February 20, 2020 Minutes - Borough of Point Pleasant Beach

FEBRUARY 20, 2020 REGULAR MEETING

The February 20, 2020 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. Pasola, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee and Ms. Crasper

Also, present: Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Absent – Mr. Spader, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius

Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the minutes of January 16, 2020 –

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and McGee

Opposed: None

Resolutions to memorialize

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2019-41 of Margaret/Catherine Loughran – 19 Danby Place-

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Loder and Pasola

Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Pasola to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2019-39 of John/Valerie Golio – 208 New Jersey Avenue – with conditions

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Loder and Pasola

Opposed: None

Clarification of resolution #2019-26 – AAB Properties LLC- 159 Baltimore Ave. – #5 which states “The applicant shall reduce size of roof deck to fit approximately two people and a table.” –

John Jackson attorney for applicant explained the request. The resolution did not give exact dimension so when the applicant submitted the revised plan the zoning officer rejected the plan stating the deck is still too big. The depth of revised deck is 11 feet 7 inches reduced from 13 feet and the width is now 15 feet. Ray Savacool says it seems to be reduced by 2 feet. Mr. Dixon said wasn’t there something in there that said it wouldn’t be visible from the street? Dennis Galvin referred to the resolution and apologized that there were not dimensions listed in the resolution. Ray Savacool stated that the deck is too big for 2 chairs and a table – it has not been reduced sufficiently. Dennis Galvin stated the applicant should submit a new drawing showing a reduction of the deck to only accommodate 2 chairs and a table. Dennis Galvin directed the board that this is the applicant’s burden and is sure that there is a calculation for this.

Letter request – administrative consideration – Resolution – 2019-22 – Gankiewicz – requesting to amend the condition referencing the foundation covering –

Ray Savacool reviewed letter and stated the house has morphed since board approval – Ray’s question was at what point is that the house that is going to be built is not the house that the board approved. Ray would like to see what it will look like.

Richard Hughes, applicant’s builder attended building.

The Board decided that the changes to the elevations should be reviewed prior to approval. Mr. Pasola would like to see what it looks like prior to approval. Richard Hughes stated that he will have the changes submitted for review. Richard Hughes stated that the house is built on pilings – this will be break away walls and similar to the other houses in the neighborhood. The board will review prior to the next meeting.

Agenda

Application #2020-06 – William/Suzanne Whitley – 1006 Gowdy Avenue – Block 36; Lot 11.01 – Applicant wishes to add addition to rear of dwelling and relocate front porch.

George Loder recused himself from the Whitley application.

William Whitley, applicant, sworn, stated that he is looking to add a addition to the rear of the home and relocate the porch. The issues are that the lot is undersized. Front porch encroaches into the side yard setback and front setback – rear setback conforms. The applicant believes that this improves the aesthetics of the home. Front porch will be 6 foot by 8 foot – a little smaller than existing porch.

Deliberations

Kelly – Not tearing it down – going to improve it – no problem with it.

Dixon – Pretty simple case here – variances is because of the situation with the property. Looks like a nice little addition.

Pasola – I agree with Mr. Kelly – it is nice to see that old part of town still have the same look it has had for years. I see a definite hardship – they have a nice house on a non-conforming lot. The addition is not detrimental to any of the neighbors – I see no reason to turn this down.

McGee – I agree – this is a case of taking something that has existed for a very long time and improving it. Cannot justify any reason to deny it. In favor

Crasper – Has not issues with the application

Schneider – Agrees with the rest of the Board. Existing non-conforming lot – we have seen undersized lots before and as long as it not too ostentatious we have approved.

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2020-06 – William/Suzanne Whitley – 1006 Gowdy Avenue – Block 36; Lot 11.01 with conditions

In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, McGee, Crasper and Schneider

Opposed: None

Conditions

Replace gravel with grass.

Application approved with conditions

Application #2020-01 – Lisa/Richard Pizzuta – 301 New York Avenue – Block 41; Lot- 1 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single-family dwelling.

Walter Slomienski, applicant’s attorney, reviewed application. Exhibit A-3 – photo array of various homes in the area on corner lots. Richard Pizzuta, applicant, sworn. Justin Calvert, PA, Sworn. Justin Calvert has appeared before the Toms River board, credentials accepted. The architect reviewed the plans and stated that the lot is 50 by 125 feet; also proposing inground pool. Front yard setback request is 22.5 feet where 25 is required; side yard setback on Chicago Avenue request of 11 feet where 25 feet is required. Justin Calvert feels the design is a more contemporary version of a shore house; he did not incorporate the 85% second story rule because they didn’t like it. There will be a rear yard outdoor shower under staircase but will not be plumed to waste. The applicant is requesting to remove the large old tree located on New York Avenue. Applicant is directed to contact the zoning officer and shade tree about the tree removal. The applicant stated he will replace the tree with a smaller tree. The total square footage of living space is approximately 3,200 square feet; the attic will be finished. Mr. Dixon questioned why they cannot meet the 25-foot front yard setback on Chicago and why are they not complying with the 85% second story rule. The board feels if the applicant complies with the 85 % rule the side yard might have more appeal on the Chicago side. Mr. Kelly inquired about the site-triangle and he would like to see sidewalks installed. Acting Chairman Schneider stated that the board has been strict on the 85% rule. Mr. McGee has issues with the side elevation that goes straight up on the Chicago Avenue elevation and wants to know why this house does not have to follow the 85% rule. The applicant replied that he wants the extra room. Ray Savacool replied that the applicant is also looking for a variance on that set back.

Dennis Galvin believes the smart thing is to go back and make these adjustments. Chairman Schneider inquired why the attic space has a bathroom. The applicant said he has a lot of family that visits from Pennsylvania. Mr. McGee stated that people live hear year-round and they follow the rules; this is a large house. Dennis Galvin reviewed the boards concerns; they feel the house is over powering. Acting Chairman Schneider would like the bathroom in the attic removed. Mr. Dixon said the Shade tree should inspect the tree.

Audience questions

Corrine Brennan, New Jersey Avenue – the rear of the house doesn’t face the ocean or lake and does not know why they have to have a second-floor deck that just looks in their back yard.

Council gave a waiver of the time for the Board to act.

Motion by Mr. McGee, second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2020-01 of Lisa/Richard Pizzuta – 301 New York Avenue – Block 41; Lot- 1 to April 16, 2020 without notice.

In favor – Kelly, Dixon, Pasola, Loder, McGee, Crasper and Schneider

Opposed – None

Application carried without notice

Application #2019-10 – Scott/Claire Farber – 134 Randall Avenue – Block129.02/Lot 15.01 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single-family house to be FEMA compliant and add decks

John Dixon stepped down from the Farber application.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed the prior meeting and the changes that have been made. Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder and Ms. Crasper have listened to the audio from the previous meeting dated September 19, 2019 and are qualified to vote on the application this evening. Proposed building coverage is 43.5%. They applicant has revised the plan and relocated the stairs as requested and reduced the size of the deck. The second- floor deck has been removed. PP Presentation marked A-6. Steve Farber, applicant, commented on the present flooding problem that occurs on his property and how he feels this plan will help elevate the situation. If there is a little bit of rain, a little bit of wind and high tide the area floods.

Ray Savacool stated that the Ocean Ave has an easement that drains out not far from this property. The county is actually supposed to put a backflow preventer in there fairly soon I hear. Mr. McGee inquired what the driveway was made of – concrete.

Deliberations

Kelly – I don’t think the problem will ever be solved to everyone’s satisfaction but I no problem with this plan and I wish you luck.

Pasola – Everything that I have seen with this application seems to perfectly fit in with what is going on, on Randall Avenue. I like the changes that were made – I see a definite hardship pertaining in that area and they did their best to look good and conform.

Loder – In agreement with Mayor Pasola – Hardship flooding situation – like the way you dealt with reducing the scope of your project from the first appearance. The issue with the front stairs is de minimis. I am in favor of the application

McGee – I agree – the bottom line is there is more water that there used to be – whatever the reason is – 3 cars is a lot to lose – you made the changes that we discussed – I can’t justify telling you not to be high and dry so I am in favor.

Crapser – In agreement with the rest of the board – you made adjustments – you eliminated the deck and adjusted the stairs – I wish you the best of luck.

Schneider – I agree with the board – you made the changes we wanted to have done – It is not ostentatious. In favor

Conditions