At the August 10th meeting of the Planning/Zoning Board, the Board had 3 items on its agenda seeking variances. Before considering these 3 applications, the Board addressed the need for clarification of its decision of July 13 granting Circle Pizza a site plan approval and variance for the construction of an awning over its patio. The Board agreed that its prohibition of enclosing the space was intended to cover permanent walls and that use of temporary devices such as pull-down shades for use to protect customers during inclement weather was permitted.
The Board then proceeded to the 3 items on its agenda:
The first application heard by the Board was by 2205 Harbor Avenue, LLC. This application was first heard at the June 8 meeting of the Board and was postponed in face of strong public opposition. Initially, the Applicant sought a minor subdivision of a lot that had an average width that would accommodate two duplexes. The problem was that the lot fronts on a 90-degree bend in the road and has only a 76-foot frontage. The public was concerned about the increase in traffic that the duplexes would generate in an area where the bend in the road already poses safety issues. Consequently, the Applicant amended its application to divide the lot into two single-family parcels, one having the required 40-foot frontage and the other a 36.83-foot frontage. With this change, the application was granted
The second application was by Selgrath Enterprises, Inc., for a minor subdivision. The property (Sylvester’s Seafood) is located at 503 and 507 21st Street. The Applicant seeks to subdivide the property into two conforming lots which would front on Fifth Avenue. This application was granted.
Finally, the third application was by the owner of the property at 2488 Ocean Drive. As a corner lot, the property has two front yards, one on Ocean Drive and the other abutting the 25th Street Bridge. The Applicant seeks to put a pool in the yard abutting the bridge. Pools are not permitted in front yards, and hence the owner needs a variance to put a pool in the requested space.
The Board concluded that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for granting a variance based on hardship or based on promoting the general purpose of zoning, Hence, the requested variance was denied.
