Zoning applications partially granted

Jim Olinkiewicz, representing Thomas Amico, told the board that previous additions were permitted by code when they were made — Mr. Amico’s neighbor Caryn Leland disagreed.

At the Zoning Board’s December 9 meeting, the board heard anapplication from Thomas Amico, then voted to approve most of hisrequests. The board, however, viewed Larry Landry’s applicationless favorably, only granting a small portion of his variancerequests.

AMICO-MONTCLAIR COLONY

Mr. Amico applied for variances to construct a deck around ahouse located at 5 Bay Avenue, a Zone A Residential structure. Thefirst variance was for the construction of a deck with pergolarequiring 18.6 feet varying to 39 feet from the northerly frontyardline of Montclair Avenue and 28.5 feet from the westerly frontyardline of Bay Avenue, and a variance for the deck 20 feet from thenortherly sideyard. The porch would extend from the west side ofthe house, wrap along the southern wall and continue along the eastwall.

Jim Olinkiewicz presented the application to the board on behalfof Mr. Amico. He told the board that Mr. Amico’s plans wereoriginally far more extensive, including a 1,400-square-footaddition for enlarging their sun room, dining room and kitchen, aswell as other considerations.

But he told the board that through conversation with Mr. Amico,he convinced them to scale their plans down significantly. He saidthe current plans “have the least amount of impact on the communityfor what they wanted. He also said that the plans included plantingextensive vegetation to help shield the addition from the road.

The proposed addition would add 812 square feet, including thereplacement of the current 160 square feet of decking that alreadyexists on the southeast side of the structure and a stoop area onthe west side.

Caryn Leland, who shares Mr. Amico’s north property line, arguedthat the variances should not be granted because Mr. Olinkiewiczdid not present any hardship to explain why this variance should begranted. “We all have desires, she told the board. “I think whatMr. Olinkiewicz expressed to you was a desire, but he didn’tdemonstrate a need or the circumstances to justify this deck comingout on the Bay Avenue side.

Ms. Leland was also concerned with the “creeping incrementalismof the Amico’s structure. “I think it’s very dangerous tolegitimize pre-existing conditions that are at variance with thesetback requirements, she said, referencing previous additions madeto the building. Building Permits Coordinator Mary Wilson told theboard that although the current structure is nonconforming, allpast additions were allowed by the zoning codes at the time thechanges were made.

Board Chairwoman Joann Piccozzi described the Bay Avenue side ofthe proposed deck as “the big problem, adding, “I personally feellike something could be done to not encroach any further towardsMs. Leland’s house. Ms. Piccozzi noted that Mr. Amico is in adifficult position, since he is at the intersection of two roads:”The difficulty of a feasible alternative is a function of therebeing two front yards creating a 40-foot setback.

Board member Peter Ruig suggested the problem could be solved byallowing Mr. Amico to only build decking on the southern andeastern sides of the house.

Doug Matz described this solution as “a way to say, look, we’vegot a neighbor that really is opposed to the project for theseparticular reasons right here, you’re giving the client what they’dlike to see from this perspective ¦ and would satisfythe neighbor’s objection to what they’re seeing. Board memberWilliam Johnston III expressed support for this plan as well.

Board member Patricia Shillingburg didn’t particularly like thatsolution, saying “It’s just, aesthetically, it does not improve theappearance of the house, although she ultimately voted in favor ofit.

The board unanimously passed a resolution to grant a variance of21.4 feet varying to 1 foot from Montclair Avenue, allowing for thedeck to be constructed on the southern and eastern sides of thehome on condition that the applicant agree it could never beenclosed or expanded further in size. The resolution denied the11.5-foot variance from Bay Avenue and the 5-foot sideyard variancefrom the northwesterly property line, so the applicants will beunable to construct the deck and pergola on the western side of thebuilding.

LANDRY – HEIGHTS

The Landrys have asked for variances to reconstruct theiralready non-conforming Zone A residence. They plan to build anattached three-car garage with second-floor living space, requiringa special permit and a 9.5-foot variance from the north sideyardline to build a two-story, three-car garage. They hoped to enclosetheir porch to add additional habitable area to their house,requiring a variance of 12.5 feet varying to 10.75 feet from thenorth and south sideyard setbacks. They also requested a varianceof 12.5 feet varying to 10.75 feet from the north and south sideard setbacks to construct a new pool and patio.

The board passed a resolution to deny the special permit andvariances for the two-story, three-car garage and the variance forthe pool and patio, but granted the variance to convert their porchto habitable area. Ms. Piccozzi, Mr. Matz and Ms. Shillingburgvoted in favor of the resolution, while Mr. Ruig voted against it -Mr. Johnston abstained.