At the November 9th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, there were two items on the agenda open to the public. A third item, a discussion regarding a litigated Board decision, was held in a closed session.
The first public item was an appeal by the owner of property at 335 Sixth Street. The owner was appealing the Zoning Officer’s decision that the owner’s lot line abetting South Inlet Drive, is not a front yard line..
The owner’s position was that her lot is bounded by two parallel streets: Sixth Street and South Inlet Drive, and that according to a Borough’s zoning ordinance, property situated between two parallel streets has two front-yard lines and no-rear yard line.
The Zoning Officer’s position was that South Inlet Drive is not a street but is a utility driveway. It is only 15 feet wide and was never intended to be a street. This driveway is the sole access to four properties that once had fronts on Fifth Street and now abut the inlet.
In the end, the Board upheld the Zoning Officer’s decision.
The second item was an application for variances under the C2 criteria, which requires an analysis of the benefits and detriments in deciding whether to grant a variance. The Applicant’s property is located at 599 Sunrise Drive.
The Applicant’s house has a number of preexisting nonconformities, one of which relates to a prior deck which extended into the required setback and has now been removed. The deck had been supported on four pillars that stood on a four-foot high brick wall. The Applicant’s plan is to convert the wall into a planter. With the deck removed, the house has a totally flat face. Therefor, the Applicant wants to add a Juliet balcony, which he believes does not require a variance. It is an architectural feature that extends only 12 inches into the setback. Additionally, the Applicant is going to raise the structure seven feet to address a flooding problem.
Neighboring property owners were in favor of permitting the Juliet balcony but were opposed to the brick wall that is at the property line. Interestingly, if the Applicant raises his house only three feet, all the prior preexisting nonconformities maintain that status. By raising the structure seven feet, the applicant needs variances for these nonconformities. However, the brick wall does not need a variance, yet it became a pivotal issue.
As a result, the Board granted the variances required for raising the structure seven feet and for a Juliet balcony subject to the condition that the brick wall be removed.
