck so in 2016 they inspected there's a CO over all that
construction so you did the railings after the co cor during during Co in 2020 so years after but you knew in 16 that you needed a permit but during Co that is correct but you you didn't get a permit for you can't the board is not
allowed to consider that no I'm just I'm just asking we're trying to get the timeline that's fine yeah I'm just trying to keep it straight in my head so 2016 and got the building permit when ah headed into the construction did flat roof did what it was allowed to do during Co he added that rail from the
Stace am I correct that's correct but knowing the permit did not allow for a second floor understand we're you're now looking to have a second floor understand okay so the only thing that makes it detect is the rail corre
exactly exactly well well the flat no the change from the hip to the flat which may have been permitted under the permit I don't know again because I don't have the um the the drawings the conversion of a window to a door is predecessor I have drawings and
there was I have those drawings that I can supply sign so again um under the Community design regulations which were in forced at that time um changing the window to a door would have not also been permitted I don't know what Barbara
did maybe she's you know did it you know approved it anyway and there was just you know yeah you can't have that now come get a variance later maybe that was you know there's nothing in the file that that that we can draw up on I I don't have have the plans in the file I
only have the permits we' construction I didn't know that we need them tonight but we but I mean the point is you know so they're here asking for approval now for the thing that he built for
adding so um if I could in 16 when when the town gave you the co that door just had a Juliet Balcony correct from from the plan here they did it still the window no it had doored with a door and a r
just a ra in front of it not to be thank you all right what I'm going to do you're making reference also we'll mark these plans as A1 for identification have you take a look at what's been marked as a mon for identification these are the plans that
we prepared for you by am I correct that's great and n show exactly what it is that you're looking to do on the second FL my corre just T correct I'm looking at a
2.01 this sh going to do is there a few photos submitted one photo two just so we have it and this reflects out
that my railing usable Out Mr car I you said looking to add they've already been added correct but they're not approve that we look yeah I just want to make it correct for the
records thank you on the property now is there any outdoor space available either for your use or the other tenants that you have uh there's the front porch which is shared okay um and there's a driveway in
the back deide from that there any other isn't there a patio is there a patio on the there yes that apparently um is not doesn't have the proper setback yes is there a patio prop
there is well that was a Prov Zone in 2023 we did the fence which they updated and we adjusted the set fact that referencing because the pavers are G too close to the fence so that is but if you have pavers you have a back out you know
you have an outside area it was a driveway that converted to so there's an outside area in the in the back is there an outside eror is that par off of the driveway in the back yes how big is that outside eror
probably [Music] um let's say driveway 15 by 10 and that would be more like 20 by
20 yeah that's and that would be for all for the survey for one more the survey and the patio area is what you may reference right and this is the
area P yes is that shared by all the tenants uh they have all all including you sure you on that second floor would have access if de the other be your own personal ACC
stat and the other portions the after St else all the questions I one more in terms of sorry um are there roof leaders on that area looking
to have approved as an yeah in 2016 they were guts installed on the fa of the frame and you're not and Mr Caris is your client looking for approval of the changing of the
columns as well do you need a we again we don't know what the scope of the architectural modifications were approved by Barbara van Wagner as a zoning officer in 2017 for the building Renovations okay
so it is very possible that she administratively approved the style of the Portu and the cols okay thank you in my report I referen to those differences just to make the distinction between what it used to look like what it is now
for the purpose of evaluating again the expansion part qualifying is you know relief from the community design standards okay thanks Tom let me ask you a question when the construction
was finished on the building from the 2016 construction perms that were issued were there inspections that were done yes and were the permit supposed at yes did the zoning officer do an inspection or just the construction official zoning has been backed for the um tenants on
the first FL for the rentals for as tenants turn over get inspected those are cosos I'm sorry yeah but the second floor was only inspected by construction the changing of the columns
from what they were to what they are now that construction work I I understand you say that the construction official came back at the end did the zoning officer inspect any that at all to give you a certificate of compliance or anything there was nothing for the first floor railings which were referencing
that porch and the columns that was never rein okay okay Mr Viola let me ask you a question and uh I I have to understand knowing that you didn't have a permit to make that a
deck why did you go ahead and do it I'm going to check because that's not a consideration for that's an improper consideration I I think we have to focus we have to focus on whether or not he proves his case for variances the question of his intent
whether or not he had permission whether or not he violated city ordinances I think there's a case pending in the Municipal Court where that is properly venued and that will be dealt with over there but for our purposes our job is to determine whether or not he needs the
burden proof for the variances that he needs for this project and if he does and if he doesn't that's fine too thank you Jack yeah I don't want to see the record get befuddled with that because that would
not serve our purposes okay sorry go ahead so Mr R just to be clear the Second Story deck I guess we're calling it or patio you would be the only one that have that would have
access to that correct the other two tenants would not have access to that it's solely for your your purpose we occupy the second and third floor of the building and we're the only ones that have access to that second FL okay thank you I'm sorry clarify so the tenants are on the
first floor and you're on the second and then correct so the first floor is a studio in the one bedroom um and then there's the the farthest entrance on the left is our entrance and that's the second third two units on the first floor one unit on on second and third any further questions for Mr
Viola if you didn't have that balcony would you have any hardship or suffer in any way that's not the criteria I'm just asking member she's asking you why you want the balcony why do you want mean we use it 6
months a year as a you know yeah I I hardship is a I think there's some semantics in there so I don't know how you want to Define hardship but I it's something that we feel is uh one of the reasons we stayed we've stayed in the house for 10 years I mean and having used it for the
last 5 years in Co was a huge rest for us that like I'm sorry Co using it being able to use during Co and be outside and enjoy it during Co and not you know their tenant so that's you know that was the Catalyst for it and we've taken a lot of you know we've appreciated it since so I
don't know if I would call it a hardship but it's something that um we use very often and has kept me in the house in Asbury right but there's other outdoor space that you could enjoy if you didn't have that balcony uh the first floor porch is pretty much my tenants and the
back tant uses that back patio that we renovated two years ago so it's not directly off of our Department um and it's not as convenient I guess I would say um nor as it's that no it's not
shared any further questions for Mr Biola board professionals no one on the public nope I'm seeing none in the public thank you Mr B thank you thank you you silence s affirm testimony about
given not the truth the whole truth pleas state your name record spell it Catherine k a t h r y n Gregory g r e g o r y I'm sorry g r e g o r y okay thank you Gregory can you please give the
board a benefit of your qualifications uh yes I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I've been licensed since year 2000 uh I am a principal of Gregory Associates which has been business since 2007 um I testified throughout the state
uh I'm also a municipal planner myself uh but mostly in northern Jersey in Bon County and accept your credentials thank you you've appeared before yes yes i' I've been here before with with this guy sorry
M Gregor you had the opportunity to review the application that was submitted as well as the boorder as part in a planing perspective am I correct yes can you please give the board your opinion first your funds of fact and
then the conclusions of War are P relative to VAR with that is being sought in this application uh certainly um so we're here tonight seeking expansion of a non-conforming use as you may well know this site was rezoned um uh according to the planner
in 2019 I could only find the 2021 ordinance that reson this property from the two and four family to the one and two family Zone uh I'm going to provide a handout to the board and its professionals and what is it before you hand it out oh I'm sorry well it's an 11
by 17 uh uh photo exhibit that was prepared by myself um I took some of the photos but some of the photos are from Google Earth because they are Aerials um it's an entitled uh 614 fth Avenue Asbury Park New Jersey existing and Sur sorry existing and surrounding
conditions okay I got it so it's a photo a photo exhibit okay I'm going to mark that as A4 a44 where A1 was the original PL pho3 was okay I miss that
sorry A3 was a survey corre thank you take some [Music] very busy okay great uh so what you'll see on the photo exhibit um is a series of photographs as I stated in the upper left hand corner is a three-dimensional
aerial from Google Earth um also on the lower left hand corner is another aerial from goal Earth which is also threedimensional uh what we have in the upper photograph we are actually looking North uh the property of uh the applicant is
located um by the red indicator uh at 614 fth a hopefully you can see that on the map um on the top map what I have here is an indication of where the Zone lines are um and also the yellow numbers are the number of units that are located in each of the respective buildings that
are located along uh Fifth Street in the R2 Zone on the lower uh areial what we have is um an areal that's actually looking at our property and also the fronts of all of the structures that are located on Fifth Avenue as well as
looking at the houses um along Bond Street uh and superimposed in that particular area kind of in the middle of uh the photo exhibit is a picture of the existing house today um I know that everyone is well aware that uh the
actual construction has been accomplished uh so this is a picture of what the house looks like today I know that it's small and it's a little bit dark I did take this picture in the winter unfortunately maybe I should take another one today but uh as we can see
um we still do have the pillars um but the difference with I would say the majority of what you see in the surrounding area is that the railings are a different color they happen to be black um in the upper right hand corner are some examples of the second floor
deck and doanes that are located in the area and they have the respective addresses uh um alongside their photographs um and the last photograph or the last Arrow excuse me that is um in the lower right hand corner is actually going to be about a discussion
uh a basis for discussion for the fact that I do not believe that we need setback variances um and that's why I provided that flat aerial um and no I do not have measurements I did not measure where houses are but when I get to that discussion I think that again that
saying a picture is worth a thousand words um is going to explain why I do not believe that we need any any variances for setbacks um so we do need a a excuse me a variance for the expansion of non-conforming use which is a G2
variance now unlike an actual use variance the burden is kind of less than than it would be for an actual use variance because the use has already existed in the zone we are a legal existing non-conforming three family use
uh we do need to meet both the positive and the negative criteria for the D2 variant um but with regard to the negative criteria uh the courts have found that the board can look at the netive criteria with greater liberality because it will not have such
a substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the Zone plan because the use already exists so in terms of that um I do believe that we promote a few of the special reasons um I'm probably going to talk a little bit more about this later on my testimony as well but I do believe
that we promote perpose a which talks about promotion of the public health safety and rals in general welfare um I would Advocate that the public welfare is Advance because the applicant has renovated the property and that second floor deck is an added Improvement and I
know that your planner talks about this in her report um the fact that that maybe there would be um a a financial uh benefit to the applicant uh but I think as a whole I believe that
just the Aesthetics alone of the improvements the fact that we do have similar type structures with second floor decks front decks front porches in the area um we do reflect what is contained within the area um I also
believe that we provide adequate light Aid open space We are following existing roof line um so I don't believe there's any sorry any impacts of adequate light air in open space particularly with regard to the fact that Fifth Street has 100 foot right of way and it's located
across Park um we also when you take a look at the lower right hand aerial you'll see that because we are a corner property we actually have two fronts so our house is set back further on Bond Street than any of the other houses um and I'm going to I'm going to talk about
that in a little bit too with the SE variances um I also believe we do promote purpose eye which talks about promotion of a desirable visual environment now while this house in uh objective terms may not fit the community design standards it is an
improvement to the neighborhood and therefore I do believe it is is is an aesthetic Improvement uh with that said I think when you take a look at the houses on Fifth a they are not quite as ornate as some of the other Homes located in Asbury Park um so I think we
are reflective of the neighborhood and therefore I do believe we promot a desirable visual environment um in terms of the C variances um I don't believe that we need either the front yard set back variants for a orbon street and the reason I say that is you take a look at
note one on your bulk table the minimum required front yard setback shall be the prevailing setback of principal structures along the same block Frontage and facing the same street now that's the note and your master plan actually
ref reflects that and talks about how that should have been Incorporated to the zoning ordinance and it was so when you take a look at the lower right hand aerial located on the map you see that along Fifth Avenue our our actually our
house is set back probably the most along with uh 604 and 612 and obviously this is just this is without measurement but I think you can see that there's other homes along the street that go front in front of ours uh so in terms of the prevailing setback we absolutely
meet the prevailing setback and then when you look at Bond Street because we are that corner property we are set back further from all the houses on the same side of the street and I think that's really evident on the map and I don't think I I really need to go out and start measuring um I I don't have the right tools I'm not an engineer
but with that said um I don't believe that we would need a setback variance for the construction of this deck on the second floor which is following the existing setback of the existing porch um in terms of community design
regulations um this area to me um was a I didn't really think it applied because it talked about a historic district and I tried to look and see about the historic district It also says in a previous section that the section quoted by your planner section 30- 64.3
realation um it applies to all R1 and R2 zones and I do understand about the historic character of Asbury Park I did brush on this before in terms of the historic character I think that what happens here is we have a little bit more of a modernization of a historic
character history character I don't think always has to be a replica and by the way I do have a master of architecture I do not have an architecture license I I kind of got way sided and I ended up becoming a licensed planner instead um so the architecture kind of fell by the wayside but I did
practice for a couple of years so I do have a little bit of a background in talking about architecture I would say um and with that said even the homes that are in the area that have the second floor um balconies uh we look like that as just
that our railings are a different color so um you know with that said um I can guess I can go on to the negative criteria so in terms of the negative criteria I already talked about how the D2 variance the variances are look the
sorry negative criterias with thatb in Greater liberality um and that's in the case of Kingwood versus the Board of adjustment that's was a 1993 case um the first wrong of the criteria is that we have to prove no substantial detriment to the public good um I would say there is no substantial
detriment to the public good by the granting of the expansion of the use um which I don't believe is a an actual expansion um it does follow the existing subback of the porch which I mentioned before um I already stated that the property is located on a street that has
100 foot rideway width um and is across R Park so we're not really going to affect anybody um open it's an open air structure it's not as if we're trying to you know enclose a second floor porch it's an open air structure so effectively we're putting a railing on
on a roof um as I stated before the public would be accustomed to this type of architecture if you will uh provided by the pictures located on a for um and I do not believe that as your planner
referred to in her report that it may represent an increase in intensity I don't believe that it represents an increase in intensity um I think essentially what you heard from the applicant is he like his own private outdoor space it's a three family he just wants his private outdoor space and
that doesn't mean that there's going to be an increase in traffic it doesn't mean that you um that there's there's certain things when you talk about intensity of use there's no increase in density we're just adding a private space for the third unit that's essentially what we're what we're doing
um and obviously it's more convenient to put it on an existing structure than it would be to try to apply for a new structure out in the rear on the second floor because it's already located in the front and there's precedents you know already located in asy
park uh I also believe there's no substantial impairment to the intent purpose of your Zone plan zoning ordinance um I did look at your master plan your master plan reexamination um I mean obviously back in 2017 there's a very specific section
section 5.2.2 point4 which talks about 2 to four family residentials and eliminating three and four you know uh residential units from the ordinance and I can absolutely respect that because I do understand that you know Asbury Park
has grown quite a bit in the last 20 years um and you want to keep character in certain areas However the fact is this is already a three family um and so therefore I I feel that while you know we talk about um that particular section
delete three and four family dwellings well obviously we're already a three family um I think we have nothing to do with increasing the maximum building coverage regulating perious cover we're not we're not increasing impervious cover uh one of the recommendations was to eliminate the floor area requirement
and we're not even increasing that either because that's really what's in the building um and this also talks about amending the front yard setback in this section which talks about that note that I discussed earlier about the mean setbacks uh the average setbacks um
along each side of the the streets so really in conclusion um I again I'm going to reference your planner report uh they State on page six that the inquiry must focus on the quality character and intensity of the use viewed in its totality and with
regard to their overall effect on the neighborhood and the zoning plan and taking into consideration the full scope of conformance with additional regulations um in my opinion number one I feel like the only additional regulation would be the q& design standards uh which isn't a variance it's
a design standard so that would be a variant sorry waiver uh and in terms of quality um I discussed the fact that we did renovate um the the building and therefore I believe that that represents a much better quality with materials and
Aesthetics character um the addition of the second floor deck doesn't make this look like a three family it still looks like a one family uh so therefore I believe that we still represent the character of the neighborhood um again intensity I discussed that before there's really no increase in traffic or
density or those types of things by adding a private space for the third unit and so therefore I feel like um truly the addition of this second floor deck truly does benefit the neighborhood
and the city as a whole um as I stated before I believe that's an improvement aesthetic condition there's really no impacts to the neighbors um it does exist in the area um so therefore um I believe that we would meet both the positive and negative criteria for the granting of
the DG variant um and was stated earlier just as a reference um not saying that we completely qualify but I think one of the other things that you can consider when you look at the negative criteria is the fact that you do have the Adu GRS
so effectively if this was a two family house and we wanted to have an Adu we would would apply for certificate provided we met all the qualifications and regulations but then effectively the density would be the same um and by the
way the actual distribution of units is a studio a one bedroom and a two-bedroom uh so we would an Adu usually is a studio or one bedroom and so therefore we would have one of those contained within the actual structure would that
affect whether or not you can have a deck well if it was a two family it would be conforming and we would be able to build that second floor deck as long as we met the setback requirements I advocate that we do I do not thought those decks are not
permitted second Flor decks are not permitted altogether your deck is within so the conversion to a deck from a root is what's not committed under the Community design regulations so that's a waiver which would be design it's a design still you still need a design exception
that is correct whether it's a two or but I I I'd like us to shift away from this if we were a two family argument because the Adu regulations are very specifically saying existing pre-existing legal non-conforming three
family houses are not allowed right to have an Adu you can put an ad on a three family to make a four family correct correct but you can make a two family into a three family with one no and and uh the zoning office has
already had a ruling on this um a two family that gains an Adu is not considered a three family it's a two family plus an ad yes but still three Living Spaces and it can be within one building but for zoning purposes
it's not a three family house redes not considered mul M family members the use of that space is a deck can we just stick with the fact that this is a deck the relevant discussion is about
the de forget about the adus a de I follow you 100% okay let's just keep going okay well I I was finished yeah no no no so you can uh you're gonna
summarize or yeah keep going oh I well I kind of thought I did intered you about oh no so I mean just to be clear um the the Adu discussion was I think
um I think that that is for the fact that you know the the applicant bought this property as a three family um and I actually I'm not 100% sure when the human design standards were adopted um design standards in the zoning section
of the ordin prior to 2018 so it would have been so they they were still there you know well basically what it comes down to is no matter if there's anything that he wants to do to this property he has to come to the zoning board you know any any kind of you know
alteration yeah because it's it's now nonform but but you know if it was an Adu and a two family would he then have to come before the board you know it's just you would for the balcony though yes yes but as a design just stay there
the not not as a variance but as a design correct as a design design exception design exception correct different correct rather than expansion of an OP for use right and I that goes to the point that I was trying to make
so may I it wasn't coming out properly sorry okay now you clarified yes okay what's the material of the railing on the deck um I I believe that it's a metal rail aluminum aluminum it is a type of met
which would cost a lot more so just to be clear the only difference is not just the color it's also the material versus the images that you've provided of surrounding properties um yes that's true but uh most of those um well I want to say not most of those
but um some of them will be wooden but some of them will be every application is on its own merits showing us showing us houses that have a second floor deck is not a great argument but we have to we have to review this
based on its own Merit it's relevant for the criteria but look at where they're located where are they located they're not on Fifth Avenue 65th Avenue could was that deck
is that a conforming property is that a non-conforming deck or how did that deck get there would you know 13 6th Avenue doesn't even have that second floor deck anymore right it was taken it was all taken down which one oh 6113 to 6th or 4 13 6th Avenue doesn't exist that way
anymore these pictures aren't even current well hold on the deck deck on fth Avenue I've been here since January 1st of 1995 what's that quite some time he's been here putting that deck out there would
have required a variance unless it pre-existed on I understand that Jack I'm talking about 413 6 Avenue that's gone G here we don't know how that got there we don't know what the records we do you have idea that's not even a
current picture I'm inclined to say e 1207 Emory I think that might be a violation like I think that's a pending violation okay can I ask you a question for that one okay from last
year I want to ask you a question yes um if look at this sheet right here okay just's the survey yeah the survey just it's just um a side yard setback cuz I'm I'm looking at the left hand portion of that deck that's close to that other
house that's my that's my concern cuz it from this paper it looks like it's 4T on your property and 3T on the other so for like 7.15 in between the two structures is that correct for I'm reading this she's
the planner oh okay well but it but it okay this deck is within the sidey setback you're on the second floor next to the upper story of your
neighbor okay so if he's out on the deck having a phone conversation on that end of the deck next to his neighbor's bedroom I don't know if it is or not but it's noise it's it's more intense use of that property space and how can you not
say that's not a negative I don't understand but to Tim's point I don't know how it doesn't affect the neighborhood how it doesn't how it does not having the second floor balcony when the proximity to the neighbor is so close
to their second floor well if somebody was outside it doesn't matter if they're on the first floor the second floor you're still going to hear them typically um it's the second floor balcony that matters board
members have raised this in PRI applications that um every house every there are a substantial number of houses in the city that have
open front porches in the front yard that is a design theme for the town um and we expect those to be public sort of spaces we engage with streetcap the environment of of the front yard is a
semiu environment in the C but above that level becomes more of a private space and there is um a presumption we have not codified it we have not put it into law but there is a
presumption that that space is more private and um that whether it's in the front yard or backyard or a sidey guard you are encroaching on your
neighbor's right to privacy correct when you are over their living area in that sense um are you talking about throughout the entire city that's your interpretation uh I'm saying
in well a great a great wide area of the city we the tow houses on Park Avenue have been held to that standard yes um there have been other single family dwellings on the west side there there's multiple most of your multi family my
point is has balconies on the second are they Within cons desirable visual environment and non impactful compared to what I'm just pointing out that the statement you just made is 100% incorrect In theop I I
think what's relevant here is this from a legal perspective is you have one opinion that you voiced we have a board member that either buys into your opinion or doesn't if she does and she comes to a different conclusion
based on the facts that's okay we don't have to get you to agree with us and we don't have to justify anything more than what you you've got your opinion you've got the basis for it and you read the evidence on how you will please there's
no need for any further discussion you take from the evidence that's put into the record what you believe to be credible what you believe not to be credible what weight you put on the evidence and you you use it for whatever purpose it's intended and you come to your own conclusions based on the
evidence so if you have a disagreement we don't have to come to a resolution as to who's right and who's wrong we just have to come to a conclusion correct thank you J M Craig I want to go back to your testimony when you looked at this lower photo right
here when you were talking about the setback and you talked about Bon Street and you rightfully said that your client's property is a corner lot basically have two front yards yes um but then I I believe you went on to say that if you look at the other from this
photo if you look at the other uh houses from from this perspective uh it's clear that that they don't have the same setback but I just want to clarify you mentioned that your client has two front yards so therefore they wouldn't have the same setback requirements as those
other houses on bond yes they would they have two front yards and so Bond Street the front yard the people on Bond Street have to have a set front yard set back right exactly that's that's I just want to make that point for but the houses on Bond Street are closer to the front yard
generally the lots are smaller I just want to make that clear thank you I will say though the ordinance says the prevailing setback may be applied that is not an administrative thing that can be done by the zoning officer to determine that's
you guys if you feel that there's some criteria that are met and we've done that exercise as well second um done it numerous times planners or Architects come in and given us distances and they to conduct the
average within 200 ft and all of that they come up with uh standard so I I get what you're saying it's fair comment Mr craiger could you just explain a little bit further for me regarding our our planners Report with the enhanced
use intensification yeah so we we've established that the the patio is just for the use of your client correct so help me overcome how that is not an enhanced return for the for the owner your client that only he's using it that
is an improper you cannot consider that no okay well but I do have to say though we are are just merely tenants of these homes Mr Viola May one day sell his property and but let me finish Mr cars
and somebody else may make that a party deck and the intensification becomes quite different he may say this is for his private use but that may not be true 10 years from now it may be a big party house then with a huge outdoor
deck to decide the issue of intensification of use it isn't a matter of more people it's a matter to what extent the entire property use is being intensified if you're going out that change Jack if you're going out to an
area that's never been used by people that's intense by its very definition you're intensifying the use of the property by going out and using the deck the issue that becomes is it an acceptable intensification for you in order to Grant a
variance witness would like to have you think that we agree with that if you don't you don't that's that's it isn't about whether or not more people can occupy you know it's about using the entire you're extending the area and intensification of the use of this
property by creating a deck where one doesn't exist thank you whether or not it's an acceptable increase is up to you Mr Viola have any of your neighbors complained about the deck being there
they have not okay that's one two your ability sitting on that corner to look into someone's house if anyone complain to you about you looking into my house or anything like that okay thank
you any further questions for Miss Gregory I appreciate M Greg you bringing us the even though the photos are somewhat outdated you have given us at least an idea of how the house sits and
it has not violated the flavor of the neighborhood um and I know I'm talking without asking a question but do you feel that you have I'm going make it a question okay do you feel that you have violated the neighbors and how their houses are built basically what I will
refer to the flavor of the neighbor put based on the work that you have done well yeah I think I I spoke to that before as I stated there are some other areas that I would call historically orate than this particular area and I think it's because we do have that mix
we have a bunch of apartment buildings that were built in the 60s and 70s while we do have the single family residential character and this house I still think needs it maybe it's not as historic as somebody would want but this particular
block is not as historic or or nly historic as I say as some other streets that are located in N Park thank you any further questions for m Gregory board professionals um I'll open up to the
public but no public um so thank you m Gregory thank you Mr Carris I have no public comment I'll open it up for public comment
seeing none I'll close public comment do you have a final statement to make Mr Carris yes um as indicated by the planner um based upon the criteria that is required of a DG variant of need
all that right um the special regions have been provided and their engan second [Music] deated noise or looking in anything like
that there is a history of having these types of second de within area provided um that's what the evidence shows based upon what presented to board based upon that we have satisfy the for thank you Mr
Carris so at this point I guess it's back to us yes it is um does anyone have any comments to make the uh just sorry just from procedural perspective D2 D variances including D2 require five affirmative
votes not a simple majority of s MERS thank you Jack okay sorry for the interruption that's all right that's all right we understand the D requires five votes five affirmative votes
okay sitting on this board I've seen people who made improvements on the house we that a far far more agence than what you've done okay um I think you respected flavor of the
neighborhood um I don't have any problems with what you done I wish you had come before us earlier but you show me somebody who hasn't made a mistake I show you someone who hasn't done anything okay so with that um I'm fine
with what you have would like to see okay any other comments I respect my fellow board member's opinion um I think based on the limited photos that you submitted I don't think that this fits into the existing
area uh and I think this is a expansion of the uh of a non non-conforming property that's agreed yes yeah whether or not it's okay you anyone else for a comment uh yeah
I'll say something um I know Jill had mentioned or had asked if there was a hardship I think Co was a hardship for everybody and this was born out of a hardship which I could understand I don't necessarily see this being something that inhibits anybody else in the neighborhood nor do I see this being
something that really goes against the community design so I also agree with Mr Harris that this is something that is a net positive for the city and there's very little detriment I have to agree with my uh partner here John in that I think
there's a substantial increase in in use of this um and the fact that you're coming here after already doing it um um begging for forgiveness versus getting
approval um so that the the intensity use is what I'm stuck with and that I'm not pleased with that I don't think that you proved that there's not that
intensity and that's where I'm at I agree with my colleagues as well about the intensification of usage uh design-wise I think it looks good but it's it's the usage I I'm
concerned about the neighbor on the left so that's where I'm I'm sitting sry one more thing um if we are concerned with usage I am curious Donna you had mentioned about a permit that we don't really have much information on
why would we why would we approve Pro a door in a flat roof without the potential expectation of a roof deck even though it's not allowed again I I don't have anything that shows me there was a door no I I I understand that but I think that there's still lingering
questions also that I understand that we had a different type of roof that wouldn't have even this wouldn't even be a conversation that the city allowed it to move forward as a flat roof so I think this is kind of the nature of the Beast that we allowed part of it granted we don't need to allow the rest of it
but I think it's foolish for us to approve half of it and then come back and say oh well it's an intensification it was then maybe it is now but I still agree that this should be allowed but just for the record the
board didn't the board didn't approve a variance for for the door right and secondly the permit specific if if correct me if I'm wrong the permit specifically said no second floor deck correct so so this wasn't as you can come back for
again and ask for it specifically have that that language no I just I just no I was just mentioning that yeah I think it's ironic that's all well John to your point you John um sometimes there's doors and then there's a Juliet Balcony
right so that there's not something else like a a front balcony something that allows for the doors open so I just want to this is just meant for comment right now I don't want the board members getting into arguments oh it was an argument app no I was I was just helping
sorry anyone want to make a motion Tim I already spoke oh sorry okay Chris um I'm going to reserve my comment to the vote de okay anyone want to make a motion for or against I'd make a motion
for you're in favor of yes please approve second was that Dan was that you [Music] yes motion's been seconded um Daniel Harris yes Jill
Potter no Tim slick no Natalie pasini yes John Hall yes Vice chair Scully no and chairman
avalone um I too feel is an intensification of a non-conforming use and vote no thank you very much I'm not r a negative right sometimes we do that motion
toj I make a motion to adjin the meeting second second second okay all in favor none opposed I None opposed