February 15, 2018

Minutes

February 15, 2018

The February 15, 2018 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. Spader, Mr. Kelly, vice chair Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo and Mr. Davis
Absent – Reynolds and Crasper
Also present – Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet – court Reporter
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of January 18, 2018
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of January 24, 2018
In favor: Schneider, Kelly, Dixon and David
Opposed: None

Memorialize resolutions
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2018-01 of Alyssa K. Miksis – 1001 Gowdy Avenue w/ conditions –
In favor: Schneider, Kelly, Dixon and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2018-06 of Kristy/Anthony Adinolfi – 119 Central w/conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2017-34 – Cassie Childers Trust – 809 Trenton Avenue – Block 91.03; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to subdivide lot that has an existing multi-family dwelling into two lots.
Mr. Schneider has recused himself from the Childers application
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed proposed subdivision. Applicant is proposing to reduce one of the apartment units which John Jackson stated he thinks would reduce the density. The applicant proposes to eliminate garage and create parking spaces in front yard on Trenton Court side of apartment building. Curb cut would need to be 40 feet long and would sacrifice some on street parking. John Jackson stated the apartment building is a prior non-conforming use. Building was constructed in 1935. One issue to discuss is res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties). There was a similar application in 1984 that was denied. John Jackson believes that things are now different in Point Pleasant Beach and the development pattern is different. John Jackson believes that by eliminating one rental unit that it creates a substantial change from the previous application. John Jackson believes that the special reason would be that it is appropriate use of the property in a SF5 zone and that it promotes appropriate population density and that is also provides a variety of residential uses and that it advances those special reasons.
Dennis Galvin explained that variances are never granted just for the owner that they have to benefit the entire community. Ray Savacool does not believe that the elimination of one unit reduces the density because they would be building a house with increased number of bedrooms which increases the density.

Cassie Childers, applicant, sworn, stated that she has owned the property since May of 2016. The house is an investment and she just got married so she thought she would build a house on the sub-divided lot. Cassie stated that she purchased a well maintained house. Cassie Childers reviewed slides of the property. Proposing to remove garage but driveway will remain, the large trees will remain. Proposing to eliminate attic apartment and then will utilize it for storage. Cassie did admit that she is illegally renting the office to a friend as an apartment. Cassie believes that the home has been a multiple unit since the 1960’s. Chairman Struncius confirmed that the kitchen and bathroom will be removed from the attic apartment. Apartments are not used for seasonal rental. Mr. Davis confirmed that the attic apartment is a one bedroom (Yes). Mr. Kelly questioned changing tenants and inspections – Cassie replied that she did not realize that she needed to re-inspect between tenants.
Audience questions
Jennifer Penrod – 817 Trenton Avenue – questioned that she illegally has 5 units – how do we know that you will remove the two units as stated.

Ray Carpenter, Professional Engineer/Planner, credentials accepted, stated that this is a unique situation since this property has almost three frontages. The new lot would be 5,033 square feet and the new home would need a variance because it is an irregular lot. Ray Carpenter does not believe that this will be increasing the density. Proposing five parking spaces off of Trenton Court in front of the home and two in the driveway. The single family home will have its own onsite parking. Mr. Davis inquired if there is currently parking on property. (Yes) Mr. Spader inquired what plan B is if the 40 foot curb cut is denied. (None planned at this time) Mr. Spader inquired if the applicant had considered knocking down the home and building two conforming homes. (No)Ray Carpenter stated that he believes this this is an appropriate use for the area. Mr. Kelly requested clarification of present on street parking. Mr. Dixon stated that there will be 4 non-conforming setbacks because the rear yard will be under.

Audience questions
Catherine Saponara – 807 Trenton – Questioned the new rear setback. 21.67 feet to the new lot line. She stated that it is only 16 feet to the stairs and questioned how the cars are going to fit in a 16 foot driveway and how will the cars be able to turn around. (They are going to back out)Catherine inquired where the garbage will be stored. (By stairs near driveway) Catherine replied that you will have 9 garbage cans by stairs and cars; that will be a little tight.
Ruth Schneider – 819 Trenton Avenue – Is there any occupancy quota or restrictions on the units? RC replied he believes the Co occupancy goes by bedrooms. Ruth replied what is to keep 2 adults and two teenage children from moving in a 2 bedroom – then you have 4 cars for one unit. Ray Carpenter replied that is a possibility.
Andrew Penrod – 817 Trenton Avenue – Questioned if it is normal to cut out multiple parking spaces.
Jennifer Penrod – How are you adding additional parking when you are taking away spaces? She referenced all the lost parking spaces. Chairman Struncius clarified there are not more on street spots.

Audience Comments
Ruth Schneider – 819 Trenton Avenue, sworn, stated her concern is site of vision if there is head on parking – it could be a minivan or a truck and it will impact flow of traffic. Ruth has had 5 cars hit and the fire hydrant taken out. The only thing she has seen is an economic gain for the applicant.
Jennifer Penrod, 817 Trenton Avenue, sworn, house is right across the street from the property. Photo entered as N-1 – taken by Jen Penrod last week. Depicts typical parking day. There is an increased number of occupants in the apartment house. Other concern is the neighborhood children – ages ranging from 3 to 13 – they are on their bikes and scooters and feels it is a danger. Does not believe that removing one apartment with one occupant is going to alleviate the problem. Does not feel it is the best thing for the street and community. John Jackson questioned her driveway (She does not have a driveway) parks on the street.
Catherine Saponara, 807 Trenton Avenue, sworn, concerned with parking, does not believe the cars are going to fit and the garbage will be an issue.
Helen Schulter, 200 Trenton Court, sworn, concerned with statement in calling this lower income housing. Dennis Galvin believes it was stated as diverse housing not lower income. Wants to be careful about the precedents being set. Dennis Galvin explained that the Zoning Board does not set precedent every case is heard on its own merit. Her next concern is safety and believes that cars backing out would be dangerous.

John Jackson gave his closing argument

Conditions
1. All habitation elements must be removed from the attic.
2. The plan is to be revised to limit the Trenton Avenue house to three (3) units.
3. The three car garage is to be removed prior to issuance of a permit for the single family home.
Deliberations

Spader – Not overly convinced that the positives outweigh the negatives – not in favor of an expansion of a non-conforming use that disrupts and SF5 zone. I think the people can live with what there now but to increase it is not acceptable – on the negative side at this point.
Kelly – Congratulated the owners – it is a nice looking place. However – I am reading that you are removing one unit and replacing it with a single family home – you are removing something from the attic. You are encroaching on a property that is already non-conforming and encroaching on the non-conformity. We are gate keepers and our job is to get rid of non-conformities. I cannot vote in favor of this
Reilly – has a number of concerns and agrees with Mr. Kelly – I do not see how the non-conformity is being reduced which is what we are supposed to do in a situation like this. Secondly we talk about the density being reduced – I believe the number of units is a wash – We start with 4 and end up with 4 – I believe the people will increase. Probably the biggest single consideration is the safety problem with people backing out on Trenton court.
Dixon – Has a few concerns – first is the on street parking being eliminated, has been down the road in the last week, it is very tight. Adding parking spots might help but I do not see it as a positive, knows how the parking game is played. Concerned about proposed driveway – taking up too much space. Not in favor
DePolo – First like to compliment the Childers family – The house has been managed well – the street is tight – there are no sidewalks and the kids tend to be in the street – right or wrong and that could be dangerous. I give great weight to residents and their concerns – inclined to decline this approval.
Davis – Goes by this property almost everyday – it is well maintained. I think this is a tough one – We are getting a new single family home but on the other hand we are getting a non-conforming use with parking issues. Sometimes not having off street parking on a multi-family structure can be an issue – I see nothing but problems associated with this unfortunately. I think the impacts on the remaining property outweigh the benefits of that.
Struncius – Neighbors brought up good points, concerns and good questions. Not much more to add. This is just too much – what is going on currently. You are getting rid of attic unit but adding a house. Does not have logic – does not balance for everyone. The parking solution just doesn’t work.

Dennis Galvin reviewed res judicata and how it might apply to this application and believes it might not apply to this application based on changes to the application.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by vice chair Reilly to deny application #2017-34 – Cassie Childers Trust – 809 Trenton Avenue – Block 91.03; Lot 1

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Dixon, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application denied

Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board