Borough of Point Pleasant Beach APRIL 21, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
The April 21, 2022 special 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: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pasola, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGee, Mr. Driber, Vice chair Reynolds and Chairman Struncius
Also, present: Ben Montenegro, Charli Cunliffe and Karen Mills
Absent – McGee
Minutes
Motion by secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Pasola to memorialize the minutes of March 3, 2022 –
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola and Davis
Memorialize
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2022-13 of Ronald/Anne Marie Hammond – 4 Broadway – w/cond –
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2022-16 of Robert Fumo – 811 Grove Street – w/cond –
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola and Davis
Opposed: None
Agenda
#2022-08 – Tom/Eileen Swift – 105 St. Louis Avenue – Applicant wishes to build new flood compliant home. Requesting variances to build rear deck, open porch and small addition.
Tom Swift, applicant, sworn, Professional architect in the state of NJ, New York and Rhode Island, reviewed his application. Applicant will be installing sidewalk and curbing. Applicant is maintaining existing foundation. Applicant is requesting to maintain room below grade for storage. Plot plan needs to comply with architectural plan. Shed behind structure being removed, shed at rear of the property is remaining. Crawl space will be utilized for storage; attic is also storage. Requesting two front yard setback variances.
- The applicant testified that the front yard setback variance relief requested is significantly impacted by the dual frontage on Saint Louis Avenue and Richard He noted that the 7.5’ setback to Richard Avenue is from the front porch/stairs while the distance to the home is 15.5’.
- The front yard setback encroachment on the Saint Louis Avenue side of the home, he noted that same is less than 1’ and necessitated by the elevation of the home for compliance with flood height requirements.
- Applicant agreed as a condition to modify the plan to provide for sidewalk at the site with a note to repair/replace any damaged curb as necessary.
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 –Architectural Plans by RDS Architects (5 sheets) dated 9/7/21
A3 – Board Mounted Photos
A4 – Front Elevation Rendering
A5 – Engineering Site Plan, by Matthew Wilder or Morgan Engineering dated 12/20/19 (last revised 8/23/21)
4/12/22 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Conditions
- Applicant shall modify the plot plan to show the grading detail for the driveway.
- Applicant shall abandon the lower-level living area existing as living space and shall fill same to adjacent grade to comply with the Borough’s Flood Plain ordinance.
- Applicant shall locate the pool equipment for the subject property so as to comply with the Borough ordinance setback requirements.
- There shall be no habitable attic space.
- Applicant shall locate all mechanicals to comply with the Borough Flood Plain ordinance.
Deliberations
Kelly – This looks like it will be an enhancement to the corner.
Dixon – Definitely a plus for the town; we are getting a flood compliant home,
Schneider – Questions answered and conditions in place I will not have any issues.
Pasola – I believe this will enhance the neighborhood and with the conditions in place I have no problems.
Davis – I concur with all previous statements.
Driber – I agree with all the board members.
Reynolds – I also do not have any issues. Nice asset to the neighborhood.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2022-08 – Tom/Eileen Swift – 105 St. Louis Avenue with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Davis, Dixon, Pasola, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
#2022-09 – Larry/Karen Testa – 203 Niblick – Block 126; Lot 18 – front yard setback variance to build front porch.
John Jackson and Alexandra K. Ehrhardt, Esq., attorney for applicant, reviewed requested variances. Front yard setback where 25’ is required and 22’ is proposed. Maximum building coverage where 30% is allowed and 30.8% is proposed.
Exhibits entered
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 –Architectural Plans by Mary Ortman, R.A., entitled “Testa Residence Covered Porch Addition” (dated 11/15/21); and Plot Plan by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., P.C. (dated 8/19/21)
A3 – Power Point Packet (9 pages)
4/12/22 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Mary Ortman, R.A., sworn, stated that the applicants are the title owners of the subject property. The subject property is located in the SF5 zone. Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. There is an existing two-story single-family home on the subject property that sits on a masonry foundation. It is the applicant’s intent per the plans submitted to renovate the home to provide a front porch to improve the functionality and aesthetic appeal of the home; while removing rear yard paved area to bring the site into conformity with the zone’s impervious coverage requirement. The existing home is a Garrison style colonial which provides for a 1’ cantilever of the second floor. The design of the home is non-descript from an aesthetic standpoint with little architectural detail. She stated that the proposed front porch with metal standing seam roof provides architectural character to the home that greatly improves the aesthetics of the home while providing functional outdoor seating space to congregate and socialize. She noted that this type of front porch is in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood where front porches are common. She testified that the porch as designed is 8’ in width measured from the first-floor house façade (7’ from the cantilevered second floor façade). Applicant agreed as a condition that the porch would at no time in the future be enclosed/converted to habitable living space. She confirmed that the subject property is in a flood zone; but that the proposed project does not meet the definition of a substantial improvement for Borough Flood Plain Ordinance compliance. She acknowledged that the variance relief requested could be eliminated by a porch that is 5’ in width (rather than 8’); but she believes that the 8’ proposed is a better zoning alternative because of the scale/dimension to the size of the home and the functional use of the porch for seating.
Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., the sworn, credentials, accepted, stated that the subject property is located in the SF-5 zone. The application requires bulk variance relief for front setback and building coverage (both variances due solely to the addition of the front porch proposed). The application proposes to remove rear yard paved area to bring impervious coverage, which is currently noncompliant, into compliance. Comparing the existing front façade of the home, with the architectural rendering of the front façade with porch proposed, he believes that the proposed application greatly improves the aesthetics at the site. He noted that the front setback violation is only 3’ for the open front porch and that the encroachment will be negligible visually from a design perspective.
Karen and Larry Testa, applicants, sworn, explained why they are requesting a porch. It adds functionality and aesthetics. We have a large family and want to be able to sit outside together.
Conditions
- The applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 4/12/22, unless specifically exempted herein.
- Applicant shall comply with the following special conditions:
- The approved front porch shall at no time in the future be enclosed/converted to habitable living space.
Deliberations
Kelly – I have no problem with this. I think it is absolutely an asset.
Dixon – Could easily put a five-foot front porch on the house and not need a variance. This is not the library section. If this house ever gets lifted the stairs will encroach more. I believe it will block the neighbors’ views.
Schneider – You are not blocking anyone’s view and I believe it is an aesthetic improvement.
Reynolds – My fondest memory as a child is hanging on the front porch. I think it is an improvement and an asset to the neighborhood. I am in favor.
Pasola – I agree with Mr. Reynolds; it is nice to have a front porch. They could conform and still have a front porch. I believe it could be detrimental to the neighbors. I have a conforming front porch that I am on all the time.
Davis – Mr. Dixon has all good points but I will try to convince him differently. I believe that 8 feet makes the front porch much more functional. I also believe this is a huge aesthetic improvement. We have an increase in functionality without detriment to the zone. I think it is a perfect enhancement to the zone.
Driber – My concern is that it has potential for noise. I am not sold that it will enhance the community. It exceeds the ordinance – I agree with Mr. Pasola – I have great concerns. If you can conform with 5 foot you should conform.
Struncius – I understand the site line issue – and may be one property west you might have a slight site line issue but the house on the corner really blocks the view. I do not know what view the neighbor is really losing. If it was pulled back three feet, I think the roof would look abnormal. There is an aesthetic value on how it fits the house. This house is begging for a porch. If there is a noise problem the neighbors can call the police. I believe it will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2022-09 of Larry/Karen Testa – 203 Niblick – Block 126; Lot 18
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: Dixon and Pasola
Application approved with conditions
#2022-11 – George/Lorraine Kipel – 302 Trenton Avenue – Applicant is requesting relief from Borough flood ordinance to maintain mechanicals at 10 feet base flood. Complies with FEMA requirements
John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed application and requested relief. The Applicant requested variance relief from the FDPO to allow for the mechanical equipment – hot water heater and first floor AC unit, to remain as constructed at Elevation 10.
The following were submitted in support of the Application:
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 – Architectural Plans, entitled “Kipel Residence” by Kwiecinski & Associates (dated 5/7/19).
A3 – Applicant Power Point Packet (19 pages)
- 4/6/22 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Ken Sosnicki of KPS and Sons Builders, sworn, explained to the Board the circumstances. He was the general contractor in the construction of the new single-family home and as such, was fully familiar with the architectural plans and the construction that occurred on site. The subject property is located in the SF-5 zone. Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. The single-family home constructed on the site was designed and built-in full compliance with all bulk requirements of the zone. No use or bulk variance relief was necessary for the construction. Pursuant to the FDPO, at this location, all mechanical equipment must be placed at a base flood elevation of 9 feet plus 3 feet of freeboard. As the Borough’s requirement for flood elevation is AE+3, the required design flood elevation is 12, with anything below 12 considered in the area of flood risk. Under Ordinance 2021-13, the Borough recodified its FDPO; which allows for variance applications under 19-10.1.7. Page three of the architectural plans noted to locate all mechanicals in the attic or the storage area above the BFE; however, did not expressly identify the BFE as 12. During construction, the contractor marked out the BFE in error (utilizing AE+1, instead of the required AE+3). As such, the electrical panel, the hot water heater, the first floor AC unit, and the outdoor platform containing 2 air conditioning condensers and generator were all set at Elevation 10. The finished first floor is at Elevation 14. Applicant agreed as a condition to relocate the electrical panel to the first floor thereby bringing same into compliance with the FDPO. Applicant also agreed to raise the outdoor platform to Elevation 12 so that the outdoor air conditioning condensers and generator are also in compliance. Applicant sought variance relief to allow the existing hot water heater and first floor AC unit to remain at Elevation 10. He noted that the second-floor mechanicals are located in the attic in compliance with the FDPO. He noted that the home was fully finished and due to the existing air conditioning duct work and plumbing being finished with the air handlers and hot water heater in its current location; relocation would be a severe hardship. He testified that the construction passed all rough and final inspections; and unfortunately, the BFE error was not identified by the contractor, architect, nor municipal inspectors at an earlier time. The noncompliance was uncovered at the time of submission of the final as-built plans when the contractor sought the final C.O. for the home.
Conditions
- The applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 4/6/22, unless specifically exempted herein.
- Applicant shall relocate the electrical panel to an area above the finished first floor thereby bringing same into compliance with the FDPO.
- Applicant shall raise the outdoor platform to Elevation 12 so that the outdoor air conditioning condensers and generator are also in compliance with the FDPO.
Deliberations
Kelly – I anticipated this happening when they increased the free board to 3 – feet. We have been going through growing pains with the changes in the construction office. This board has to make their judgement on regulations – I am kind of torn with this one.
Schneider – The Beach has different regulations then the rest of the state. It concerns me about the inspections. It is a good thing that you are moving the electrical panel. I am in favor of approving.
Reynolds – With the exceptions we have been given (electric Panel) I feel we have a good compromise and improved safety. I appreciate the willingness to work with us.
Pasola – Professional should have looked into the rules and regulations. Happy to hear the electrical box and generator will be lifted.
Dixon – I feel this is a short cut to what should be done. The professional should bear the expense to have this corrected. This is probably the best solution for everyone.
Davis – If there is a boundary for where we want to see a variance application this is probably it. Sorry the applicant has to go through this. Our first priority is safety and with the electrical box and generator being lifted I feel it is a better situation.
Driber – I can’t disagree with anything that has been said. You cannot punish the applicant for what the professional did.
Struncius – I think there is a strong legal argument when you have the regulations that a variance can be granted in this way. The town was involved in rough inspections – some was the towns responsibility. Appreciate the willingness of the applicant to make some corrections.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Secretary Schneider to approve application #2022-11 – George/Lorraine Kipel – 302 Trenton Avenue with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
