Borough of Point Pleasant Beach APRIL 15, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING
The April 15, 2021 special meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:00pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.” Present were Board members: Mr. Kelly, Vice chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pasola, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis, Ms. Crasper and Chairman Struncius
Also, present: Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Absent – Villani
Memorialization of Minutes
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of April 1, 2021 meeting
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, McGee and Davis
Opposed: None
Applications
2021-02 – Last Wave Brewery – 601 Bay Avenue – Block 91.01/Lot 29/30 – Applicant looking to expand use of existing Brewery to include second building and outdoor seating.
(Requesting to be carried to June 17, 2021 without notice)
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Loder to carry 2021-02 – Last Wave Brewery – 601 Bay Avenue – Block 91.01/Lot 29/30 – to June 17, 2021 without notice.
2021-10 – 612 Forman Avenue LLC – Block 58; Lot 17 – Applicant is requesting a certification of pre-existing non- conformity for three family dwellings on a single lot.
John Jackson attorney for applicant reviewed the request for certification of pre-existing non-conformity. Power Point presentation entered as A-3
John Amelchenko, professional architect, sworn, was hired to inspect property for proof of age. John inspected rear structure and testified to age of construction. Porcelain cast iron tub being circa early 1900. Carmine Villani has proof to main dwelling being built in 1906. Plumbing fixtures are stamped. Believes at time of construction it was meant to be a dwelling. Obvious clue is the corner stone on the interior of the block foundation of assessor structure says 1946.
No audience questions
Carmine R. Villani, Esq, applicant, sworn, reviewed power Point presentation with his attorney. There are three gas meters, 3 electric meters and one water meter. The Borough has never questioned it being three units. Front unit is over 100 years old and rear unit is approximately 75 years old.
Dennis Galvin explained the criteria that needs to be met and believes the applicant has met the burden of proof.
Deliberations
Kelly – Happy to see the properties have improved. Looks much better. Property is maintained well and has no problem with this.
Schneider – The testimony from Mr. Amelchenko is precise. Property is well maintained and has been rented for a long time.
Reynolds – I agree and believe the proofs are there to issue the certificate of pre-existing non-conformity.
Mr. Dixon – Whether it’s been 20 or 30 years before that we’re not 100% sure, but there’s plenty of proof, this shows us, this was a occupied dwelling prior to 1948.
Pasola- Like everybody else I’ve always been impressed with the looks of the property; we need more landlords like Mr. Villani in our town he keeps he keeps everything he has beautiful.
Loder- His historical proof sourcing did a good job and I think the applicant has met the burden of proof to allow them to get a certificate of non-conforming use I’m in favor of this application, thank you.
McGee- I have no doubt that this building existed as it stands before 1948 and I’d have no problem with this.
Davis – I also concur, I think the testimonies support them and the burden of proof has been met, it appears, by all intents that the intent of this property was rental and that it predates the origins in 1948 I see no reason not to support this application.
Crasper – I’m confident through the testimony that we heard tonight that this property has been run as a three family prior to 1948 so I have no issues with this application.
Struncius – I have nothing additional to add.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Loder to approve application 2021-10 of 612 Forman Avenue LLC (Carmine Villani) – Block 58; Lot 17 – Applicant is requesting a certification of pre-existing non- conformity for three family dwellings on a single lot.
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
2021-11 0 McDonalds – 504B Sea Avenue – Block 177; Lot 1 – Applicant requesting to replace existing sign with digital sign and a browser board.
Applicant had deficient notice
2021-09 – 637 Arnold Avenue, LLC – Applicant appealing issuance of window permit for the “Gottleib” located at 641 Arnold Avenue.
Ed Liston, attorney for Scott Dolan, is appealing the allowing of an updated permit issuance of the roof permit to include windows without zoning officer review. He believes it should have been a separate permit.
John Jackson, on behalf of EAF One, LLC. Steve Fisher owner of building is also present on-line.
Dennis Galvin, Board attorney, reviewed application request.
Mr. Liston stated that he had submitted a letter yesterday requesting an adjournment because the parties have been in discussion.
Mr. Jackson commented that they are a gulf apart about coming to some kind of settlement. John Jackson believes this appeal belongs in front of the construction board. This appeal is about the issuance of a construction permit. They are seeking to take away vested rights from EAF One, LLC.
Chairman Struncius referred to Dennis Galvin for clarification.
But I think that there’s an important question here of jurisdiction of whether or not this board should be hearing this case at all, so we don’t have to go into the meat of it. Why there wasn’t some kind of stay filed with the Court or you know, and I don’t know that I agree with John either that this necessarily goes to the construction Board of appeals. They make a ruling that they don’t need anything, then they send them down the hall to the construction office to get the permits to do the work they’re about to do and. It doesn’t matter if we heard the case, we made a ruling that that corrects those, even if there was a mistake in the past that’s correct it so, then the question is, if the board shouldn’t we’re not doing the board of favor if it shouldn’t be hearing this case at all. But I still have to understand Mr. Liston’s point better, and I would say it’s not uncommon in appeals and interpretations.
Ray Savacool clarified that they are not windows, they are clear fiberglass fire proof panels. (Fenestrations)
Ed Liston stated that this is an application pursuant to NJ40:55 D 70. It states that you (the board) have the power to hear and decide appeals.
The construction permit for the roof was originally granted and it not did not cover windows, there was this amendment to it; and then it was added to the permit without any further review by the Zoning Officer.
Ed Liston believes an application should have been filed to add the glass panels to the roof permit seprately.
Dennis Galvin questioned what the remedy would be. Ed Liston stated the amendment should be struck from the permit. They can continue with the roof but would have to apply for the window panel.
Ray Savacool commented that he does not see why zoning approval would be needed to add the panel to the roof permit. It is no different that just replacing a roof.
Ed Liston objects to the update to the previously approved roof permit and believes that the Zoning board has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Chairman Struncius stated we heard this at length during the application and have already ruled on it. Does not understand why we are hearing it again.
Dennis Galvin stated we need to be calm and let testimony get on the record. A judge might listen to the transcript. He understands how frustrating it is. Ed Liston stated we should wait to next month so we can figure out the jurisdiction issue.
Ed Liston is animate that they should have had a separate permit and zoning review for the windows. (Glass panels)
Ray Savacool stated that they are replacing openings with openings.
John Jackson stated you do not need a permit to replace something that already exist and believes this appeal is inappropriate; plus, it has already been approved by the zoning board. We do not want another minute delay.
Dennis Galvin believes that this might be a res judicata issue because the board already ruled on it.
John Jackson reiterated that they are fire rated panels that do not open.
Mr. Liston answered – Let me just answer that it’s right on the email he sent me his objection today, Thursday April 15 2021, at 12pm.
Deliberations
Kelly – The interesting thing about tonight is that I do not think we should be involved in this at all. It is a transparent construction material. We discussed it great length. I do not think we should go any further and this should be completed.
Vice chair Reynolds – Like other board members had mentioned; we had very patiently listened to the case. We already decided this matter. The permit was issued prior to the use variance. I don’t feel we should have anything to do with this.
Dixon – We had discussed this case at great length; now you have us discussing a permit that was issued for something we do not believe you need a permit for. I understand Mr. Liston’s concern but I do not think we should be hearing this matter.
Schneider – I am not sure why we are here; we already had made a decision.
Pasola – as stated by the other members we had 3 long meetings and discussed the windows then. There is no doubt in my mind that we do not have jurisdiction in this matter and granting another month would just prolong this matter that should not be before us.
Loder – I just think there is a pattern of behavior here, all the other hours we have put in I do not believe that we have jurisdiction in this matter.
McGee – I agree with the other board members
Davis – With all do respect to both parties – there is some real strength and interesting points to both sides. What is the questions and what is the remedy? The question is a permit was amended and we are being asked to put it back to square one. And then what? Just a lot of wasted words and time. The remedy would be inadequate and we have made our decision on this. It is not our jurisdiction.
Crasper – I think the board has touched on everything.
Struncius – I am going back to sequence of time. Mr. Liston states the time of the permit and the board heard the entire case and heard about the openings and have given our opinion. I believe that supersedes everything. Mr. Jackson outline just stated his points. I agree with the board and we have already made our ruling.
Motion by to reject the appeal simply because the board does feel they have the jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The board also believes the ruling and guidance has already been provided, second by Mr. Loder.
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
