Borough of Point Pleasant Beach January 16, 2020
The January 16, 2020 Re-organizational and 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, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Loder, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGee, Ms. Crapser and Mr. Struncius
Absent – Spader
Also present, Karen MIlls, Ray Savacool and Hershel Rose
Reorganization of the Board
Oaths of Office
Appointment of Board Clerk – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to appoint Karen L. Mills to the position of Clerk
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Appointment of Board Chairman – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to nominate Paul Struncius position of Board Chairman
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Appointment of Board vice –Chair – Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Pasola to nominate Jay Reynolds to the position of Vice-Chairman.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Appointment of Board Secretary – Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to nominate Mr. Schneider to the position of board secretary.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Appointment of Board Attorney – Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Secretary Schneider to nominate Dennis Galvin of the firm DELMP to the position of Board Attorney.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Appointment of Board Engineer – Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to nominate Ray Savacool of the firm T 7 M associates to the position of Board Engineer.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Vice -chair Reynolds to designate the Asbury Park Press and the Ocean Star as the Board’s official newspapers.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Minutes to memorialize
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of December 5, 2019
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and McGee
Opposed: None
Resolutions to memorialize
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2019-24 of
Daniel/Danna Savino – 128 Ocean Avenue – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Davis, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. McGee, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving
In favor: Kelly, Davis, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2019-38 of Margaret A. Semenuk – 133 A Randall Avenue – Block 136: Lot 5 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Davis, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Agenda
Application #2019-39 – John/Valerie Golio – 208 New Jersey – Block 42 Lot 16 – Applicant removed existing above ground deck platform and wishes to construct a new platform
John Jackson attorney for applicant entered exhibit A-3 – Power point presentation (10 pages).
Applicant was referred to the board because he replaced the pool deck with larger deck. John Jackson believes the pool is 10 feet from the setbacks and that the deck should not be included in the calculations. The pool itself is 20 feet off the property line and the deck provides adequate safety. Chairman Struncius requested clarification from the engineer. Ray Savacool stated it should be 5 feet off the property line as an accessory structure and the board should use their own judgement. The applicant also has a number of pre-existing variances. Ray Savacool believes that the setback was originated as a safety issue. John Dixon inquired if there are special conditions for free standing decks. Ray Savacool replied that you may have a free-standing deck as long as the permits have been applied for and that it has been inspected.
John Golio, applicant, sworn stated that he previously had a metal platform around the pool. The applicant was replacing the rusted platform. This deck is a replacement of that platform. The yard is very secluded – there is not room for people to hang out; it is more of a safety feature. Deck is comprised of composite board – this deck is 12 by 18 inches larger than previous deck. The deck is 2% building coverage. Mr. Dixon inquired why they built the deck bigger? John Golio replied he made it larger just to square it off.
Deliberation
Kelly – It is a 4-foot pool – I get concerned when they put pools next to the garage because kids can jump off the roof. I am not concerned with that. Back yard fence and arborvitae provide safety. No problem.
Schneider – Original pool was obtained by permit – will not hinder anybody’s light or air – do not have a problem.
Reynolds – Agree with what was said. You did have previous approval for the pool – a little concerned with overages on building and impervious.
Dixon – Classic easier to ask for forgiveness than permission – but it is only a foot longer – not over powering in the yard – it is over on coverage but not by much.
Loder – Listened to testimony and visited property – deck is more functional now – can live with 2% overage.
Pasola – Also agree with what has been said – I also walked the property – I think you are doing a nice job – I think it is a nice improvement over what was there before. I like the arborvitae that are there for privacy. There are no neighbors here complaining. I see no reason not to approve this application.
McGee – I am inclined to agree – you have a safe structure that is composite – and safer for supervision and kids getting in and out of the pool. Safety is what is most important to me. I am in favor
Davis – Took the words right out of my mouth – I completely agree – in this case it is the deck being interpreted as part of the pool. We have a lot of coverage but most of it is pavers – it is a modest house that makes good use of the backyard.
Crapser – I think the board said everything.
Struncius – I agree that the board summed things up well – prior approvals remain the same. In terms of building and impervious we worry about runoff – we are talking about a deck that allows recharge.
Motion by secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2019-39 of John/Valerie Golio – 208 New Jersey – Block 42 Lot 16 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: NoneApplication approved with conditions
Application #2019-41 – Catherine/Margaret Loughran – 19 Danby Place – Block 121; Lot 5.05 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single-family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single-family dwelling.
John Jackson, attorney for applicants. Entered Power Point presentation as exhibit A-3. (18 pages) Power Point presentation entered as A-4 consisting of photographs. John Jackson gave opening statement of requested variances. Catherine Loughran requires special needs and John Jackson stated that that is something that zoning is supposed to take into account. Home is basically being built on the same footprint except for the rear yard setback to accommodate for Catherine’s bedroom. The home is higher to allow for a garage underneath for access to elevator. Height of roof is 34 feet and 37 feet to top of elevator shaft. There is also a roof top deck. Photograph 3 shows a large extended pick up truck can fit in the parking space. Photos show setbacks. Clients have owned house for 18 years and are looking to move here full-time.
Hershel Rose stated that the hardship variance is not based on the disability that it is based on the property. John Jackson disagreed.
Ray Savacool explained the height variance – after hurricane Sandy – bto allow rebuilds the height was changed to 25 feet from base flood elevation (A9) – which allows a 1 ½ story house – house as proposed this house is 34 feet – 9 feet over allowable height which creates a D6 variance which requires 5 out of 7 votes.
John Freeman, professional engineer, sworn, credentials accepted. John Freeman gave an overview of proposed plan. Side yard setbacks will remain at 1.5 feet and 3.2 feet; under impervious coverage at 51% – 34 feet to roof peak (9-foot overage). Rear yard setback is 22 feet. John Freeman believes the variances are driven by the size of the lot. John Freeman reviewed the board engineers’ letter. John Freeman believes the new house is a benefit to the community. House is accessed through easement – narrow road but there is room for construction access in front of house. Parking requirement will be met by supplying 2 cars in garage and 2 cars parked out front. Utility company will have to take a look at the property. John Freeman believes that the height of the utility poles will need to be increased. John Freeman believes that building this home at 37 feet in height will not affect the lower surrounding homes. Mr. Davis inquired why the a/c units cannot be located on the rear deck instead of the sideyard setback since the deck is elevated; also inquired if John Freeman had experience working with the utility companies and replacing utility poles. (No) Ray Savacool explained that only 1 ½ story homes are permitted so there is no need to the apply the 85% rule. Mr. Pasola inquired ownership of Danby Place. Ray Savacool stated it is a Borough right of way.
Audience questions
Bob Montefusco, Beachcomber Lane – Referenced photo and stated that it was a real old photo. He believes the house at the requested height would affect neighboring properties. John Jackson questioned the height of his house. (25 feet)
Mr. Loder stated that what he is hearing the surrounding properties have complied with the 25-foot height requirement.
Margaret Loughran, applicant, sworn – wanted to point out surrounding utility poles and wondered why it is an issue.
Arnold Boyle, Professional Architect, AIA, sworn, – At this time it has been a summer house but has been asked to design a special year-round home to accommodate Catherine and her disability and accommodate a garage. Arnold Boyle explained that the garage would keep Catherine out of the weather and allow her to navigate; the height of the garage is 18 feet. The width of the home is 20 feet. The elevator will get Catherine up into the house; there are wider hallways to comfortably get her into her bedroom. Home is designed to have the first floor to accommodate Catherine. Chairman Struncius questioned if the height of the home is brought down if she could access the first floor by a ramp and not need an elevator. (Yes) Mr. Pasola questioned the existing parking area and will it remain. (Yes)Mr. Pasola has major concerns with the height. John Jackson stated the design is to give Catherine the same abilities, opportunities and quality of life that people without disabilities have. John Jackson referenced aerial photo and heights of surrounding houses. Mr. Pasola stated that as he remembers there is no setting precedent. Ray Savacool stated that John Jackson cannot make a blanket statement about the houses on the boardwalk. Chairman Struncius replied that the location is totally different and every application stands on its own merit. Mr. Dixon inquired about the distance from the back of the existing house. Ray Savacool stated that the home can be reduced 9 feet in height and comply with FEMA regulations. Arnold Boyle reviewed floor heights, – 1st floor is at 18 feet 3 inches; second floor 9 feet and 3rd floor is at 8 feet. One condenser will be located in attic and one in rear setback. Height to top of elevator shaft is 37 feet 11 inches; height to roof peak is 34 feet from BFE. Mr. Loder clarified that the 8 feet of elevator shaft height is for someone to get out on the roof top deck. Mr. Loder inquired about egress for habitants to get out in case of a fire. Reviewed colored renderings; Cedar shake siding and stone veneer. Arnold Boyle compared home to one located on Ocean Avenue. Mr. Kelly inquired how you repair a home that is 1 ½ feet off neighboring home; you cannot even put a ladder there -Arnold Boyle does not know.
Margaret Loughran, applicant explained how they navigate her sister around existing house. Margaret stated that having the new home would give Catherine more independence. Margaret explained that she and her mother are Catherine’s caretakers; Margaret works fulltime and is primary caregiver. Current access to home is a ramp. Catherine cannot navigate present house without assistance. Catherine has a handy- cap accessible van that she drives with ramp. Designed floor plan allows Catherine to navigate home. John Jackson referenced slide 11. Margaret pointed out new builds, roof lines and two-family house – she commented that most of the houses she referenced face the ocean and have different elevations. Slide 13 shows the houses with garages underneath. Margaret believes this house is modest with providing amenities that are needed.
Audience questions
Brian Boyle, 141 Boardwalk – home on boardwalk – supports this application.
Catherine Loughran, applicant, sworn, stated she is a paraplegic that has been in the chair for 32 years. Catherine stated that hopefully this home would be for the rest of her life. Catherine has navigated this house for 18 years but has always needed assistance; she has never been able to access the deck by herself. Catherine would like to be able to have independence – at this time she feels vulnerable accessing the house by herself and the independence would give her more dignity. Mr. Loder inquired if they asked the architect to build a compliant home. (No) Mr. Davis questioned the roof top deck – for sake of approval would you let go of the roof top deck. Catherine stated it would be very hard for her to say yes; she cannot get to the beach without assistance and would like to be able to see the ocean. Chairman Struncius commented that maybe a small deck could be brought to the front of the home- having an outside deck on top of your house overlooking all of the surrounding homes is an unusual circumstance – just letting you know. Mr. Schneider stated that he is very reluctant to have a roof top deck in consideration of the neighbors.
The applicants agreed to eliminate the roof top deck and elevator shaft and the height would be 34 feet.
John Dixon believes there could be like a carport there and then an entrance to the elevator so that the house could be lower. Vice-chair Reynolds believes they should consider the height overall. The first floor alone is even with neighboring houses.
John Jackson does not believe that this design is extravagant.
Audience comments
Rob Montefusco, sworn, stated he has home on Beachcomber Lane since 1986. They built a new home and was only allowed and story and a half. We conformed to the ordinance and have a small deck in front. If this house if allowed we will be looking at this eyesore sticking out. We do not see anything at this height in the area.
Jim Brendle, 18 Danby, sworn, commented that he thinks the house is good but I am also concerned, like the neighbors with the height issue. Right now, it is a very bright area, this house will make it like a dark cave. It will have a totally different feel to the area. Danby is just being destroyed with all the construction going on. He is concerned on where the dumpsters and construction vehicles will be located. Chairman Struncius replied that they would have to follow all regulations.
Sandy Napolitano, sworn, stated that the white fence was hers because their car door goes over the boundary. Requested that if the application is approved that a condition be put in that the fence remains.
John Jackson said the architect can bring the home down to 32 feet and remove roof deck. John Jackson gave closing statement.
Deliberations
Kelly – Appreciate the testimony – have been down Danby Place many times- it is a well designed house for the purpose – personally the house is too big – too close to the others houses – a 70 foot home that is 20 feet wide – the electric system is rotten – the building to the left there has live wires laying on the roof. The pole would have to be replaced – there are 6 or 7 leads coming off of Ocean Avenue and that pole is not even 20 feet high. I do not want to be responsible for voting for this home on this particular street.
Dixon – There are a lot of issues with this proposal – who cannot be sympathetic for the owners now. They would like to retire here, but the problem is we would be blowing up the neighborhood and the ordinances for one person and the people that live on the north side of them would be over shadowed by this house. I think the architect could build a house with one and a half stories to accommodate these three people. The area is too small – I am listening to Mr. Jackson’s argument and he makes the case that this is a horrible place to build this house. Difficulty parking, too close to the other houses and it is too small. Realistically this is not the area for you under your circumstances. It is supposed to be 1 ½ stories. The limit is 25 feet – you are fitting 50 pounds of potatoes in a 10-pound sack. As of right now I don’t see how this is going to pass.
Vice-chair Reynolds – It is a very difficult situation – very compassionate and compelling testimony. We are here to grant or deny variances – personally could deal with 2 stories if it was built to height requirement (BFE) – I like the layout of the house – I truly feel the house itself is capable of doing that without the garage area. In my old age and wisdom, we are not going to treat the applicant differently because of her disability – the would be prejudice. Probably won’t vote for the application as it stands. If the application came back at 2-stories at flood elevation I would probably vote for it.
Schneider – Unfortunately I am in the same ballpark as vice-chair Reynolds, totally sympathetic with the situation, there are places in town that the house would fit in perfectly and we could approve it. That area is just too tight to have something this large. I am sure that a house could be designed so you could have access and live comfortably without having it have to be that tall. The lot is not large enough or long enough. As it stands now, I have to look at the ordinance, zoning, and neighbors. Everybody has rights and I just don’t see it.
Loder – I have nothing to add
Pasola – I agree that this is a very difficult application. I feel that we as a board have to do what is best for the area and the community. I agree that the location is not a good area to grant a height variance; with what I have heard from the architect and engineer – I feel that with the depth of the lot that if they went back to the drawing board that they could design something different in appearance and different in height and still provide almost what this structure has. Again, I feel bad being negative considering the situation but we have to do what is best for the area.
McGee – I am conflicted, I can’t imagine what it must be like to deal with what you deal with on a daily basis. I understand you wanting to build a house so that you can live the way you deserve to live – I understand that completely – I am just not sure that it can’t be done without a garage. We have to be able to separate one thing from the other – these people are living in their home too. I can’t in good faith support it.
Davis – I concur with what has been said so far. I understand that you should be able to have what you want and we should be able to accommodate that as much as we can. Unfortunately, what I see here we in trying to do that we are putting a square peg in a round hole – this simply does not fit. With a little more effort, I see no reason that you can’t get what you want in this location; there just has to be a little bit more nuance in the design. I have 2 safety concerns – north side being so close to property line creates safety issue for fire fighters. My last concern that jumped out at me is your being confined to wheel chair is that you would only have the elevator to get out of this house – wonder if that is where the fire is. I think there needs to be some serious re-design to make this a safer house.
Crapser – The board pretty much said everything – we cannot base our decisions on a certain family’s situation – we have to base it on what is allowed in the area/zone. I feel that modifications can be made where everyone would be happy with the end result.
Struncius – I think everyone summed up pretty well – the biggest concern for me is height – then you attach height to length you come up with something that is much higher than the neighboring homes. By neighboring I mean adjacent – not up at the boardwalk. The Danby elevation becomes what it is when you are dealing with the boardwalk situation. I am talking about the houses that are right to the south of it that are two-story – but their 2-story is at a certain height level – this house would be so high that the neighbor would not be able to see anything to the south. There are a couple of things that you could do to get it down to 25 feet and not need the 10% height variance – maybe into the 27’s and you wouldn’t have to change anything else – you could still have your elevator, your layout would be similar. If you want a garage your layout might have to change because the garage might have to move into the house. You could still have living space around the garage – there are plenty of people who have a door that you walk right into the house from the garage – that is not an uncommon practice – that is a possibility – you might have to go up a step or two – or into an elevator that is in the corner of that area. I think there are ways to accommodate it that does not drive the height to such an egregious height over what is the neighboring area and the houses on Beachcomber as a resident stated at the 25-foot level – many which are a story and a half. Again the 2-story I am less hung up on – I think it gives you the things required for modern living – just not at 34/32 feet towering for 70 feet – just too much for this particular lot. There are just things that can be done and designed in a way that can accommodate your disabilities. This as it is, is just too much.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to deny application #2019-41 of Catherine/Margaret Loughran – 19 Danby Place – Block 121; Lot 5.05
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, Pasola and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application denied
Application 2018-27 – White Sands – 1201 – 1205 Ocean Avenue – Block 27 – Lots 1, 4 & 5 – Applicant wishes to demolish two existing single-family dwellings on Lots 4 and 5 located in the SF5 zone and construct a three-story structure. The first floor will contain 28 additional parking spaces, the 2nd and 3rd floors will contain 19 new guest units. The applicant is also requesting to convert 4 rooms from the existing building to staff support facilities and exercise rooms on two levels. The net gain of guest rooms proposed is 34 in total.
(White Sands is requesting to be carried to the May agenda)
White Sands will need to notice again.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board.
