Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case 3481 Hallett topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner, builder and utility constraints lead Long Beach ZBA to hold 5 Maryland Avenue case open
Summary
After extended testimony from the homeowner, his representative and the contractor about a staircase built 30 inches beyond the intended footprint and a utility-imposed meter placement, the Long Beach Zoning Board of Appeals held Case No. 3481 open for a vote next month and left the record open for additional deliberation.
The Long Beach Zoning Board of Appeals heard extended testimony on Case No. 3481 for 5 Maryland Avenue, where property owner William (Will) Hallett is seeking variances related to a stair that was built 30 inches beyond the planned footprint and additional relief related to an electric meter placement.
Joseph Gallinaro, speaking for the applicant, described the stair as an honest builder mistake that aligned the stair with an existing lower deck. He said the stair was shifted roughly 30 inches outward and that the builder accepted responsibility. Gallinaro noted the challenges imposed by the utility and the building department when explaining the need for an exterior stair and platform to access the meter.
Homeowner William Hallett said the 30 inches requested "leads to a better outcome," arguing that shifting the stair back would reduce headroom and make the stair less safe as he grows older. "The 30 inches of latitude that we're asking actually, leads to a better outcome," Hallett said, emphasizing function and aesthetics.
Builder Andrew Rodebaugh testified he has built in Long Beach for 25 years and described the change as an honest construction decision to widen the stairs for safer access; he estimated that correcting the stairs to meet setback requirements would cost on the order of $8,000–$10,000.
Gallinaro explained that the utility (PSEG) instructed that the meter be elevated above base flood elevation and that meters above 6 feet require a platform and stair; he handed the board a PSEG document describing meter elevation guidance and said the utility had refused alternative placements. The applicant argued those constraints forced the current configuration and created a hardship beyond the homeowner's control.
Board counsel and multiple commissioners pressed on precedent and the possibility that granting a variance could be relied on by future property owners. The board discussed whether the board could or should approve part of the application (for example, the meter access) while leaving other parts open; the board ultimately decided to keep the hearing open and hold the record for a vote next month so members could further consider precedent and technical fixes.
The clerk closed public testimony for the night and recorded that "This case should be held open for voting till next month, and the record will remain open." The hearing will return to the ZBA agenda for a vote at the next scheduled meeting.
