Borough of Point Pleasant Beach April 18, 2019 BOA minutes
The April18, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Secretary Spader, Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Schneider, Mr. LePore, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Dixon, DePolo, Crasper and McGee
Also present – Karen Mills, Kerry J. Morgan and Ray Savacool
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
2019-09 – Elsie Ann Palsi – 4 Surf & Sand Court – Block 120; Lot 4.05 – Applicant wishes to add a second-floor addition.
Elsie Palsi applicant, sworn, stated that she has a deck on the second floor and they would like to close it in and add a bedroom. Doug Palsi, applicant’s son sworn stated that his parents added on to the house in 1988 – Applicant purchased home in 1957. The addition is going on the alley way side. Home was originally built as a two-story. Home will be aesthetically pleasing and not impede on the neighbors site line. All finishes will match.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Spader – Looked pretty closely at the neighborhood; modest improvement. In favor with the condition that everything matches.
Kelly – Sees no problem with the application.
Reynolds – De minimis change
Schneider – No issue with it; won’t impede on anyone’s sunlight.
LePore – No issue with this application.
Davis – I agree – it is a minor proposal.
Struncius – no comment
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application 2019-09 – Elsie Ann Palsi – 4 Surf & Sand Court –
Block 120; Lot 4.05 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
2019-14 – Alicia Flath – 418 Lincoln Avenue – Block 201; Lot 1 – applicant wishes to enclose rear porch, relocate a/c unit, reconfigure existing garage to incorporate a cabana; add a second story addition of a new master bath and a cantilevered bay window on the first floor.
Dennis Cantolli, attorney for applicant. Exhibits A-3, A4 and A-5 entered. Dennis Cantolli reviewed the application and the requirement for bulk and use variance; clarified a bulk variance that was not in the application.
Proposal is to create a one car garage and utilize the other side of the garage for a cabana. This will enable the family to have some shade while sitting near the pool. This is a special reasons variance. Ray Savacool clarified why a use variance is needed even though there will not be plumbing or heating, it is being used for something other than parking cars.
Alicia Flath, applicant, sworn, stated that she bought the home two years ago; the home is 85 years old. She is a member of the New Jersey garden club and has made improvements to the property (Pool was recently installed). Applicant also wants to install new a/c unit. After much debating the a/c unit will be placed in the rear of the property by the laundry stairs. Dormer will be added upstairs for adding bathroom to master bedroom. Important to keep the historical structure of the home because it has such beautiful bones. Worked hard to keep the scale down and believes it will not affect neighbors. Referring to A6 – Existing garage is a car and a half. Proposal to reframe into single car garage and have a cottage look on one side. Clean flush surface will blend seamlessly – 3-foot opening and then column and then 3-foot opening and column. Cream colored inside to have a vintage look inside – it will look more like a porch. There will be no plumbing just a pendant light. A7 entered – rendering of house. Result of what is proposed will be aesthetically pleasing; siding will change to cedar impressions. (sand color with navy blue shudders) Knew house would need work when purchased.
Walter Schneider, 817 Grove Street, sworn stated this is his mothers’ home. Eileen Schneider thinks everything is very nice but objects to the placement of the a/c units – It would be right near her bedroom window and rear deck. Applicant agrees to relocate a/c unit to be by rear stairs.
Deliberations
Spader – Housing needs have changed since 1933. That house has been one of the more charming homes. I see the cabana as an open porch. The one major issue I had was the encroachment of the a/c unit and you have moved that, so, the applicant desire to keep it a charming house from that period is very acceptable.
Kelly – I believe as long as we have settled that situation with the air conditioner, I have no problem.
Reynolds – This board historically has tried to keep air conditioners off property lines; I am glad we got that worked out. With the garage I believe we are just opening a wall. It is an irregular shaped corner lot.
Schneider – We- have a lot of irregular shaped corner lots in this town. My biggest issue was the air conditioner. Nothing is ostentatious or affecting the neighbors in a negative way.
Davis – Appreciate the effort to work with us to relocate the condenser; I think the addition of the dormer adds to the charm of the house. With respect to the garage – my only concern is 20 years from now this board will be hearing an application to tun this into a garage – great use of space.
Struncius – Concur with a lot of what has been said – the addition on Grove Street side does integrate nicely with the existing architecture – it is a very nice enhancement. Working with the neighbor to get it in an agreeable area and certainly behind the fence is the key there and make it de minimis from a noise point of view. Again, I think the aesthetics of what is happening with the garage is a positive. I think this will make it a little bit more livable and get out of the sun.
Conditions
- The location of the air conditioner unit shall be inside the back-yard area to the rear of the house adjacent to the laundry stairs and it also must be approved by the Board’s Engineer.
- The applicant shall provide landscaping to surround the air conditioner unit on Grove Street.
- The cabana will not have heating, kitchen or plumbing.
- The siding on both fronts and the garage front shall be made of cedar impressions.
Motion by Secretary Spader second by Vice Chair Reynolds to approve2019-14 – Alicia Flath – 418 Lincoln Avenue – Block 201; Lot 1 with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
2019-12 – 601 & 603 Arnold Avenue – Block 93 Lot 15 & Block 93 lot 15 .01 – Applicant wishes to convert the second floor of each building to apartments for a total of 9 apartments.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the application – The second floor of each building will be converted into apartments. The applicant will provide two affordable housing units. The renovations will only be in the interior of the building.
Brian Collis, applicant’s architect, sworn, credentials accepted stated that five units will be built in the 603 Arnold Avenue building, which will consist of 4 one-bedroom apartments and 1 two-bedroom apartment and four units will be built in the 601 Arnold Avenue building, which will consist of 4 one-bedroom apartments. The apartments will have an elevator and be sprinklered and reviewed the requested variances –
1. (d)(1) use variance for an apartment house use.
2. The existing and proposed rear yard setback for Lot 15.01 is 4.5 feet, whereas 30 feet is required.
3. The existing and proposed lot coverage for Lot 15 is 60.1%, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted.
4. The existing and proposed lot coverage for Lot 15.01 is 95.4%, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted.
5. The existing and proposed impervious coverage for Lot 15 is 100%, whereas 70% is the maximum permitted.
6. The existing and proposed impervious coverage for Lot 15.01 is 100%, whereas 70% is the maximum permitted.
Carl Zimatore, applicant, sworn, stated that the second floor of each of the buildings have been vacant for at least thirty years and the first floors of the buildings will remain retail space. He will do the apartments nice – elevators have to be in according to state code – stainless steel, marble tile and granite, there are no exterior changes besides the windows. The parking is shared behind Borden’s. There is a need for 16 parking spaces – there are 6 spaces dedicated to the corner building. Common area will be maintained by property manager. There will be tile in the common areas. Signage will remain the same. Secretary Spader stated that there is no signage depicted on Arnold Avenue. Chairman Struncius stated that looking at the rendering that the that signage would not fit in that design. The architect will adjust – Carl Zimatore will have the rendering changed and submitted to the engineer for review and the signage will comply to code.
Christine Nazzaro-Cofone, Professional Planner, sworn stated that the the applicant requested a d(1) use variance for the apartment house use because each of the buildings contains more than three apartments and that apartments on the second floor are permitted in this zone. Christine Nazzaro-Cofone testified to positive criteria – that sufficient parking is available because the subject property is close to a municipal lot. CC considers this more a mixed use than an apartment house. Chairman Struncius believes that the units are small – CC stated that they are downtown apartments and in an ideal location. Parking will peak at different times due to the mixed use and does not believe that the resident demand will obliterate the parking for the other need’s downtown. CC believes that this is good planning. Does not see a substantial detriment. Create number of housing options – upgrade appeal of building. Does not see any negatives plus the municipality is getting affordable housing units. Believe this is a great thing – meets 5 purposes of the Land Use Law. Benefits outweigh the negative and there is a solution to the parking and this will be good for the downtown.
Clarified garbage (Dumpster) location – 6 parking spaces and then a space for the garbage enclosure. Ray Savacool believes that parking spaces should be designated for apartments. Vice Chair Reynolds believes that one space should be designated for loading and unloading for the tenants. Mr. Davis thinks the sign should say parking for tenants only- this way it is for either residential or commercial tenants. Garbage will be picked up by the town – landlord will coordinate.
John Jackson gave closing
Deliberations
Spader – Initial concern was the number of units. It seems like there is always a tendency to go more units. The size and explanation and the need for them like it is a win/win. Always an issue with parking – never not been. Issues have been clarified and conditioned. I see it as a win/win – everywhere there is a train station you see these popping up.
Kelly – Mr. Kelly agreed that it is a hardship trying to rent such a large space. People are going to see an improvement to the building; windows on Route 35 is a plus. Do not think the applicant will have any trouble renting them. Starting with a building that has been there; footprint is not changing. In favor
Reynolds – I have concerns with the 9 units; I love the idea of refurbishing the building. Parking is in walking distance. I think it is a good application but the apartments are small. Benefits the town with the COAH units. I can see young professionals hitting the train to travel for work. I see this more as a mixed use and not an apartment building, so, it is definitely permitted and promoted in the area.
Schneider – Also have concerns about the number of units. We are getting the 2 affordable units. The new owner will fix up the external structure and the outside will make it look much better. Parking is always an issue in this town. Ideal location – good restaurants/bars. I think it is a good idea.
LePore – I agree – the number was a concern to me at first also. The millennials today will like these and they will go quickly and that is important for our future. In favor.
Davis – agrees with all that has been said – The applicant has put together just a really good package for revitalization. Looking forward to seeing it revitalized and seeing the changed use. Once again, the Planner has knocked it out of the park. I don’t see it as having a negative impact.
Struncius – One of the concerns was the number of units- The logic of the scale – the size of these buildings helps bring this into a more reasonable conformity. The main special reason is the space and appropriate location. You are allowed to have apartments above commercial. The footprint is larger – which allows for more units. The desire for the visual change – the appropriate signage. The brick is a nice look and clean. The parking was another point of concern – but I have never not been able to find a spot. This demand will not make that change that much. Those are the reasons that I am in favor of this case.
Conditions
- 2 of the 9 units will be affordable housing units.
- 6 tenant parking spots will be provided.
- Garbage will be kept in a fenced in area. No garbage will be permitted on Arnold Avenue.
- Exterior finishes and molding shall be improved as presented.
- Property manager will maintain common areas.
- The applicant agreed that no CO would be issued until the exterior improvements were completed.
Motion by Secretary Spader, second by Mr. LePore to approve2019-12 – 601 & 603 Arnold Avenue – Block 93 Lot 15 & Block 93 lot 15 .01
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Meeting adjourned at 10:50pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
