Borough of Point Pleasant Beach The August 27, 2020 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, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Pasola, Loder, Spader and Crasper
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2020-13 of Dominick Calandriello – 205 Randall Avenue with conditions
In favor: Schneider and Kelly
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2020-12 of Charles Venezia d/b/a – 4 Minard Place – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds and McGee
Opposed: None
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2020-11 – Michael/Janine Badore – with conditions
In favor: Reynolds, Dixon and Schneider
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2020-04 of Stephen/Deborah Korzeniowski – 1 Delaware
In favor – Kelly, Reynolds and Schneider
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote denying application # 2020-03 of Simon/Nabilia Haddad at 325 Hawthorne Avenue
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, McGee, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application #2020-18 – Margaret Butler – 5 Franklin Way – Block 121; Lot 17.05 – Applicant installing out door shower which encroaches rear yard setback. Proposed pergola and chimney are in front yard.
(The Butler application has been carried without notice from August 20, 2020)
Sean Gertner, attorney for applicant stated that they are not any longer requesting variances for the shower or fireplace. Shower and fireplace will now conform. Variances being requested are now for the addition of the roof top deck and pergola. No height variances are being requested.
Audience comments
James Hobish attorney at law representing 3 Bowling Green – thanked the neighbors for removing variances – Still concerned about rear property line – there is a bench, mailbox and shrubbery. Relocating the fireplace is not going to alleviate the neighbors concern in these cedar bungalows. The outdoor TV will be right near the bedroom windows – there is just too much on this property
John Renzulli, sworn, stated that he cannot see anything but a wall since the rectangular mass was built. Entered photos – A, B, C, D, and E. Worried about the safety of the small cedar houses. Problem with lack of light and air increased with the roof top deck. It also is an invasion of privacy. Inquired where the shower is being moved to? Chairman Struncius stated that it will be moved to a conforming location.
Lori St. George, sworn, stated that she is worried about the view from her porch. Sean Gertner stated that anything built will be conforming.
Laura Messina, sworn, owns 6 Pilgrim Pathway. Has a concern that even with the chimney and fireplace being moved that it takes up a lot of space.
Joan Graceffo, sworn, stated that she is in full support of the application.
Mary Peterson Magerino, sworn, supports the applicant in this plan, she is an amazing neighbor. She always goes out of her way to make sure the walkway is safe.
Edward Fattel, sworn, stated that Miss Butler takes good care of her property and everything she does looks good.
Deliberations
Kelly – The area we are talking about is always a problem; we have here a house that is surrounded by homes and an easement – Concerned about emergency vehicles getting into that area at all. Another problem was the electric service and if there will be anything on top of this deck. Now we are going to relocate the fireplace but we do not know where. I hate to see people just going and building something without checking the rules. I wish people would find out what they can build. I am against this project.
Dixon – I am glad the applicant moved things into conformity; I personally do not like the roof top deck because it is intrusive. To make someone redo something for 8 inches – I do not have a problem. The applicant tried to make it as acceptable as possible.
Reynolds – I have a problem with the deck up there. The area is tight – concerned about the step up of the deck and the drainage. I appreciate the neighbors making the changes – I am looking in favor.
Schneider – I appreciate the home owner moving the fireplace/shower – as far as the deck it is legal except for the 8 inches – I like the condition of the drainage. I think the addition of the fire proof wall is an improvement to the area. Leaning towards a positive on the approval.
McGee – I am conflicted – if this had been done on the appropriate time line you could have saved a lot of time and hardship over 8 inches. I appreciate you listening to the board and moving the fireplace. Should not have been done in the first place.
Davis – Fortunately Mr. Gertner got a pass on answering my question from last week. I think our concern has to be on future uses of this property. If we had seen the application prior, we would have worked on it being less of an impact to the neighbors. There is no doubt that we have approved elevated things in the bungalow district – I am always in favor of outdoor space but given the impact of the deck so close to the property line, based on those concerns I do not think these two variances add much enhancement and are detrimental to the zone.
Struncius – I am not a big fan of the decking overall – this board has approached people on the council to get a little more definition on raised decking. I do not think by moving the deck 8 inches that it is going to fix any issues everyone is having – overall deminimis in the placement. I do think the pergola is a nice addition. None of the neighbors have made the statement that the property is not kept well. Believe Mr. Renzulli got the advantage with having the shower moved. We are not going to fix anything that is allowable by moving that deck 8-inches. – Am leaning in favor
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Secretary Schneider to approve application #2020-18 of Margaret Butler – 5 Franklin Way – Block 121; Lot 17.05 with conditions
In favor: Dixon, Schneider, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: Kelly and Davis
Application approved with conditions
Application #2020-17 – Dean Esposito/Barnegat Bay Home Construction – 400 Newark Avenue – Block 15; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to build new FEMA compliant single-family home. Applicant is requesting front set back variances for both Newark and St. Louis Avenue.
(The Esposito application has been carried without notice from August 20, 2020)
Dean Esposito, sworn, reviewed his application. Exhibits entered as A-3 (Power Point presentation). Reviewed variances requested – 2 front setback variances. Believes his design is aesthetical pleasing and will be an asset to the neighborhood. The reasoning for the positioning of the home is for maximum view of the lake. Purposed dwelling in this position will align and allow for maximum privacy. Chairman Struncius inquired if they would accept the condition that the proposed home will not come out further than the neighbor’s cantilever. (Yes)
Charlie Cunliffe asked for clarification on the fence heights and location. Also inquired of elevation of pool mechanicals to 13 feet? Could they be installed at grade? The pool mechanical location could get moved to the north. Applicant stated that they would move pool mechanicals out of the front yard setback to alleviate the intrusion into the front yard setback.
Mr. Dixon inquired why the applicants need steps on St. Louis Avenue. His frontage is on Newark Avenue. (For design purposes) The applicant stated that would hurt the aesthetic of the design.
Charlie Cunliffe commented that they are at 28.5% building coverage including stairs.
Christopher Aker, Professional Architect, credentials accepted, reviewed design of home.
Believes having the second staircase on St. Louis will add to the aesthetics. If is effective and efficient without being obnoxious; believes that it is a conservative house.
Vice chair Reynolds questioned if they had thought of recessing the stairs. Christopher Aker commented that recessing the stairs more than 22 inches would be intrusive. Chairman Struncius commented that this many straight stairs (13 risers) can be overwhelming.
Charlie Cunliffe stated that there were comments about hardship. Raising the structure to the existing foot print would have exasperated the setbacks but this is a new structure; the hardships do not apply to a new structure from scratch. This is an oversized corner lot – it is 75 feet wide.
Secretary Schneider questioned if the second floor is 85% of the first floor? (yes) Inquired how high the attic space is? (6 foot 8 inches) The attic will be accessed by pull down stairs.
Dean Esposito stated he would entertain a compromise – maybe recess two stairs in. Ideally, they would like the steps to come straight out.
Mr. McGee questioned that the front of the porches would not exceed the neighbors to the south.
Audience questions
John Wisniewski questioned the need for the second set of front stairs.
Kelly Swanson, neighbor – Questioned the garage on Newark and questioned the one-car garage. Wondered why such a large house has a one-car garage.
Chairman Struncius questioned the parking requirement. RSIS states that 2 ½ parking spaces are required for a four-bedroom home.
Charlie Cunliffe stated the study could be a bedroom and would increase the parking requirement.
Dean Esposito stated that he is greatly under impervious coverage and he would be happy to extend the parking area.
Mr. Davis would like to see the revised plans- to allow the neighbor’s time to review the revisions
Vice chair Reynolds would like to see a change with the steps.
Mr. Kelly has no problem with the parking situation – he would rather see the green grass.
Chairman Struncius commented that the neighbors should get a chance to review the revised plans.
Hal Espo – questioned that the issues of the stairs, pools and mechanicals have been addressed but is curious if there is any consideration of the sheer size of the house.
Charlie Cunliffe stated that the plans meet bulk requirements and that the setbacks are the only issue.
Audience comments
Andrew Swanson, neighbor on St. Louis – Long history with town (Multi generation) – when I first saw the application and saw the eleven-foot request I had concerns. – any flexibility with the application would have a positive bearing on me. It looks like a very nice home – consideration of the stairs would be nice – was concerned about our site lines – I am in support of the plan with stipulation that the foundation does not exceed the neighbor’s line.
Tracy Wisniewski, St. Louis – Speaking for entire Wisniewski family – couple of points – husbands family has owned the property on the corner for well over 100 years. We would like the neighborhood to stay aesthetically pleasing – I do think the design of the house is lovely. Our house in conforming. We are concerned with the lot being oversized with the steps coming out. The rest of the block is very much conforming.
Motion by Mr. McGee, second by Mr. Kelly to carry application #2020-17 – Dean Esposito/Barnegat Bay Home Construction – 400 Newark Avenue to September 17, 2020 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Reynolds, McGee, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application carried without notice
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
