Borough of Point Pleasant Beach APRIL 20, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
The April 20, 2023 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, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pasola, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGee and Vice chair Reynolds
Also, present: Ben Montenegro, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Absent – Chairman Struncius and Mr. Driber
Memorialize Resolutions–
Motion by Vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-06 of Alex/Mila Star – 201 Parkway – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-08 of Louis Grasso – 103 Central Ave. – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, Driber and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-17 of Scott Kuzmic – 803 Walnut with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, Davis, Driber and Struncius
Opposed: None
Agenda
2023-13 – Stanley/Marie Holmes – 903 Bay Avenue- Block 54; Lot 1 – Applicant installed 3-foot fence in front yard site triangle where 2-feet is required.
Brian Lozuke, attorney, for applicant reviewed circumstances of the fence that was installed in the site triangle without permits. Home purchased in July of 2020 and they did substantial improvements. Fence is higher than the ordinance permits.
Stanley and Marie Holmes, applicant, sworn, identified a photo of their house and the fence in question.
Exhibits – photos labeled A-3 through A-20 entered
Mr. Driber questioned if they had inquired about the height of fence permitted? (No)
Chairman Struncius stated that he has driven past this house many times and the end post blocks your view from on-coming traffic. This is an easy one for me because I had to pull out into the cross walk to see. The fence needs to be cut at an angle.
Vice chair Pasola agrees that this blocks the view.
Mrs. McFadden also agrees that there it inhibits the site and creates a dangerous situation.
Mr. Dixon also agrees that the fence needs to be moved for safety.
Brian Lozuke stated he is more concerned for the safety of the applicants’ children.
Vice chair Pasola stated that if they move the fence back it would improve the situation.
The Board will give the applicant time to meet with Ray Savacool to come up with a plan to bring back to the Board.
Motion by, second by to carry application 2023-13 – Stanley/Marie Holmes – 903 Bay Avenue to June 23, 2023 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Davis, Driber, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application carried without notice
2023-09 Carolyn/Andrew Messinger – 320 Elizabeth Avenue – Block 13.04; Lot 17 – Applicant wishes to add a larger deck in rear and front of home
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application request.
Exhibits entered
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 – Architectural Plans by Paul J. Rodek/J.D.R. Consultants entitled “Proposed Decks for Messinger” dated 11/29/22 (2 sheets);
A3 – Power Point Packet (12 pages)
4/3/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Carolyn and Andrew Messinger, sworn, stated that they applied for and received all proper permits for the construction for the home under construction. Those plans are fully conforming to the ordinance and require no variance relief. During the course of construction, they determined that two modifications would significantly benefit the home, both aesthetically and functionally. One change as depicted on page 12 of Exhibit A3 is to expand the rear deck and modify the stairway from deck to ground level. This change significantly improves the ability to utilize the outdoor deck for outdoor dining/recreation. The expansion, however, creates the need for the building coverage variance requested. With the deck and stairs as proposed, building coverage is 33%, where 30% is allowed. Per Ordinance, a 1% increase is permitted for decks and stairs open to permeable surfaces. Applicant agreed as condition that the surface below the deck and stairs proposed shall remain permeable surface (grass and/or stone), thereby mitigating the building coverage nonconformity to a total of 2%.
Applicant confirmed the deck and stairs proposed do not encroach upon the side or rear setback required in the zone. No variance relief for same is requested, nor granted.
The second change proposed to the original architectural plan is to expand the rooftop deck as depicted on the plans submitted (see Exhibit A3 at page 4-5, 8-9 and 11). This rooftop deck expansion requires variance relief for maximum area where 200 SF is allowed and 242 SF is being proposed. Variance relief is also being requested where 5′ to the building face is required and 2.5′ is being proposed to both the front and side of the dwelling. Applicant noted that the plan calls for a 36″ high handrail and that the expanded rooftop deck provides an improved aesthetic to the architectural design and a more functional outdoor rooftop deck space which provides a panoramic view of the lake. Applicant noted that there is no other functional/habitable space on the rooftop level. Applicant agreed as a condition that the rear deck (depicted on the plan as a Generator and A/C platform) shall be limited to that use as a balcony for those utilities. Applicant agreed as a condition of approval that there shall be no conversion of the rooftop deck (including the area under roof totaling 58 SF) into any enclosed, habitable finished space without a return to the Board for amended approval. Applicant submitted that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(2) relief based upon the improved aesthetics, function and overall design of the proposed home.
Applicant submitted that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a), (c), and (i) – noting that the proposal provides for an aesthetic improvement to the site; a functional improvement to the site with better rooftop deck and rear outdoor recreation space; adequate light, air and open space; while the nonconformities create no detriment to the public good.
Mr. Driber would have liked to have seen the project prior to building permits.
Conditions
- The surface below the deck and stairs proposed shall remain permeable surface (grass and/or stone), thereby mitigating the building coverage nonconformity to a total of 2%.
- The rear deck (depicted on the plan as a Generator and A/C platform) shall be limited to that use as a balcony for those utilities.
- There shall be no conversion of the rooftop deck (including the area under roof totaling 58 SF) into any enclosed, habitable finished space without a return to the Board for amended approval.
- Utility balcony shall only be used for utilities.
Deliberations
Kelly – The building is up; I don’t see any problem with the deck. The front deck might be an issue. No problem
Dixon – No problem with the 2% is not going to be a detriment to anyone. The 5 feet in front I believe is privacy to the neighbors. They have ordinances for a reason.
Pasola – No problem – beautiful home – nice addition to the neighborhood.
Davis – I don’t think the impervious is an issue with the deck. I do have an issue with the front deck. It is for privacy for the neighbors. The noise travels the higher up you are. The ordinance is there for a reason and is a detriment to the zone if extended.
Driber – I believe that changes were made knowing you could come here for more. The request should have been made prior to the permits. I will not support the changes.
McGee – Backyard is fine; I don’t think the privacy will affect the ducks.
McFadden – In favor of the application.
Dealmeida – I understand the process. The rear deck is fine and also believe the restrictions for front deck is for privacy.
Struncius – I have no issue with the rear deck. I also agree the setback for the front deck is for privacy and to contain voices.
Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Driber to approve application #2023-09 of Carolyn/Andrew Messinger – 320 Elizabeth Avenue with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Driber, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: Davis
Application approved with conditions
Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk to the Board
