Borough of Point Pleasant Beach FEBRUARY 18, 2021 BOA MINUTES
The February 18, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:00pm via the zoom platform. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.”
Present were Board members: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Vice Chair Reynolds, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Crasper, Pasola, McGee and Villani
Also, present: Karen Mills, Clerk, Ray Savacool, Engineer and Dennis Galvin, Esq.
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize Application#2020-23 of EAF ONE, LLC (Gottleib Building) – 641 Arnold Avenue – Block 202/Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to renovate existing building and construct 7 hotel rooms and expand retail use to 3 units. Applicant is requesting a use variance for hotel use; and variances for parking, setbacks and signage with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Regular Meeting………………………………………………..7:00pm
Open Public Meetings Act
Roll Call
Memorialization of Minutes
January 28, 2021 minutes
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize Application#2020-23 of EAF ONE, LLC (Gottleib Building) – 641 Arnold Avenue – Block 202/Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to renovate existing building and construct 7 hotel rooms and expand retail use to 3 units. Applicant is requesting a use variance for hotel use; and variances for parking, setbacks and signage with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Applications
2021-02 – Last Wave Brewery – 601 Bay Avenue – Block 91.01/Lot 29/30 – Applicant looking to expand use of existing Brewery to include second building and outdoor seating.
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Vice chair Reynolds to carry Last Wave Brewery application 2021-02 to April 15, 2021 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Loder, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
2021-03 – CMG Builders/Kristin Orlando Trust – 300 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 25; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant home on a corner lot requiring a front setback variance.
Kristin Orlando/Mark Hyman, applicants sworn. Kristin Orlando testified that she and her husband are looking to build a new single-family dwelling.
William Merunka, Professional Engineer, credentials accepted, reviewed requested variances. All coverages are met except the one front yard setback. Ray Savacool questioned the height of the fence. Ray Savacool stated that the applicant requires a fence variance for a 6-foot section of fence that is not in the rear yard. Mark Hyman stated he needs the fence for the dogs. Ray Savacool explained that the fence extends about 12 feet further because that’s the depth of your proposed porch and I think what you just said you want to keep it there, because the elevation on that side is exposed and you want that fenced in.
David Feldman, Principal Architect of Feldman Architects, PA licensed in New Jersey, credentials accepted, stated the front yard setback on Philadelphia avenue is the required 25 feet, the existing is currently at 30.22 feet, and we’re proposing 25.77 to a balcony so that’s conforming. Second setback will be 16.8 feet to porch and 14.88 to window. The second-floor habitable area was in question in terms of testimony of the 85%, the home as designed was reduced in scale to conform to be under the 2500 square foot, which would mitigate the 85% second floor requirement. There’s also an elevator that’s going to be proposed that goes down to the ground floor, first floor and second floor. Second floor consists of four bedrooms and three baths. What we would like to do is take that fence line and instead of extending it to the deck which is here extend it to the corner of the house. HVAC equipment will be installed in bump out on roof. Home will be sided with cedar impressions and will be landscaped with hydrangeas. Driveway will be on Philadelphia. Applicant will install curbing and comply with sidewalk ordinance. Mr. Kelly inquired if the trees will remain – he commented that they are substantial sized trees. Kristin Orlando stated that the trees will remain.
Kevin Lightbody, builder, sworn commented that he will inspect them to see if they will remain. Mr. Kelly stated that they should be replaced if removed. Ray Savacool stated they are not on private property they are in the right of way. Mark Hyman commented that this home is going to be beautiful and it will not be skimped on.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Kelly – Let me start by saying I am in favor of this project; it will be an asset to the area. The curb and sidewalk are an issue. As far as the trees are concerned, they are owned by the county. All intents and purposes I like the design.
Schneider – In agreement with fellow board member; great design. Would like to see the sidewalks installed – no problem with the fence.
Dixon – I want to commend the architect with design and setbacks. Real nice-looking house.
Reynolds – We are basically here because it is a corner lot; it is a reasonably sized house. Fine with the fence coming to the end of the porch.
Loder – leaning in favor of this project. Issues are deminimis.
Davis – Like wise I think the house design is an enhancement to the zone. Fence enhances the usability of the yard.
Struncius – The fact that this is a corner lot and they held the one setback with just the fence variance I am fully in approval.
Conditions
- The house will be sided with cedar impressions (Driftwood blend).
- The curb will be installed.
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2021-03 – CMG Builders/Kristin Orlando Trust – 300 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 25; Lot 20 with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Loder, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
2021-04 – Denman Powers- 116 Dartmouth – Block 160; Lot 28 – applicant wishes to install pool equipment in the 5-foot side yard setback.
Denman Powers, applicant sworn, reviewed request. Moved in a year ago and realized he has an easement in the rear and wants to install a garage and move the pool equipment which would require a variance. Mr. Davis inquired where the discharge will go if moved to the side of the home. Denman Powers stated the water will be piped to the front.
Mr. Dixon questioned why the garage cannot be moved closer to the easement and put the mechanicals in a conforming location?
Mr. Loder. Questioned if he will be able to build a garage and not exceed coverage? (Yes)
Mr. Davis questioned what the garage would be used for? Will it be a cabana? Denman Powers stated it might be part cover for the pool (pool hut).
Chairman Struncius stated he is not comfortable with the application as is. There are too many unanswered questions.
Denman Powers stated he could remove the Pool Hut and just request a garage.
Vice Chair Reynolds stated that the application is strictly for the pool mechanicals and there is no reason why it cannot be conforming – does not see a hardship.
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to carry application 2021-04 of Denman Powers- 116 Dartmouth – Block 160; Lot 28 to June 17, 2021 without notice.
Denman Powers waived the time for the board to hear the application.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Loder, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application carried without notice
2021-07 – Patricia Freda – 21Forman Avenue – Block 67; Lot 6 – Applicant wishes to install generator in side yard setback- 1.5 feet where 5 feet is required.
John Jackson attorney for applicant reviewed request. Power Point being entered as exhibit A-3.
Charles Ferraiolo, sworn, professional electrician licensed in New Jersey reviewed request for installation and why they would like to install it next to the home in the setback. Generator would charge at 2pm on Friday for two hours.
Patricia Freda, applicant, sworn, explained her request. Mr. Dixon questioned why she isn’t placing it behind the garage. I understand that it might be a little inconvenient – but you do not have a hardship. There is plenty of room for the unit to be placed in a conforming location and it is not going to upset the view. Chairman Struncius inquired how are you going to permanently close the window for compliance of installation? Mr. Kelly would like to see a fence surrounding it with a gate if approved. Mr. Dixon does not like the idea of a permanently closed window; he would like to see the window removed. The electrician stated it would be in the middle of the yard if it is conforming; it has to be 5-feet away from everything.
Audience comments
Janet/Greg Butler, neighbors, sworn, stated they had multiple conversations with the neighbor, if the generator was in the back yard it would probably remove some of the beautiful landscaping we enjoy from our yard. They actually requested that it be in the side yard. They have no problem with the requested placement.
Chairman Struncius inquired what the building coverage is – there seems to be a lot. Ray Savacool stated he calculated it at 36.5%. Chairman Struncius commented that it sticks so high up in the air right now and does not believe that the arborvitae will screen it.
Deliberations
Kelly – The last summation put me in the position to approve this. I think the arborvitae is a great idea. Not only will it help the aesthetics, it will also probably cut down on the noise, especially if you were to put them on the side of the neighbors also as your surround the thing.
Reynolds – Alright, so as we can see it’s not as cut and dry as it would appear. I one hundred percent agree that generator is a positive thing to have, I think we’ve all on this board have probably lived through sandy in one way or another, some worse than others. I truly believe that the backyard next to the garage would be the ideal spot for this generator rather than cramming it in between two houses. I’m afraid that you have an alleyway where it’s going to actually louder than you would expect. I wish, there was a way to put it in the backyard.
Schneider – It’s not a great place for a generator aesthetically really. It is really a positive thing to have a generator when a storm causes you to lose power, and you can run extension cords from the generators to neighbors. But I think with the current conditions I would approve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dixon – Okay, obviously, you know I feel about this already but you have a situation here where it’s in a side yard setback, not necessarily need to be there – there are plenty other locations. It’s increasing a lot coverage, even though it’s only a little bit. There’s absolutely no hardship here because we have showed him at least two or three different spots where it could be put. Absolutely dead set against this.
Loder – I agree with Mr. Dixon, there really hasn’t been a hardship proven. There are alternate locations to place this generator but I’m also swayed by the support of the neighbors and the fact that the neighbors came forward and they don’t think that it’s going to be an issue for them and so I’m going to just listen to what everybody else has to say, but let’s see how it plays out Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Davis – Well I’m going to agree with a couple different sides of this. Number one is I don’t think this is a good location for a generator. I think there’s issues related to the zoning for it, that make it difficult, however I’m going to say that it is probably the most practical place to put it, you have your existing gas line there you have your electrical box there. I think a big part of what we do in zoning is not just about making things conform to the rules, but looking at applications and how they impact the general use of a person’s property. I find that that putting this generator in this particular location is the least detrimental to the zone.
Struncius – First, I understand all the reasoning that you provided and there’s certainly no argument to you know what many of us again, as Mr. Reynold said went through sandy and lots of devastation and days and days without electric and all those things again, sometimes we have to remove that emotion to who currently owns the property and the plight of it, because this is a long term, it runs with the property whatever decision we make and it’s for the next owner and then after that and. I’m more in line with where Mr. Dixon is and my issue really is the percentages of where we are, I mean when does it become too much.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Vice-chair Reynolds to deny application 2021-07 – Patricia Freda – 21Forman Avenue – Block 67; Lot 6 –
In favor: Dixon, Reynolds, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: Kelly, Schneider and loder
Application Denied.
2021-08 – Tom Swift/Swifties PPB Properties, LLC – 105 St. Louis Avenue – Block 156; Lot 1 – Applicant looking to add open porch along St. Louis.
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Kelly to carry application 2021-08 of Tom Swift d/b/a Swifties PPB Properties, LLC – 105 St. Louis Avenue – Block 156; Lot 1 – Applicant looking to add open porch along St. Louis. To May 20, 2021 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Loder, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm
Attest; Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk to the Board
