Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Special Meeting
JANUARY 24, 2018 SPECIAL MEETING
The January 24, 2018 Special 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. Reynolds, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis, Ms. Crasper and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Mr. Spader, Mr. DePolo and Mr. Reilly
Application #2017-19 – 1031 Seashore LLC – 1301 Ocean Avenue – Block 18.01; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to lift unit #7 and add a second floor and enlarge existing second story decks.
Application carried without notice from September 27, 2017 without notice
John Paul Doyle, attorney for applicant, stated that the revised plans were submitted with considering the board’s recommendations. John Paul Doyle reviewed the changes – Unit 7 is now 23.4 feet in height from top to bottom; ground floor of 7 is now a garage; no change to first and second floor decks; third floor decks have been reduced and one has been removed – they are now 512 square feet in total. John Doyle stated that it will be a safer FEMA compliant structure.
Exhibit A-18 entered – Revised site plan dated 1/19/2018
Exhibit A-19 entered – Revised architectural dated 1/8/2018
Exhibit A-20 entered – Revised – 4th Engineering letter
Sal Santoro, professional architect, previously sworn, reviewed changes to architectural plans dated 1/8/2018. There will be 13 parking spaces with one being in the garage. Sal Santoro stated that the 180 square foot utility room and attic located on the third floor of building 7 will be utilized only for a/c handlers, hot water heater and storage and will be uninhabitable. Sal Santoro stated that 1 unit has access to the large third floor south deck which is necessary for egress.
John Jackson, attorney representing two residents cross examined Sal Santoro and questioned the notice. John Jackson stated that it is an expansion of the preexisting non- conforming use and that the structure is being expanded. Ray Savacool confirmed that on sheet four of the plans that 92 square feet is being enclosed.
Dennis Galvin believes that the notice was satisfactory and the neighbors were well aware of sub sequential meetings. Bottom line is there is a right to rebuild what was there.
Mr. Reynolds inquired if unit seven (7) was eliminated in its present location is there another area on the property that it could be built. (Not really) Then there would not be room for parking.
Exhibit A 21 – Comparison Board
Exhibit A-22 – Colorized rendering (aerial)
Exhibit A-23- Photo – depicts neighboring property
Anthony Maltese, professional Engineer, previously sworn, reviewed revised plans. John Jackson cross examined the engineer in reference to the noise produced from a gravel parking lot. John Doyle objected to John Jacksons questioning because Anthony Maltese is not a sound expert. John Jackson also questioned Anthony Maltese in reference to paving the parking lot and lighting. Mr. Reynolds questioned where the seven (7) units will be putting the garbage. (There will be a dumpster area behind building 7.)
Audience questions/comments
Patty Sweeney – 320 Maryland Avenue – Every time I go by this house – I can’t wait for it to be done. It is a beautiful structure and they are willing to change things.
Paul Trebold – 104 Washington – Been to a couple of these meetings – some changes have been made – I hope a decision is made, would prefer asphalt and less units. John Doyle clarified that 104 Washington is the house next to this project.
Michael Spader – 111 Washington – not in favor of expanding the building – do not like the balconies. Third story balcony will create too much noise with people hanging out on them. It is creating a whole new Point Pleasant Beach.
Judith Lolli – 1301 Ocean front – Exhibit N1- Google aerial map entered – Judith Lolli stated that the photo shows the house in question – Judith Lollies concerns are the balconies – she already deals with the White Sands and the noise from their balconies. The noise carries and you cannot have your windows open at night to sleep. John Doyle questioned Judith Lolli in reference to the variances she received for her home. The Board attorney and Board Chairman did not believe that her prior application has anything to do with this property.
Exhibit A-24 – Google Earth photo
Victor Lolli, 1301 Oceanfront – Concerned about the decks and questioned the width of the deck egress stairs. (More than 4 feet wide)Victor Lolli questioned why they need the stairs that wide.
Mr. Davis said that he had heard previous testimony that this is going to be family occupied. John Doyle commented that the applicant cannot be held or restricted to occupation by family members.
Gary Stetz, applicant, previously sworn, stated that this structure is going to be family occupied and that no units will be rented. John Jackson replied that there is nothing that would legally stop him from renting them. Chairman Struncius commented that the board’s decision is not being based on whether they are rented or family occupied. Chairman Struncius commented that the deck on the southeast side is 384 square feet and it could hold 40 people. John Doyle does not know what the magic number would be for that deck. Chairman Struncius is giving the applicant time to discuss what that number would be. The Board will take a 5 minute break to give the applicant time to discuss with his professionals.
Roll call
John Doyle has conferred with his applicant and the applicant will reduce the southerly deck from 384 square feet down to 230 square feet.
John Jackson summation – This structure is in the single family zone. The lot is not big enough for two single family homes. This is an expansion of a non-conforming use – it is surrounded by residences except for the White Sands Hotel. The Carousel Inn has been there for years and years and the Master Plan has never suggested rezoning this area. The previous application in 2007 was for a rehabbing the structure. What we have now are plans to make the structure much more usable and intense. There will be an open gravel parking lot with no delineation -that will be a free for all. This will much more likely to be occupied year round. If this were a single family home and the applicant requested a third floor deck it would be hard to validate the request. Reducing the third floor deck 150 square feet does not really change the character of it. Raising unit 7 with garage parking does not make it more conforming. Referenced William Hay vs. the Borough of Fort Lee. This is a substantial increase of a non-conforming use. There is no buffering on the west side at all; there is no reason to make it more intense. Who wants to be the person that calls the police every night? Seven households living in a space where there should be one. Asks that the board deny this application and have the applicant build the plans that were originally approved.
John Doyle’s summation – Mr. Jackson represents the selfish interest of two property owners; neither of whom live next to this structure. John Doyle says selfish because of what they gain the municipality loses by maintaining this eyesore. Mr. Jackson wants this to be two houses; what he leaves out is that this pre-existing non-conforming structures may continue. To go back in the past is wrong. John Jackson says this is a substantial expansion; the numbers say different and the footprint and units are the same and the bedrooms have been reduced by one. This use to be a boarding house. It was three stories and still is three stories; decks were approved in 2007. John Jackson says that the applicant wants to make it more usable; I guess he is against making it safer, more fire resistant and more consistent with FEMA. To obey the law we have to make changes. The neighbors will never be pleased – they said pave the parking lot and then when you agree they say no there will be flooding. Rather than look in the past as Mr. Jackson sees it we look to the present. Subject property has operated in the past as a boarding house; this is safer and code compliant. Reduced a bedroom and a bathroom which makes it more compliant and believes that there are no negatives impact. No one is going to knock down the building and put up one monstrous house. The applicant has done the right thing and come with the plans and reduced the decks. It is the applicants job to make the board happy not Mr. Jackson. You have heard from an engineer about the small changes. When requested to have testimony on issues we have. We have not heard that there is a traffic or drainage problem. When there is unrefuted testimony that has to stand for something. Christine Cofone, professional planner said that if ever there was a nominal expansion that is insignificant it is this one. We listened to the board and had expert testimony and the applicant who has paid taxes on a property that he is not using. True test is this – there are legitimate pre-exiting non-conforming uses. This is about balance – when making change keeping it as conforming as possible. It is safer – code compliant – FEMA compliant – modern electric and more attractive. Negatives – he is searching. This is our last chance to make something work.
Conditions
1. Applicant is to remove existing fencing and replace it with vinyl fencing according to the ordinance.
2. The southeast corner deck on the third floor is to be reduced to 240 square feet.
3. Exterior parking on Washington Avenue restricted to three (3) cars. Pavers to be reduced (to 3 parking spots) and replaced with grass.
4. Garbage enclosure to be located behind unit 7.
Deliberations
Kelly – First of all as far as the parking on Washington Avenue – we have an ordinance about parking on the lawn and we are about to approve parking on the lawn plus a garage. Number one is the size of the lot is one and a half lots. Probably a diagonal irregular lot – you cannot build 2 houses on it – you would need a variance. It is a non-conforming lot but yet were are expanding it – doesn’t matter if it is 10 feet or 10,000 feet – we are expanding it. It is an eyesore. When it was the Kerry house it was a wonderful place – then it was the Carousel Inn and it started going downhill. Then in 2007 we had a chance to improve it – then we had the storm and now it just sits. We agree it is non-conforming but we are adding to it. One of our jobs is to get rid of non-conforming when we have the chance. Now we are going to have a garage with an apartment – we have done nothing to alleviate the setback on Washington. We are taking seven apartments approved in 2007 and now we are widening the hallways and adding decks. No one plowed or shoveled the sidewalks or got rid of the mound of sand.
Reynolds – I have strong feelings about unit 7 – was hoping for a different conclusion. Worst thing we could do is deny this and they would be stuck with the 2007 approval which is not too bad. I would like to see it without the garage. Both sides presented good cases – Do not see evidence that I would want to turn it down at this point. That is where I am at.
Dixon – Major concern is the non-conformity – shouldn’t have let it become 7 condos in 2007. As far as the garage I think the owner and architect did a great job bringing the building down. There was a lot of confusion about the decking – there is decking on the 2007 drawings. We are going to have a FEMA compliant structure which is obviously a plus – it is going to be safer – I would think the owners are sincere. As far as the third floor decking I don’t think they are going to have 40 people over – maybe just once a year. Maybe they will have 10. The drawing is beautiful – as far as the people that complained about the noise – I think that is a non-issue. As far as being an eyesore – it is. The neighbor to the west seems to be satisfied. The owner was more than willing to make numerous adjustments to satisfy the board.
Schneider – Agrees with Mr. Kelly that we are dealing with a non-conforming use and we are not supposed to expand non-conforming uses but I think the 2007 decision had opened the door and we can consider 2019 – have issues with some of the third floor decks – don’t have an issue with unit 7 anymore since the neighbor is OK. It is a good design. The intention is to use the house for family uses but in the future you do not know what is going to happen so I need to hear some more talk.
Davis – I am not sure if it is a benefit or a detriment to not have a long history in this town – I see a very tired worn out building as being characterized as an eyesore – but that does not change what the law and zoning regulations limits us to. I like this structure and I like the improvements – I wish it was on a bigger piece of property – it would make it easier to approve. They are not entitled to the expansion as nominal as it may be – I am very conflicted on how I see this.
Crasper – we have listened to points from both sides on the positive and negative criteria – it is a non-conforming use in the zone but it has been that way for a long time. I understand your reasoning for the deck issues – everyone wants outdoor space. How is the garbage going to be brought to the street – do not know how it is going to flow. Not really sure how I stand right now. It just seems like a lot in that little space.
Struncius – I easily would have people out on the deck. I refer to it as when we screwed it up in 2007 – let’s remember we had an existing non-conformity on the property. That applicant reduced the intensity of the property. Friends of mine used to rent there all the time and it was clean and a nice place to stay. The 2007 approval reads a use variance to convert an existing 6 room 2 apartment use to a reduced use of 7 units. This is a lesser use than what was there. There will be one less bathroom and bedroom. Most of the request are bulk variances. We asked them to reduce the back decking and they did by 45%. We have bulk aesthetics of an existing structure. Not saying they haven’t changed things – but the parking lot always operated like that. We had them eliminate all the pavers except where the cars are parked. Every house I can think of has a garage with cars parked in the driveway. I weighed this all down to what architecturally changed. I believe the outdoor intensity increased – now it is an enforcement issue. From an overall what was approved in 2007 and what was approved now – unit 7 now has a garage. The neighbor’s house will at some point be brought to compliancy and will be just as high.
Dennis Galvin gave some clarity on pre-existing nonconforming uses. He said if the application is denied that the applicant has the right to build what was approved in 2007. He reviewed what is different – and told the board they have to weigh the differences and do the balancing test. Chairman Struncius clarified the improvements to the structure. Mr. Kelly said this is definite an expansion; he would love to see the building put back with the same materials without the expansions.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2017-19 – 1031 Seashore LLC – 1301 Ocean Avenue – Block 18.01; Lot 1
In favor: Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis, Crasper and Struncius
Opposed: Kelly
Application approved with conditions
Meeting adjourned at 11:50pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
