Borough of Point Pleasant Beach December 16, 2021 BOA minutes
The December 16, 2021 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: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder, Vice chair Reynolds, Mr. Davis and Ms. Villani
Absent – Struncius, McGee and Crasper
Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, acting Board attorney and Ray Savacool , Board Engineer
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Memorialization of Minutes
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of November 4, 2021–
In favor: Kelly, Loder, Dixon and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Memorialize resolutions
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2021-28 with conditions – Diane/Robert Power – 167 Ocean Avenue – Block 129.02’ Lot 10 – Applicant requesting to add deck to front of dwelling requiring bulk variances
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Loder and Villani
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2021-27 of Andrea Tuzzo/ Brian Mehl – 708 Grove Street – Block – 202; Lot 19 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Loder and Villani
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2021-25 –of Sandy Foukarakis d/b/a as Revive – NJ, LLC – 727 Arnold Avenue – Applicant is requesting to have an medi-spa intravenous and intramuscular administration of hydration and supplementation center within existing spa. With conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Loder and Villani
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2021-17 – Ralph Lamanna denial – 70 Inlet – LK, JD, HS, GL, MM and JR
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Loder and Villani
Opposed: None
Application denied
Agenda
#2022-04 – Ralph/Paula Von Rosendahl – 416 Broadway – Block 161; lot 4.01 – applicant wishes to install an above ground pool. Impervious coverage proposed is 59% – reduced from 63% where 50% is allowed.
Ralph Von Rosendahl, applicant, sworn, stated he is looking to install a pool/spa to help with his wife’s health. She suffers from fibro myalgia/arthritis and this will help with her therapy. Vice chair Reynolds commented on the lack of certainty with the calculations. Ray Savacool stated that the survey he had was folded and made it impossible to calculate. The board does not feel comfortable approving something without exact coverage calculations. Application will be carried and give the applicant the time to secure a clean survey.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2022-04 – Ralph/Paula Von Rosendahl – 416 Broadway to January 20th, 2022 without notice
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Loder, Davis, Villani and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application carried without notice
#2021-30 – James/Maria Madormo – 114 Trenton Avenue – Block 68; Lot 11 – Applicant looking for a flood variance to turn garage into habitable space for a bedroom.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application and request. Applicant is requesting a flood variance to convert garage into habitable space.
Exhibits
A-1 Certified Variance Application
A-2 Plan by R.C. Associates, entitled Madormo Grading Plan, dated 8/18/21
A-3 Architectural Plan by Minkler Architecture and Design, entitled Interior Alterations for The Madormo Residence, dated 11/24/20 (last rev. 2/19/21)
A-4 Elevation Certificate by William J. Fiore, P.L.S. dated 3/19/20
A-5 Memo by Borough Code Official Michael Thulen, dated 3/23/21
A-6 Board Engineer Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P., report dated 12/8/21
James Madormo, applicant, sworn described the changes he would like to make.
Mr. Dixon inquired why he is requesting the variance. (So, he doesn’t have to climb stairs) Does not live here year-round.
Mr. Kelly asked for clarification of request.
Anthony V. Minkler, R.A.,sworn, credentials accepted, stated he is a registered architect, licensed in the State of New Jersey and prepared the plan submitted to the Board for consideration.
The proposal is to convert the existing garage bay nearest to Trenton Avenue into first floor habitable space – a proposed first floor bedroom. The existing first floor is at elevation 10.9 which when constructed in 2006 appears to have been compliant with Borough and FEMA requirements. Under current requirements, the first-floor elevation must be a minimum of elevation 12. The plan proposes to construct the new living space at noncompliant elevation 10.9 to match the existing noncompliant first floor.
No audience questions
Dennis Roberts, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated that he is a principal of Rocon Contracting, the contractor proposed to perform the renovation. He testified that the proposed construction provides for no mechanicals, ductwork, structural members, etc. to be provided below the 10.9 elevation of the existing first floor. There is no expansion or proposed change to the footprint of the single-family home.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Kelly – The effort increases the problems it presents – its confusing and I don’t think its legitimately going to solve the problems.
Dixon – A variance is supposed to be a hardship and I do not see a hardship here. It is just something that you want. This is a 4-bedroom house – this is a wish list and it is under the flood level.
Schneider – I think this is a negative precedent. I do not see a hardship. We do not want FEMA coming own our back.
Loder – Our town has spent a lot of time and money to be FEMA compliant. Not in favor.
Davis – There might be an argument to be made that the elevation is the hardship. You are creating additional living space under the flood requirement – not in favor
Villani – Not in favor. I believe when you purchased the home you had the intention of creating another bedroom. I do not believe there is any hardship.
Reynolds – This does not comply with flood requirements and I do not believe there is a hardship.
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by secretary Schneider to deny application #2021-30 – James/Maria Madormo – 114 Trenton Avenue – Block 68; Lot 11
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Loder, Davis, Villani and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application denied
#2021-23 – Tedesco Brothers, LLC – 318 Carter Avenue – Block 197.01; Lot 32 – Applicant wishes to utilize their additional empty lot and park cars in existing gravel driveway.
John J. Jackson, III, Esquire, attorney for the applicant stated that the applicant is looking for a d(1) use variance to allow Applicant (the principals of whom own the adjacent single family home at 320 Carter Avenue) to park a maximum of 4 automobiles on the driveway of the currently vacant subject property. Parking as a principal use is not permitted in the SF-5 Zone.
Exhibits entered
A-1 Certified Variance Application
A-2 Survey of Block 179.01, Lot 32 (318 Carter Avenue)
A-3 Power Point Packet of Documents
A-4 Photos of vacant Lot 32 (318 Carter Avenue)
A-5 Photo of adjacent neighbor lot (316 Carter Avenue)
A-6 Photo of adjacent lot-companion (320 Carter Avenue)
A-7 Photo of neighbor lot (322 Carter Avenue)
A-8 12/10/21 Report of Board Engineer Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Tracy Tedesco, applicant, sworn stated that she is a principal of Applicant Tedesco Brothers, LLC the owner of the subject property, 318 Carter Avenue (Lot 32). She and her husband purchased adjoining property 320 Carter Avenue, a single-family home, approximately 24 years ago. The home is a 3 Bedroom/2 Bath home and provides driveway parking for two vehicles. She has a growing family of 6 and when the children and any friends or family visit, there is inadequate off-street parking for their use of 320 Carter Avenue. During the summer season weekends, on street parking on Carter Avenue is heavily utilized and generally full. Approximately 5 years ago, they purchased 318 Carter Avenue, which had a home in severely damaged condition that was torn down and removed. The lot at 318 is thus vacant, other than the existing gravel from the previous driveway; and Applicant’s delineated garden toward the rear of the lot as shown in the photos/survey submitted. She testified that the existing garden planters are approximately 80 feet from the curb line on Carter Avenue. Tracy volunteered as a condition that no commercial vehicles nor boats would be parked on the lot. She volunteered as a condition that she proposes solely to utilize the requested 4 parking spaces for her family and their guests’ use, accessory to their single-family use of 320 Carter Avenue and that the lot (and any approved parking) would not be used as a paid commercial parking lot.
Applicant agreed as condition to provide a plot plan sketch that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer, detailing the specific dimensions, railroad tie – gravel/stone details proposed for the driveway surface, and delineating the location of the 4 parking spaces nearest to the garden planters and thereby maintaining open space of approximately 40 feet on the driveway nearest to Carter Avenue. Applicant volunteered as a condition that the lawn, fence and driveway proposed must be maintained in good order at all times. Applicant volunteered as a condition that if, in the future, there is no commonality of the principals owning the subject property and adjoining 320 Carter Avenue, then the applicant agrees to extinguish this variance relief in writing at the time of transfer of ownership to any subsequent owners. A deed in the chain of title of both 318 and 320 Carter Avenue, subject to the review and approval of the Board Attorney, shall be recorded to place any future purchasers on notice of this Resolution of Approval and its limiting conditions.
Mr. Dixon would like to see the cars further back away from the sidewalk.
Ray Savacool reviewed delineation and restrictions.
Deliberation
Kelly – stated the area needs new curbs and sidewalks. Believes this is a good solution to the problem and make the lot more attractive.
Dixon – Being the owner owns the home – this makes sense for weekend family parking. Do not believe it will affect anyone.
Schneider – Being owned by the home owner with the conditions in place – in favor
Loder – I am good with it
Davis – It enhances the use for the home owner. I see the benefit and it is a good solution
Villani – In favor
Reynolds – We came to a good solution. No neighbors are complaining. I think anything over four would draw a complaint and this will keep your cars safer. Clarified that only cars will be parked on the lot.
Conditions
- No commercial vehicles, boats or watercraft shall be parked on the subject property.
- The 4 parking spaces approved shall be utilized solely by Applicant’s family and/or guests, accessory to the family’s single family residential use of 320 Carter Avenue (adjacent to subject property).
- The subject property and the 4 approved parking spaces shall not be used for paid commercial parking.
- A plot plan sketch must be provided, subject to the review and approval of the Board engineer, detailing the driveway dimensions, railroad tie delineation, gravel-stone surface detail, and delineation of 4 RSIS compliant parking spaces nearest to the existing garden planters. The plan shall maintain approximately 40’ of open driveway space (not to be utilized for parking) nearest to Carter Avenue.
- The lawn, fencing, and driveway on the subject property shall be maintained in good order and condition at all times.
- If, in the future, there is no commonality of ownership by the principal owners of the subject property and adjoining 320 Carter Avenue, applicant or its successor shall be bound to extinguish this variance relief. Same shall be in writing at the time of transfer of ownership to any subsequent purchasers.
- A deed shall be recorded in the chain of title for the subject property and 320 Carter Avenue, subject to the review of the Board Attorney, to place any future purchasers on notice of this Resolution of Approval and its limiting conditions.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2021-23 – Tedesco Brothers, LLC – 318 Carter Avenue – Block 197.01; Lot 32 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Loder, Davis, Villani and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 10:25pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
