Borough of Point Pleasant Beach July 11, 2019
The July 11, 2019 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: Secretary Spader, Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Schneider, Mr. LePore, Mr. Davis, Ms. Crasper, Mr. McGee and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Dixon and DePolo
Also, present – Andrew Ball, acting Board attorney, Mark Rohmeyer, acting Board Engineer and Karen Mills, Clerk
Motion by Secretary Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2019-23 of John/Karen Recchia at 206 Chicago with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Schneider, LePore and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Secretary Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2019-20 of Michael Colucci at 500 Forman Avenue with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Schneider, LePore and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. LePore to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2019-19 of Keith/Theresa Buhl at 405 Arnold Avenue with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Schneider, LePore and Reynolds
Opposed: None
AGENDA
Application #2019-30 – 641 Arnold Avenue LLC c/o Joe Carannante – 641 Arnold Avenue – Block 202; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing commercial building and construct a new building with three (3) retail spaces on the first floor and four (or five apartments) on the second floor.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application and gave opening statement. Exhibit A3 entered – Power Point Presentation
Evan Zimmerman, attorney for Scot Dolan, objector. Gave reasons why he believes the application should be adjourned. There is an law suit in reference to the survey in court at present time, also concerned with the common wall should there be a demolition and how that wall will be maintained.
John Jackson addressed these issues and gave his reasons on why the application should be able to proceed.
Evan Zimmerman stated he believes there should be a brief adjournment to address these issues.
Andrew Ball reviewed objection materials, believes it is OK to proceed with the application. The objector’s materials are not part of the application and does not prevent the board from hearing the application.
Mr. Lepore inquired how we reconcile the differences in the surveys.
John Jackson said the superior Court would be the controlling entity and can modify any board ruling.
Mr. Davis questioned that if in fact his client’s property is over the boundary line that the building can be moved back.
Mr. Lepore inquired if the applicant could design the building 6 inches off the property.
Chairman Struncius said he believes with the attorney’s guidance that it is OK to proceed.
John Jackson gave opening statement and reviewed the application. Client seeks to enlarge existing structure and have five (5) residential apartments and provide one COAH unit. Mr. Carannante saw this as a great opportunity to have his real estate office in this building. Gave three versions of elevations. Believes this application will help bring vitality to the downtown.
Chairman Struncius inquired if there is someone to testify to the fact that the building is run down since you referenced it in your opening statement. John Jackson replied that the applicant will be testifying to that.
Mr. Davis questioned on page 3 of the application the hardship C (1) variance in question – it states that large units would be too large and small units would be more appropriate – struggling on how C(1) relates to that. John Jackson stated that if they were all separate building, they could have 3 apartments; based on size of lot they meet the criteria for 4 buildings. He believes they meet and the spirit of intent in terms of the density. In terms of the hardship they believe it is better to have this configuration to have units for people who are starting out and who are single. It is not feasible for them to have 2500 square feet; this is appropriately scaled for downtown living. Large apartments would be taking the market segment away from people starting out.
Joseph Carannante, applicant, sworn, stated that he resides at 800 Walnut Avenue for 7 years and owns Cara Realty for twenty years and has experience in commercial and residential building. You can actually see that the west wall is bowing; you also have structure deficiency in the middle – the footings are cracked – the building is in pretty bad shape and not something that can be rehabbed. Did not renew leases – concerned that the building is not safe. Brick work is in pretty bad shape – some of it is stuck on tile – the mortar is crumbling down. More than happy to take anyone through the building. Fell in love with the property. Chairman questioned the façade. Joe Carannante stated that he is not building anything abnormal; there is no consistencies in the buildings on the block – there are not any other brick buildings. He believes his design is more of a beach building – he wants people to say this is a nice building. Mr. Davis said there was a comment that said there was not permit for removal of storage tank. Joe Carannante said he had the property scanned and soil sample taken from around the whole building – soil came out clean. Chairman Struncius inquired if there is anything in the letter that says the front of the building is in disrepair. Joe Carannante said the facade is very brittle; and commented anything can be done for a price. Joe Carannante said what is next – are you going to tell me that you do not like the color green on my house. Chainman Struncius said that “yes: we do restrict colors some times. Mark Rohmeyer, acting board engineer commented that he reviewed the engineering reports and that they make recommendations on repairs and that cost estimations are made – it appears that renovations to the building could be made. John Jackson stated that there is no historical significance to this building.
Evan Zimmerman, questioned the issues affecting his client’s property and when he had the soil testing done. Questioned if Joe Carannante did a title search prior to purchasing the property. Chairman Struncius clarified it is just time for questions.
Audience questions
Jason Shamy, 702 Grove Street, questioned that when the applicant received the engineering reports that he still decided that he was going forward and decided that he wanted 5 apartments. Questioned if he knows that he needs a use variance for a rooming house. (Yes) Questioned if he demolishes the building that he needs variances for side yard setbacks. Joe Carannante replied that he is building in the same footprint and maximizing the property. Chairman Struncius stated that the applicant could knock down the building and build something conforming and not be here. Jason Shamy replied that the application does discuss the side yard setbacks.
Joe Rogers – 707 Grove Street- wants to know the square footage of each apartment. That lot is not super big to start with.
Greg Suliatis, 5 River Vista Lane – Questioned the facade and feels it is a landmark building. Believes it is a unique looking building – can you keep the façade. Yes – but it is all about financing.
Robert Burdick, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed site plan.
Robert Burdick gave clarification of surveys. Scot Dolans survey was based on an older survey that was based on Scot Dolans site plan. Robert Burdick stated there was very little survey control. (Monuments). Since then he has pulled the deeds – Robert Burdick was asked to review the Carannante survey and found additional pins and now we believe that this survey is correct and that Joe Carannante building is within the 4 corners and believe that Scot Dolans structure encroaches on Joe Carannante property. Robert Burdick reviewed the Board Engineers letter. There will be 3 retail businesses on first floor and 5 residential upstairs. Hours of operation will be in the vicinity of 8 am till 8 pm. The approved use of the building to the east is retail and residential. There is an existing 6-foot vinyl fence along lot 23 and a board on board fence on lot 22; will provide 6-foot vinyl fence to provide more buffer to residential structures. Handy-cap parking will be provided on the western side of the property with access to the rear door; 9 gravel parking spaces along the north border. The property is not wide enough to provide 18-foot parking spaces and 24-foot drive isle so we are dealing with what we can in addition we want to provide a little bit of a buffer to the adjacent building on lot 1. Minimum 20-foot isle and 9 by 18 parking spaces. Trash enclosure at the northwest corner of property (dumpster of cans). Could put rubber matting on concrete to control noise. Operations of building – deliveries will be by smaller trucks – can pull in rear of building. Providing 10 spaces on site for residential; there is a public parking lot and on street parking for commercial use. Proposed site plan provides a better grading plan. Chairman Struncius clarified that there is no handy cap access to the residential units so why are there handy cap parking spaces in rear of building. Couldn’t that parking be utilized for the residents. We could diminish the parking in the back to lessen the impact on the residents in the rear. Robert Burdick said they could provide a 5-foot buffer to the rear and provide parallel parking but then it would only be 6 parking spaces. A4 Entered – alternative parallel parking plan (6 spaces) A-5 – similar parking less drive isle. Lighting shall be security lighting and low-level lighting. Garbage enclosure can be moved closer to building and buffered if required; a truck could enter the lot if there are not many parking spaces. Most businesses put cans on the curb. Robert Burdick believes this to be a unique shaped property (L shaped) with limitations and believes the limited area of the “L” shape to be a hardship.
Audience questions
Evan Zimmerman – questioned the design waiver to keep gravel in parking lot. (RB – to help with runoff) Questioned the density and the survey. Questioned rear width of building (43 feet 4 inches) and questioned the discrepancies between the two surveys he had done – one for Scot Dolan previously and the one for Joe Carannante.
Greg Cox – part owner of lot 1 building – questioned the parking layout and the new parking proposals that were submitted this evening. Questioned the proposed vinyl fence and the post that is 5 inches in diameter. Greg Cox inquired how the parking areas will be designated in a gravel lot and how flooding would be controlled? (curb stops and grading) Also questioned how snow would be plowed and the trees on the north property line. Chairman Struncius questioned if the applicant was willing to install a protective barrier if application is approved. (Yes)
Jason Shamy, 702 Grove Street – Questioned designated 18 feet parking spaces and where they are measured from. (property line) Jason Shamy stated that an 18-foot stall will not fit a pick-up truck. Questioned if it will be 90-degree parking. (yes) Also informed the Board that there are 12 trees on the north property line; also stated that the ordinance requires that no trash be stored any closer than 50 feet to a storm water basin. Inquired if building was shrunk towards the south would that help the ability to make a “K” turn and improve garbage location. (Yes)
Tom Curcio, 417 River Avenue – stated that when he built his home that he was told that no water could go out on River Avenue. He stated that the trees do a wonderful job of buffering his property from the commercial side. Tom Curcio also stated that the public lot is already over utilized and full most of the time. The Calvary Church is having trouble parking there on Sunday. He also inquired if anyone has spoken to the fire Department; he cannot imagine not needing a spot for the fire department to pull in – that is a concern of his.
Motion by secretary Spader second by Mr. Davis to carry application #2019-30 of 641 Arnold Avenue LLC c/o Joe Carannante – 641 Arnold Avenue – Block 202; Lot 3 – to October 3, 2019 without notice.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 10:25pm pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
