JULY 23, 2020

The July 23, 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, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius

Absent – Dixon, Spader and Crasper

 

Application 2020-12 – C.V Electric, Inc./Charles Venezia – 4 Minard Place – Blcok121/Lot 8.03 – Applicant is requesting to add front porch and deck. Requiring building coverage and impervious variance.

(CV Electric carried without notice from June 18, 2020)

The applicant reviewed the revised plans and stated he would bring in the second-floor addition to maintain a five-foot setback for the rear yard, eliminating the need for a variance. The sloped roof proposed in the front would be changed to flat roof with a proposed deck extending from the second-floor master bedroom over the first floor. Revisions were made to the plan to reduce the second-floor wall height so that the structure does not appear to large and boxy.  The revised plans adjust the roof pitch to be in line with the existing pitch and the impervious coverage will be reduced by removing the concrete around the front of the property so as not to exceed the impervious coverage requirements. The applicant is willing to adjust the roof pitch to six on twelve to lower the overall height of the building and will submit adjusted plans to scale.  The additional building coverage here necessitating a variance here is caused by the first-floor landing and steps.  On the rear elevation, there would be no window on the first floor, but with the second floor pulled back a window would remain in the rear.  By bringing the second floor in on the setback, the power lines will be further away from the structure.

Ray Savacool commented that the upper story would have approximately 400 square feet of habitable space.

The Board found that the proposed renovation would create a very attractive and aesthetically pleasing home that would be an asset to the neighborhood and are convinced that its concerns about the electric lines and the impervious coverage were satisfied by the applicant’s revised plans and found that the proposal would be aesthetically pleasing and provide a better structure than existed previously.

 

 

The Board concluded that the benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

 

Conditions

 

  1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meetings of June 18, 2020 and July 23, 2020.

 

  1. The applicant shall provide all required Site Performance Bond and Inspection Fees in accordance with the Municipal Ordinance.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. The applicant shall meet or be below the applicable standard for impervious coverage.

 

  1. The applicant will change the proposed roof pitch to a 6 on 12 pitch.

 

  1. The revised elevations with all stated corrections (roof/windows) will be submitted to the Board Engineer for review and subject to his approval.

 

No audience questions/comments

 

Deliberations

Kelly – As long as the electrical is handled and the concrete is removed, I have no problem with it.

Schneider – with the revisions made – I think it is pretty good – lowered roof and impervious coverage. – safer structure.

Reynolds – Thank you for working with the board – issue was with building coverage – front porch more aesthetic – feel good about this application.

Pasola – I am not going to be voting but I would vote yes. The applicant has been very cooperative and the site looks in order.

Loder- I appreciate the applicant working with us to make the changes. Steps are deminimis and looking to support application.

 McGee – Inclined to agree with the other members of the board. In favor of the project.

Davis – No comment

Struncius – Setback adjustments made – There is style to it.

Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. McGee to approve application

Application 2020-08 – Ivychest Realty LLC – 1703 Beacon Lane – Block 11.01 Lot 4.06 – Applicant wishes to raise roof for a third floor and enclose rear deck.

(Ivychest carried without notice from July 16, 2020 meeting)

Thomas Defelice, attorney for applicant reviewed updates to plan and reviewed requested variances from previous meeting – The applicant is wishing to add a dormer to the third floor and enclosing an existing rear porch, all in the footprint of the existing structure. The dormer would remodel an existing attic space to be habitable and the existing rear porch has canvas roof and temporary walls, which would be replaced with permanent walls and roof. The habitable space on the proposed third floor would be below 500 square feet, eliminating the need for a variance for the third floor.  The third-floor space would be less than 1/3 of the livable space before it with a proposed area of 496 square feet which is both less than 1/3 of the livable space on the second floor (3000 sq. ft.) and less than 500 square feet. The pitch of the roof would be increased slightly to allow for more habitable area in the third floor, but the height of the building would remain the same. This property fronts three different streets, creating three front yard setbacks supporting the need for a hardship variance. This renovation will improve the house and will not impair the zoning ordinance or zoning plan as it will create a much more aesthetically pleasing structure.

 The Board found that the proposed renovation would create a very attractive and aesthetically pleasing home that would be an asset to the neighborhood.  The Board found that the frontages on three roads creates a hardship warranting the variances requested that there will not be any negative impacts upon surrounding property owners or upon the master plan and zoning ordinances.

 Vice chair Reynolds commented that this property is unique because it fronts on three streets.

 

Deliberations

 

Kelly – They have done a nice job of landscaping; quite frankly I have no problems with this project.

 

Vice chair Reynolds –  Building coverage is an existing condition; as stated the height will not be increased and the applicant has met the criteria for half story. In favor.

 

Pasola – I think the attorney did a great job explaining the hard ship. Asset to the neighborhood. In favor

 

Schneider – Hardship with three frontages – all for it.

 

Loder – Changes are deminimis – looking to be in favor

 

McGee – Property is kind of a unicorn with 3 frontages – would be in favor.

 

Davis – Concur with what I have heard so far and concur.

 

Struncius – No additional comments.

 

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Secretary Schneider to approve application 2020-08 of Ivychest Realty LLC – 1703 Beacon Lane – Block 11.01 Lot 4.06 with conditions

 

In favor:  Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Loder and Struncius

Opposed:  None

 

Application approved with conditions

  

Conditions

 1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meetings of July 16, 2020 and July 23, 2020.

 2. The applicant shall provide all required Site Performance Bond and Inspection Fees in accordance with the Municipal Ordinance.

 3. 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.

 4. 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.

 

Motion made by Mr. Vice chair Reynolds and seconded by Mr. Schneider, that the application of Ivychest Realty, LLC be approved,

  IN FAVOR:       Mr. Kelly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder and Chairman Struncius

 OPPOSED:       None

  

Application 2020-15 – Hardcourt Ward III – 106 Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 19.03 – (Use variance) – Applicant is seeking a use variance to permit occupation of the existing office by Teknicks – an internet marketing firm. Currently occupied by Ward Realty.  RR-1 zone permits single family dwellings and real estate offices.

 

John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the request. The Applicant is requesting the following variances:  Power Point entered as Exhibit A3

  1. A use variance to permit general office space where the only office space permitted in the RR-1 Zone is real estate office space.
  2. The applicant previously received approval for two use variances in 2002 along with site plan approval to construct office space for a real estate and insurance business on site with parking below as well as a duplex residential structure to the east.
  3. Since the applicant received his prior variance approvals, the nature of real estate business has changed, and Mr. Ward has downsized his business and wants to sell the building.
  4. In order to sell the building, the applicant wants a variance to allow general administrative office use in the building.

 Hardcourt (Paul) S. Ward, III, applicant, sworn, stated that his real estate business, and the real estate business world in general, has changed since he received prior approval so that physical office space is not as necessary as it once was. The site allows adequate parking for both the commercial use and the adjoining duplex development; the site allows for approximately thirteen parking spots for the commercial use on site. Many of the neighboring properties have commercial uses. Mr. Ward has interested buyers in the property, including an administrative office for a healthcare business that would have nine employees. The building is set up specifically for an administrative office environment and there is currently desk-space for twelve people in the building with furniture that is built into the wall. The commercial building could not be easily accommodated to be used for single-family residential, it is particularly suited for commercial office space.

 

No audience questions/comments

 

Deliberations

 

Kelly – Has no problem with application.

 Schneider – Not sure why Mr. Ward is here – asset to community. In favor

Pasola – Shame that he had to go through this and appear – no problem with application. Important that the beautiful building continue to be successful.

 Reynolds – Beautiful building meant to be offices.

 Loder – Really nothing to add – in favor

 McGee – Glad Mr. Ward came before the board just to go down memory Lane.  Sorry to see him go. No issues with application.

 Struncius – Came to terms with the question what is it zoned for. (Office space/realty) other professionals can be there quite easily.

 Davis – Would be interesting to se what the previous deliberation were to have just real estate – only makes sense to allow office use in a building that was designed to be an office.

  

Conditions

 

 1. The proposed use will be limited to general office space.

 

 Vice chair Reynolds and seconded by Mr. Pasola, that application  2020-15 of Hardcourt Ward III – 106 Ocean Avenue – Block 121; Lot 19.03 –of Harcourt S. Ward, III be granted,

 

VOTE ON ROLL CALL:

 

IN FAVOR:       Mr. Kelly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, and Chairman Struncius.

 

OPPOSED:       None.

 

 

Application 2020-03 – Simon Haddad – 325 Hawthorne Avenue – Block 110; Lot 31 – Applicants wishes to convert existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling.

           John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the requested variances: 

  1.  Use variance for a proposed two-family dwelling, where such use is not permitted.

 2. The proposed and existing front yard setback is 0.7 ft., whereas a minimum front yard setback of 25 ft. is required.

 3. The proposed and existing side yard setback on the northern side of the property is 1.6 ft., whereas a minimum side yard setback of 5 ft. is required.

 4. The proposed and existing building coverage is 41.02%, whereas a maximum building coverage of 30% is permitted.

 5. The proposed and existing impervious coverage is 67.63%, whereas a maximum impervious coverage of 50% is permitted.

 John J. Jackson stated that the applicant is seeking to change the number of units on the property from one unit to two units, with one apartment on the upper floor and one on the lower floor.  The applicant is not seeking to change the exterior of the building or adjust its existing footprint, but to change the interior floor plan of the building. The applicant has revised its floor plan to eliminate the windows on the northern side of the property. Power Point exhibit entered as A3.

  Robert C. Burdick, P.E. P.P., sworn stated that the Applicant is proposing the conversion of a large single-family home with four bedrooms into a two-family home with three bedrooms in each unit. There is a vehicular access easement on the adjacent lot to the south resulting from a subdivision in 2015 that allows vehicles to turn around from the parking spaces in the front of the property. The property’s frontage is along Route 35, a very heavily travelled roadway, and is located across the street from a commercial development. The properties adjacent to Applicant’s along Route 35 include a multi-unit property to the south and a swimming pool to the north with residential properties located in the rear. While the lot is in a single-family zone, the surrounding uses are a combination of single-family, multi-family and commercial and Mr. Burdick stated that this use provides an excellent transition of those uses in line with the Master Plan Reexamination Report. Mr. Burdick stated that the proposed use would provide an appropriate density for the area and foster a diversity of housing in an area appropriate for multi-family uses. Mr. Burdick noted that there is a buffer in between the driveway and the neighboring residential property that would mitigate any negative impact from the increase in use.

Exhibit A4 entered – photographs demonstrating the improvements that he previously made to the property.

Brian Berzinskis,  PA, sworn, stated that the applicant is proposing a revised first and second floor plan to move bedrooms with window openings facing the northern property line to the other side of the building to eliminate the need for ingress/egress windows facing the northern setback area, which as existing is only 1.6 ft. where 5 ft. is required.

 Simon Haddad, applicant, sworn, stated that he uses the property as his summer home, but can no longer use the second floor due to his disability. The applicant purchased the property twelve years ago and performed extensive renovations on the property, which among other things allowed for the ability to make a “K” turn so that residents could exit the property safely. The property has been on the market for the past four years, but have had no buyers.

 Audience questions/comments

 Frederick P. Sisto, objector, sworn, stated he submitted a letter objecting to the proposed development, which was entered as an exhibit to the record, but not reviewed by the Board due to its late submission.  Fred Sisto’s objection was submitted on his own behalf as a neighboring property owner and his objection was based on his allegation that the variance is not consistent with the public good, not an undue hardship to the applicant, and not consistent with the zoning scheme for single-family uses. The proposed variance would aggravate existing problems of overcrowding and high density along Route 35 and would impact the surrounding neighborhood in a negative manner.

 The Board found that the proposed use would increase the intensity of use from a single-family use with four bedrooms to a two-family use with six bedrooms and that the frontage on Route 35 would not be more appropriate for a multi-family use as opposed to a single-family use because such use will increase the number of cars entering and exiting the property along that highway. 

  

Deliberations

 

Kelly – Thanked Mr. Haddad for the upgrades to the property but has a problem taking one family homes and making two family homes and then having a situation down the road. The applicant should be commended for the improvements but have a real problem.

 Schneider – Would like to thank Mr. Haddad for his service.  He made wonderful improvements to the house.  I do not see the hardship – you never know what you are going to get.

 Reynolds – SF Zone – Master Plan was reviewed and our town fathers saw that it should stay that way and I see it as an intensity of use on the highway. I do not believe that any hardship has been proven and I do see a detriment to the public. Leaning away from approval.

 Loder – I do not think that the applicant has proven his hardship and will be voting against.

 McGee – Inclined to agree with my colleagues – I do not see a hardship. One unit with 4 bedrooms will add traffic and cars and do not see how that is going to improve the situation.

 Davis – Mr. Haddad likewise, thank you for your service and thank you for the improvements to this house. I do not believe that the positive criteria have been met as proposed. As soon as I saw the application, I thought what is the benefit to the zone. Heavily traveled area – reliance on a sub-divided lot easement.  For those reasons I cannot support doubling the use of this property.

 Struncius – In agreement – we have not proven a hardship. The positive criteria has not been met with special reasons – just looking for an economic change – really no reason to do it.  Zone calls for a single-family use.

 

Motion made by Mr. Davis and seconded by Mr. Reynolds, that the application of Simon and Nabilia Haddad at 325 Hawthorne be denied.

  VOTE ON ROLL CALL:

 

IN FAVOR:       Mr. Kelly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. McGee, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius

 OPPOSED:       None

 

 

 

          Meeting adjourned at 10:45pm

 

Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA

Clerk of the Board