Borough of Point Pleasant Beach August 1, 2019
The August 1, 2019 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: Secretary Spader, Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGee and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Mr. Schneider, Mr. LePore, Mr. DePolo and Ms. Crasper
Also, present –Dennis Galvin, Board attorney, Ray Savacool, Board Engineer and Karen Mills, Clerk
Application #2019-21 – 2005 Route 35, LLC c/o Timothy Caughey – 2005 Route 35 – Block 11.02 Lot 12 & 14 – Applicant seeks to construct 16-unit multifamily luxury dwellings and retain existing building which contains a restaurant, an office and an apartment which requires a use and bulk variances.
Carried without notice from June 27, 2018 (vote and deliberation)
Mr. Davis and Mr. McGee listened to the Audio from the June 27, 2019 meeting and signed a certification and are qualified to vote on the application of 2005 Route 35, LLC application this evening.
John Jackson, applicant’s attorney gave summation
Conditions
1. The plan is to be revised to show the fire lane.
2. The landscape plan is to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer and Planner for his review and approval. The landscape plan is to show trees and landscaping.
3. The Applicant is to file a deed of consolidation prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 3. The building is to be constructed in accordance with the architectural rendering shown to the Board on the night of June 27, 2019.
4. The property shall fully comply with the state and local affordable housing regulations.
5. The sign is to identify the property location as being in Point Pleasant Beach and will not reference Bay Head.
6. The roof lighting is to be on a timer, which is to be turned off by 10 p.m. and reflected in the bylaws.
7. The Board’s Attorney is to review and approve the condominium documents.
Deliberation
Spader – Application here was the standard approach where the applicant askes for a lot more than we would consider; there were adjustments made and I like how it looks-most of the issues have been resolved. I like how it looks
Kelly – agrees with Mr. Spader – I was happy to see the lot being used for this use – resolved the access issues – sign is moved – traffic situation has been resolved – have no problem with it at this point.
Reynolds – listening to the testimony – listening to the traffic expert that this will make this area of the highway safer – definitely a suitable location – in my opinion it is far enough from the other buildings that it will not affect light and air – it may affect some views – I am sure 30 years ago when the garden apartments went in that they affected some views – that is just progress – I like the application
Dixon – this is an interesting one – technically it wasn’t allowed in the zone but when you look in the area there are apartments and condos all around it. I like the look of it and glad they kept the old-style restaurant. I know there are concerns with the traffic on Maryland but I do not think it is going to overload it. I have concerns about the site triangle coming out of Maryland but that has to be addressed with the owner of that business on the corner. I like that affordable housing was put in there so over all I am in favor.
Davis – My expressed opinion is why we got carried and my opinion essentially remains the same. I think it is an absolutely beautiful building and appropriate for the area., I believe it is oversized for the lot and the visual impact will be overwhelming. We had a decrease in units but increase in bedrooms and lost an affordable housing unit. I believe the traffic will be overwhelming and if someone does not convince me otherwise, I have some real concerns.
McGee – I think it is an underutilized area and has been since I can remember – the way it is zoned in those three different spots and you see what can go there – it could be some other large commercial building – this is a beautiful building – I think it is going to add to the aesthetic of the town and create better business for what is over there. I think it is a good utilization of the property.
Struncius – I do agree with the planning testimony of general welfare is the inclusion of having the affordable housing units which is beneficial overall to the town. I do believe architecturally this does promote a desirable visual environment – the building is beautiful – I understand it is a bigger building but then again, but I do feel that where it is in that little pie amount the high density residential that it will fit over all into the look and the feel of that area of the town. I do not think it will be overwhelming to anything that is around it and the fact that it is raised so there is parking underneath it and being compliant for flood is another benefit. I think the lot is big enough to hold it and it gives us the parking that is necessary. The decking was dropped down below a knee wall and things so there is no real harm – there is timing that came along with that. (10pm cut off time) So I think where this fits into the zone – we are close to SF5 but that is the minority of the zone – it is mostly high density. The applicant worked and made a lot of changes that were beneficial to the application. Really the biggest piece that I had to come to terms with is there definitely will be some degree of increased traffic on Maryland Avenue, I am not sitting here think that is not the case, certainly when we can no longer exit on to Route 35, you can’t make that left anymore which is probably already an illegal type situation going on now because people can go both ways. I think there mostly is going to be egress happening so I weighed that – I just don’t think that the volume of residential that people come and go at work times – mostly it is pretty controlled living place and I think it will be OK in my beliefs. Siting those reasons, I think that this can work very well in this zone.
Motion by secretary Spader second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2019-21 of 2005 Route 35, LLC c/o Timothy Caughey – 2005 Route 35 – Block 11.02 Lot 12 & 14 – with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: Davis
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-07- Ippolito Corporation – 1414 Ocean Avenue – Block – 17.01/17.02 – Lots 5, 6, 47/2.01, 3 – Applicant is requesting variances to demolish existing Driftwood Motel and construct a condominium building with 24 units, ground floor parking, condominiums on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors with roof top deck, pool and snack stand.
Carried without notice from May 2, 2019
Mr. Davis and Mr. McGee have listened to the audio of the May 2, 2019 meeting, signed certification and are qualified to vote.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant has revised the plan and the units have been reduced to 18 and made it RSIS parking compliant.
Dan Governale, Professional architect, still under oath, stated that they reduced the number of units internally, altered unit and bedroom counts to have the RSIS 37 parking spaces. The number of bedrooms has been increased by two bedrooms. Total bedrooms are now 46 bedrooms but the structure has remained the same as the last presentation.
Mr. Spader questioned if there are affordable housing units being proposed. John Jackson stated that the Ippolito’s own other housing in town that can be turned into affordable housing units. This plan will not have affordable housing units but there will be affordable renting units in another location in town. Mt. Spader believes the affordable housing should be offered in this location. Mr. Spader believes the motel as it is, is an eyesore in this location and sees a lot of positives with this application, but the issue of the affordable housing is something he is very concerned about.
Ron Gasiorowski, objecting attorney, questioned if this is going to be a mix of condo and apartments. Believes it should be spelled out where the affordable housing will be. John Jackson stated that these are not going to be apartments they are going to be condos.
Tim Middleton, objecting attorney, believes if the applicant is going to address a Mount Laurel issue that there should have been notice Dennis Galvin stated that if this is a notice issue and John Jackson goes forward and it goes to court it might be an issue.
DG – Dennis Galvin
RS- Ray Savacool
JJJ – John Jackson
CC – Christine Cofone
RG – Ron Gasiorowski
TM- Tim Middleton
Christine Nazzaro-Cofone, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted, has reviewed all documents. It is a beachfront through lot which is developed in the SF5 zone. It is a 37-unit motel with snack bar and beach badge sales. Site sticks out like sore thumb on Master Plan. Existing property lacks formal parking, landscaping – cars almost parked on sidewalk. Motel has been in operation since the 1950’s. It is a thriving motel business – if this a been a small home on the lot requesting this use variance, she probably wouldn’t have accepted the job since it is a use variance. Believes the application is closer to conforming to the zone then what is there today. There are no hard ships in this application. This is a “D” variance where we have to prove special reasons. There are special reasons that we have to prove for you to grant a “D” variance – suitablility and proofs. We have frontage out to the beach front; we have a large through lot with existing site improvements make this site particularly suitable. Mr. Dixon questioned why he wouldn’t try to make the lots conforming by building 4 homes. Christine Cofone stated why would the applicant do that when he has a thriving business, she believes that this application does bring the property more into conformity. I do not believe you will see an application for a conforming plan filed. Burden of proof is not “can this site conform” that is not the burden of the applicant and the case that the applicant is presenting. We do not have to demonstrate why we can’t develop a conforming use. We have to develop a case that we meet the statutory proofs, that the site is particularly suitable, that special reasons exist and that the negative criteria can be satisfied. Positive Criteria – Already mentioned criteria A and B – We improve the parking layout, we improve the side yard setbacks, we improve the building coverage and we improve the landscaping plan, so while the use is not conforming, we certainly have provided a development where there is sufficient space. – Criteria G – variety of uses in an appropriate location – can certainly make the argument of sufficient space and eliminate variances. Criteria I – desirable visual environment – believes the structure has excellent curb appeal. Existing cite lacks curb appeal and this application provided curb appeal. Negative criteria – The board has to weigh the positives and the negatives –
CC- Positives – Eliminated roof top deck, compatible looking structure, we could have up to 4 single-family homes here – so it’s not like there wouldn’t be structures – there would be some obstruction of light and air – we are conforming with respect to the lot coverage, conforming with respect to parking and we are eliminating for the potential for the motel to become a nuisance to this neighborhood. When you look at the negative criteria and balance this application and you look at the impact on the zone plan – you are never going to get away from the fact that we need a use variance – this is not a permitted use in the SF5 zone. CC- It is her strong opinion that the use before you creates a far better use for this neighborhood than the existing motel. We are now RSIS compliant – there is a section and a goal in the Master Plan that talks about being RSIS compliant – so the fact that that they are eliminating some bulk non-conformities, providing a compliant parking plan and the size of the parking spaces complies as well and we are pulling some of the parking out of the front yard all while introducing some landscaping – again on point – do we leave this neighborhood better than it is existing today? – I think the answer to that is unequivocally yes – We really did try to come up with something that eliminates the hotel use and makes a reasonable use of the property – so that to me is the balancing of the negative criteria. Referenced the Master Plan and references goals and suggestions that pertain to this project. Improved aesthetics is important to thebeach – the beach recognizes there are areas that do not conform. The Driftwood is out of character to the area. Believes that this project advances the Master Plan. Referenced page 11 of the Master Plan – eliminating motel use – brings it more into conformity with year-round community use. Master Plan has many places where it talks about aesthetics – this is an opportunity to replace a tired old structure lacking curb appeal with a newer structure. Pag 34 references site improvements – Page 35 – foster diversity of housing types. The map in the Master Plan shows this site in red surrounded by yellow – makes it pop out. Obligation to show that we meet the burden of proof. Believes the application is an approvable plan – so when you look at the benefits – believes there are more benefits to the neighborhood than negatives. The snack bar is being proposed for the convenience of the 18 units – for a place to keep towels and water – the snack bar will not be a commercial use – that would need its own variance. John Jackson said it will be more of a cabana for the amenity of the condominium. Mr. Kelly stated that if the negative outweighs the positive then you are not balanced. CC – believes that the positive outweighs the negative. Mr. Kelly said that lovely sidewalks are better than what is there. CC – believes the most compelling argument of the application is the elimination of the motel use. JJ – said the important thing to address is to satisfy the affordable housing – it would be unusual to have ocean front affordable units. CC- is an affordable housing Special Master – has sat through trials in the state and is very familiar with affordable housing law – has worked on applications where they have created affordable units in town and off site in Red Bank). If you create 2 rental units you would get 4 bonus credits – bonus for rentals. The Borough of Point Pleasant Beach does not yet have an affordable housing ordinance – wants to get more specific details. Mr. Davis inquired if there are ever affordable housing units created for purchase? CC – Yes, but it is easier to get an affordable housing person/family into a rental unit than it is into an owner-occupied house. CC – an affordable would be a thirty (30) year deed. It is easier to qualify for a rental unit than it is a mortgage. When you buy an affordably unit home you are locked into a price – you cannot flip it in five (5) years. Mr. Davis stated that don’t you agree anything that gets built here will be an improvement because it is flood compliant. CC – yes, she said she stated that in her testimony. Mr. Spader stated that affordable housing sounds like a negative when that is not the case – people will not be trading in their trailer to live at the Driftwood hotel – there is a formula. If the units are $500 thousand the affordable might be a little less. CC – agrees with Mr. Spader – these are not vouchered for the unemployed. Mr. Davis questioned the occupancy of the Beach house which is located next door to subject property.
Mary Buletza, owner of the Beach House – stated that the Beach house has 5 bedrooms upstairs that are rented seasonally (no kitchens)– and there are two-year round apartments on the main floor.
Audience questions
Ron Gasiorowski, objecting attorney, questioned Christine Cofone – stated one third of testimony had to do with affordable housing and that they are seeking relief – CC and JJ did not agree – DG instructed RG to stick to questioning planning testimony. Questioned who owns the hotel and for how long and if she agrees that it is an eyesore – RG stated that didn’t she say that getting rid of the eyesore was a positive – and that the eyesore is owned by the applicant. CC didn’t believe that she referred to the subject property as an eyesore. CC believes she said that it lacked curb appeal. RG questioned CC in reference to parking and drive isles. RG questioned density issues. RG questioned how long the motel is open (seasonally). CC did not testify on direct operation. RG said won’t the amount of time the motel is open affect the intensity of use – CC – yes.
Tim Middleton, objecting attorney – questioned similar developments within 1000 feet. CC- not sure Questioned square footage of building, length and width – CC – does not know. CC- stated she will agree that it is the largest structure in the area. TM – commented that when the planner testified that she didn’t know the dimensions of the building. CC- commented that there are other structures in the vicinity that are larger than this structure. TM – said proposed structure is 25,000 square feet and is significantly larger than surrounding structures. JJ – objected to TM testifying. TM – questioned the hotel thriving and occupied. Questioned if CC knows the average daily occupancy. CC – said she has had numerous conversations with her client who has said that he is fully occupied many weekends. TM – Do you recall the testimony about building 4 homes. CC – No TM – then the discussion of building a conforming use was never discussed. CC – for the applicant of any site to make a change you would have to have some inducement. DG – informed the board that we do not consider financials. TM- inquired why you think the town didn’t amend the Mater Plan in the last 15 years to allow town homes in this area. CC – does not know – we need a use variance
Mary Buletza 1312 Ocean front – Questioned the snack shack. There were comments about commercial use is allowed now but will not if application is approved. Do you know if it is licensed now and has inspections? Concerned about safety and grease fires. Inquired if CC has been on the property in the winter time? CC – it is very different. Mary Buletza stated you said that you would like having 18 units there instead year-round then an empty motel in the winter if you were a neighbor. Your professional opinion you would like that better. CC – I think it is far more compatible and yes, I would like it better. Question of the May 2, 2019 meeting about the shadow study – it was not done with existing structures. Wondering when that will be addressed. DG – said they can address it on September 12, 2019 if the applicant wants to.
Motion by Mr. McGee, second by secretary Spader to carry Application #2019-07-of the Ippolito Corporation – 1414 Ocean Avenue – Block – 17.01/17.02 – Lots 5, 6, 47/2.01, 3 – to September 12, 2019 without notice.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Struncius, Dixon, Davis and McGee
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 10:55 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
