Borough of Point Pleasant Beach The January 28, 2021 Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 6:00pm 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. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Crasper and Villani
Also present: Karen Mills, Clerk, Ray Savacool, Engineer and Dennis Galvin, Esq.
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to memorial the minutes of January 7, 2021 minutes
In favor: Schneider, Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Pasola, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Memorialization of Resolution
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Vice chair Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2021-16 of Amanda Gomes/Natural Beauty Hair Salon – 516 Bay Avenue – with conditions
In Favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Loder, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Agenda
Application #2020-23 – EAF ONE, LLC (Gottleib Building) – 641 Arnold Avenue – Block 202/Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to renovate existing building and construct 7 hotel rooms and 2 retail units. Applicant is requesting a use variance for hotel use; and variances for parking, setbacks and signage.
(Application carried from January 7, 2021 without notice)
Let the record reflect that Chairman Struncius listened/viewed the meeting of January 7, 2021 and has signed a certification and qualifies to vote this evening.
Ed Liston, attorney for objector, crossed examined Christine Cofone, PP for applicant. Ed Liston stated that her testimony was for a D1 variance for the hotel on the second floor. They both agreed that the request is not a beneficial use or a hardship. Chairman Struncius inquired if he was going to ask questions or make her repeat her testimony? Chairman Struncius requested that he ask direct questions. Ed Liston stated his direct question is what are the unique characteristics that make this site unique? Christine Cofone replied that she believed the “L” shape of the property with parking access makes it unique.
Ed Liston referred to the absence of an adequate buffer from the residential area. Christine Cofone stated that they had met with the neighbor and they felt it is adequate. Ed Liston inquired if she felt a 10-foot wall was as good as a buffer? (Yes) She feels it will provide screening. Ed Liston wants to know what makes this site specifically suited – he believes she only thought parking made it suitable.
Dennis referred to Price versus Himeji.
Christine replied she stated it is in the heart of the downtown with a secondary access. Ed Liston listed reasons why this hotel is different than the conditional use of a “Bed and Breakfast”.
Ed Liston questioned the impact of the variance on surrounding properties. Christine believes there is no negative impact on surrounding properties.
Audience questions of Christine Cofone
None
John Jackson questioned if Christine Cofone was a where of the outcry when it was proposed to demolish the Gottleib building. (Yes) Christine Coffone commented that preserving the design supports the positive criteria.
Greg Cox stated that the neighbors requested the 12-foot-high wall.
Andy Thomas, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed the plan and gave testimony. The subject site is located in the middle of the GC Zone in the downtown and is also located adjacent to and south of the SF-5 Zone.
The GC Zone is characterized by many two-story buildings with retail on the first floor and either offices or residential apartments on the second floor and the Gottlieb Building is typical of the size and type of the building in the GC Zone. Andy Thomas stated the following:
- There are no hotels located within the GC Zone.
2. The 2015 Master Plan Reexamination Report contains recommendations regarding hotels in several zones within the borough, but no recommendation that hotels be permitted in the GC Zone.
3. Andy Thomas stated that the location downtown, associated amenities and the fact that the site is L shaped and allows for 10 parking space are not facts particular to this site and are not significant for purposes of determining site suitability.
4. The site is also located immediately adjacent to single family uses and parking is proposed with no setback and with a 12-foot wall, which does not conform with the setback requirements for hotel or bed and breakfast uses.
5. The number of rooms and beds could house up to 22 people, which far exceeds the limit on conditional bed and breakfast uses for up to 12 guests.
Mr. Thomas believes that this application does not meet the goals of the Municipal Land Use Law “G” to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations; “I” desirable visual environment; “C” appropriate population densities; or “A” promoting the general welfare.
John Nastasi, objector’s Architect, sworn, credentials accepted, stated the following:
- The applicant is proposing a series of hotel rooms that face Arnold Avenue, and instead of proposing rooms that face the rear where there is light and open air, is proposing rooms along the eastern edge that face the neighboring building.
2. The windows as they exist now are not allowed to remain on the second floor for this proposed hotel use.
3. John Nastasi testified that the applicant’s proposal to install a fire-rated wall assembly that does not open is not allowed under the Building Code and would negatively impact Objector’s property.
4. The basis of this negative impact would be that if Objector renovates his building, he would have to respond to the fact that there are lot line windows on the applicant’s property.
5. The fact that the proposed assemblies do not open does not negate this impact because of the visual impact from light and privacy.
Ray Savacool, questioned assuming the Gottleib building was not up for review and your client was building could your client not have windows on a zero-lot line? John Nastasi believes his client would be able to.
Audience questions/comments of John Nastasi
None
John Jackson has no questions
Public Comments
Michael Ramos, Arbutus Avenue, sworn, stated that he is absolutely for this program. Has been a member of the Recreation Committee, Open Space and is President of the Board of Education. Believes it is an outstanding project for the town and has been a hotel manager for Hilton Hotels for 35 years. From what he knows, he believes it is a very viable project. He pointed out that 98% of hotels are on the west side of the tracks. It is very viable and doable project. It comes within the scope of what the Master Plan is looking to achieve.
Ed Liston questioned Michael Ramos about his experience.
Ed Liston gave his summation
John Jackson gave his summation
Chairman Struncius clarified that the Board would like the rear wall to be 10-feet.
Deliberations
Kelly – I did attend the meeting on the historic over lay zone, so I am familiar. This building does provide adequate parking, but it is tight with the spaces being on the diagonal. It is close to the corner building – would be nice if we could get something in that corner building. The parking in front will be no different than it is now. I am concerned with the negative versus the positive. I had a family member that needed a room for a funeral and they could not find a place downtown. They had to rent on the boardwalk. The positives – we are getting a brand-new building downtown that will be providing something unique. I do not see a problem with this application at all.
Schneider – As Mr. Kelly said the parking area is small but people should know how to drive. Positive is they do provide their own parking. First floor concept is a dynamic idea that will bring a lot of people into town. With businesses struggling we need to do things to support local businesses. The hotel is not overbearing – would like to see 24-hour security. This is going to preserve an historic building. Would like to see other people come forward with projects like this, In favor
Reynolds – Being a lifelong resident in town I’ve seen businesses on Arnold avenue come and go if you will, I mean it was so vibrant when we were kids and you know.
You couldn’t get near the place because it was packed then we saw it get pretty empty where you go out at night, and there were no cars parked.
Were back to a point, or we were pre pandemic anyway back to a point where you go out at night, it looked alive and there’s people out walking on the sidewalks and there’s cars parked up and down the streets, and I feel that this building and the hotel, the inn, The Gottleib will bring more vibrance and more people in as proposed. I’ve been up and down the whole course of this proceeding – I was dead set against it one week and then testimony swayed me one way, I thought about it a lot.
I truly believe that this could be a positive thing, and I believe that people are putting their money into this and they’re not looking to put the money into it if it loses.
And if it works it’ll be a great thing, and if it doesn’t they’ve learned the lesson, and somebody will be in again to put some apartments or offices up there.
Pasola – The applicant did demonstrate special reason for us to grant this use variance I think the use is fitted for the location. I think this use will cause substantial improvement and will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. I think it was demonstrated that this site is definitely suited for this use, therefore, I will be voting yes for the project Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Loder – As a former board member of the point pleasant beach Chamber of Commerce way back 15-16 years ago I’ve always been in favor of working with the downtown in the trial improvement. I’m a big supporter of adding you know, adding different floors on some of the buildings to enhance tenants to move downtown. You know in finality looking at historical significance of the building and the master plan revitalization that the mayor is working on, to try to get people downtown. I just think you know it’s a unique and innovative idea to have the building downtown and one of the things I took away from the Himeji ruling from 2013 is it that the zoning boards are given wide latitude to exercise their discretion and approving the one variance so that kind of a rung a bell to me and listened to Mr. Galvin’s comments on that case so I’m in favor of this of this application. I think it’s one of the great things for the downtown and it will hopefully encourage other investors to come in and put their money in a downtown and keep it going in the right direction as a vibrant place to go Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Dixon – Personally, after hearing both planners, I think this place should have been more of a bed and breakfast and be under those rules, because I am very concerned about the future of the building. These things take a turn for the worse.
Without having the restrictions that the bed and breakfast have, these could easily be turned into a Rooming House and you can have a dozen or 20 undesirables living up there, and then you worried about your downtown and the local areas of crime and everything else that could come with that. It could be a complete disaster, but that may never happen, hopefully it won’t so like that. That said I was disappointed that they wouldn’t do some of those other improvements, but as of right now I would like to hear what everyone else has to say.
McGee – Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I guess I’ll start with the negatives. First there certainly are a few that have been identified and discussed – the first is parking, it’s always an issue. Most of the cases that we hear have a parking issue, but I think the fact that there is sufficient parking for what is being proposed is significant.
Additionally, the wall or the fence or whatever we’re calling it seems to be a concern – it’s not so much for me as long as the neighbors are okay with it and the fire department’s Okay, with it, it doesn’t bother me too much.
And then the setbacks, when speaking from experience when you back up to residential with commercial, especially preexisting buildings like this one, these old setbacks are going to be preexisting and non-conforming so there’s not much you can do about that.
As far as the positives I like the idea of the occupancy time limit, it prohibits or eliminates the chance of people having a month-to-month lease. I think that eliminates that. I mean new vibrant business in a building that’s been an architecturally historic for the past century.
It’s going to help facilitate with making point beach a year-round destination. East of the tracks is going to help existing businesses, I think it’ll draw a new business, new business owners and investors into the town and the other one that was big for me, we have the infrastructure here with the parking lots we have the trolley we have the train station; this gives people an opportunity to come to town year round, they can go out to dinner, they can have some drinks, they can shop and they have a place to stay and to play in the summertime when everything is sold out but by the boardwalk they’re not getting back in their cars.
And so, with all of That said, I find myself in favor of this application and that the overall benefit of it far exceeds the detriment, and this board should exercise it some latitude to approve the variance.
Davis – Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I apologize for the glasses off glasses on my new glasses have a very, very thin bifocal and I find myself looking down my nose, which I don’t like to do so we’re going to do this half blind. I’m going to take in many of the negative and positive criteria remarks that have already been said and reiterate them.
By agreement, I think we meet a lot of the positive and negative criteria, as has been stated by other Members, and so I won’t I won’t repeat those. What I would like to say is that it’s noted by the objector that we are constrained by what we have in the master plan and our ordinance. One of the Primary focuses even of the 2013 master plan was revitalization of our commercial zones that’s reiterated a couple times actually in the plan and was brought out by the testimony of the planner for the applicant. What we’re also constrained by is what we know. We have a disputed property line that apparently is in a court case which is completely out of our hands and may completely throw. A wrench in this works or it may not that’s not our purview. There seems to be a case regarding the appeal of the I’m going to call them glass lights. Rather than structures They may come, they may go, we just don’t know it’s not our purview. We also know that at this moment there is no application pending for the adjoining property to expand or contract or do anything with their building.
So, based on that I’m fairly swayed by the applicant’s planner regarding the issue of particular suitability and with respect to remarks prior to our deliberation.
I find that this application actually is particularly well suited for the use and this look at that this site is particularly well suited.
For all the reasons that have been stated in terms of the specific size and continuity of the property to both access on the main street of Arnold avenue and ingress and egress on River Avenue plus additional parking as needed on the adjoining public parking lots.
With respect to one of the issues that was brought out by the objector, the objection was the wall, now we have neighbors who want this wall/ fence or whatever we’re going to call it, however it’s going to be designed and we’re going to have some say about that design in terms of suitability prior to memorialization. It’s what the neighbors find suitable in order to have this, which I think speaks well to it but it’s not the only issue associated with the visual integrity of this property or image we’re going to preserve this beautiful old building is getting a facelift. I think that is only a positive enhancement to the zone.
My last comment is going to be regarding the security, because I think it’s a fair comment that not having security on site 24 seven is just out of the norm for hotels or inns of any kind, but we’re talking about something that’s experimental in a new age. I don’t see where it’s going to appeal to a kind of clientele who’s going to come and create an animal house.
I just don’t find that I’m convinced by that argument as part of the negative criteria so based on all of that, and I spoke a whole lot longer than I meant to, but this has been a big case I, I am up to 10 pages of notes.
I find myself in favor of this application and that the overall benefit of it far exceeds the detriment, and this board should exercise it some latitude to to approve the variance.
Struncius –The first thing you’re not going to be as I, as I go through my outline here and the things that I want to state I’m going to be speaking to the windows really not my jurisdiction, I understand that it will be a court decision
Whatever it was the building appeals that you guys mentioned so we’ll let that portion of this case be decided, where it lies, and that that is not what this board and there will be a ruling on that and that will have some effect on the outcome of how the building moves forward.
The other thing I’m not going to spend a lot of time on is the lower floor of the building, although I will say that everything that was presented by Ms. Schultz sounds wonderful, they’re all permitted uses.
The flexibility of that lower space to do the kinds of things that are being promoted is awesome it’s a way to potentially build businesses up like you talked about have people come in get their taste of the market, their teaser maybe come back a few times and expand. The flexibility of that space is awesome. This is about the use and the Planning testimony and now us as board members have to sift through it.
I regularly check in on my phone and get my key access on my phone and never stopped by a front desk and go right to my room and can get into the hotel into my room and anywhere else that I want to be, and you know, usually, when I go back to the desk it’s to you know grab something from their refreshments Center something like that, but I can the modernization of the usage of how the hotel will be managed is something that is pretty common, so again I’m not necessarily concerned about that, I think you know if the hotel is busy, although the they’re currently saying they won’t be on site, you know 24 seven, and I think they’re going to find themselves on site enough and the people who are going to be running the businesses downstairs will probably end up with some relationships so, it’s not like it’s an abandoned building where we’re just putting people in there are going to people running this business and the near proximity so I’m not overly concerned about that.
So, let’s start with our D1 criteria and get into our positive criteria. The first one is the Particular suitability and that argument as it was presented by the two planners, I think you know as the Planner talked about the unique shape of the lot. The “L” Shape parking lot is a little bit awkward but as we talked to the people that are going to be running the business, this is going to be something that’s going to be communicated to the customers. They’ll communicate it on their APP or on their website so as people come to the site, they understand that they might have to pull in all the way to the back of a lot use that little l shape to turn around it doesn’t have to be some sort of awkward K turn. There’s a flow that they can get to work that lot, so the fact that there’s a second entrance and the unique shape is a factor on this.
I think you know, one of the things that Mr. Thomas talked about is you know this building isn’t so different than many others downtown so there’s no necessarily particular suitability that sets it apart well when you think about boutique hotels and the design of what becomes a boutique hotel.
They often are converted buildings right, that when you start to think of different boutique hotels and the uniqueness of them, you’re not usually seeing that kind of structural elements built from the ground up.
They are buildings that are a conversion of something and I think this building and what’s being done with it, with its historic preservation and having the conversion of it to something that is a boutique hotel does add to that particular site suitability right, I mean that that kind of defines boutique hotel and a lot of way to me and this building provides that then when you talk about the synergy to the businesses downtown and how it’s going to operate and what it does, by bringing the vitality, the people.
In I think you know it all relates heavily to that particular suitability, also when we talk about the goals of you know, the special reasons and advancing goals in the municipal land use law.
Certainly, the visual environment and the preservation of the historic site, the efficient use of the land, again, as I relate that to the conversion of the building to something that relates, and that is that boutique hotel, and you know, having sufficient space to manage this business in the downtown environment.
I think Ms. Cofone talked about you know the Medici he and the reconciliation of why something might have been an omission from the governing body and you know a number of people have said that this doesn’t meet the criteria of a hotel it’s not 10 rooms it’s not on 30,000 square feet it’s not that that’s one of the reasons that I think this really has more strength to the case, the fact that it is not meeting that criteria that it is only seven rooms, as opposed to 10 rooms so it’s like I.
You know I say, Mr. Ramos again said call it something else let’s invent a new game for the seven rooms, something that it is because it is a unique hotel environment something that’s fitting into point pleasant beach downtown because it is only seven rooms and it does have, you know something that’s so different that I had no intent, when I was asking Mr. Thomas this question that I think you know boutique hotels are so unique and they haven’t been around since the 80s, they have they’ve been here, I’m talking about something that is different, as it fits into our town in our environment and that seven room hotel does that. I think you know; Mr. Thomas went on to say that he felt that there was a substantial detriment to it, but really didn’t substantiate that substantial detriment, he did cite the fact that you know the bed and breakfast CO for would allow only 12 people, as opposed to 22 people, and I certainly understand their math they’re talking about three King beds that’s six people and then for the rooms have two double beds so that’s 16 people that’s their 20 which makes sense, but I don’t think that an addition of 10 people
has an intensity use at that location that can’t be handled or substantiated and what it’s intended to do is again work in the synergy with the downtown businesses, so you know I really think it does work in that way. Mr. Davis, I did know that I was going to run on with all this conversation, so I apologize. Going to check my notes here really quick Mr. Gavin and make sure that I’m thoroughly covering all the parts that I wanted to cover. I do think you know; Mr. Savacool found the notation about the 14 day stay so,
at one time it was discussed 30 all that now we’re down to the 14 so that’s a positive, there are all of the municipal parking lots, Ms. Mills always loves when I make the statement on our downtown cases that I still have never pulled into the lot behind radio shack or Borden’s and not been able to find a space, I still can always find a space in that lot so we still haven’t put enough things down here that have exhausted our ability to park in our municipal lot except for maybe a unique day or two throughout the year.
I think that’s getting to the end, excuse me one more second, I just want to check.
And I just I will elaborate on one other thing for Ms. Cofone’s master plan and the revitalization and you know driving pedestrian traffic to our downtown trying to get more people into the area.
It was you know recommended through certain residential, this is a pseudo residential type thing with
having the unique hotel use, but again I think it’s you know 100 % particularly suitable with the conversion of this kind of building. The preservation of the building, the unique lot required, you know layout in our downtown area, so I do see a difference in this building versus others.
In that way, so I think that covers what I wanted to say, is there any other interaction on the deliberation between any board members anybody.
Jay Reynolds would like to see the entire building referred to as :The Gottleib”. That is what all this historic talk has been about
Conditions
- The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meetings of November 19, 2020, January 7, 2021 and January 28, 2021.
- The applicant shall provide all required Site Performance Bond and Inspection Fees in accordance with the Municipal Ordinance.
- The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other approvals or permits from other governmental agencies, as may be required by law, including but not limited to the Municipality’s and State’s affordable housing regulations; and the applicant shall comply with any requirements or conditions of such approvals or permits.
- The applicant must comply with the Development Fee Ordinance of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, if applicable, which Ordinance is intended to generate revenue to facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
- The applicant is to install a property barrier as explained to the Board at the time of the hearing and as reflected on drawings presented to the Board. The barrier shall be a maximum of ten (10) feet in height inclusive of the proposed concrete wall with a wooden fence on top of the wall. A plan depicting the redesigned barrier shall be presented to the Board at the time of memorialization.
- The applicant is to record a deed restriction to preserve the exterior of the Gottlieb Building as presented to the Board.
- Occupancy for the proposed boutique hotel will be in accordance with section 3-45 of the Borough Code, which is a 14-day maximum for overnight guests. There will be no rollout beds permitted in the rooms.
- Applicant shall provide security cameras monitored for twenty-four (24) hours per day.
- Publication of a notice of this decision will be published in the Ocean Star or Asbury Park Press at the cost of the applicant.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
