Borough of Point Pleasant Beach May 16, 2019
The May 16, 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. LePore, Mr. McGee an Ms. Crasper
Absent – Spader, Davis, De Polo and Struncius
Also present –Andrew Ball, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet – court Reporter
AGENDA
Bert Roling – Last Wave Brewery – Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to approve the amendment to resolution #2016-18 of last Wave Brewery to allow the change in hours from 12pm till 10pm – 7 days per week –
In favor – Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Amendment approved
Application #2019-27 – Jaqueline/Stephen Reid – 616 New Jersey Avenue – 616 New Jersey Avenue – Block 35.03 Lot: 51 – Applicant erected 10 foot by 16 foot shed where 10 foot by 12 foot is allowed. has more than enough property for the larger shed. Does not negatively impact the neighbors.
Jacqueline Reid, sworn, stated that she didn’t realize that you needed a permit for a shed. She just uses it for gardening. It does not negatively impact the neighbors light or air.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Kelly – No objection
Schneider – Good size lot – it was a mistake – it is there
Dixon – Luckily this is a larger than normal lot – there is an ordinance for a reason – but being a larger lot, I see no problem
LePore – Seeing it is 40 square feet -doesn’t seem to make any impact on the property – situated nicely in the rear.
Crasper – Do to the larger lot – do not feel it is an issue
Mc Gee – Looks nice – not encroaching on anything
Reynolds – Nothing to add – oversized lot – not over on lot coverage
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2019-27 – Jaqueline/Stephen Reid – 616 New Jersey Avenue – Block 35.03 Lot: 51.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved
Application #2019-28 – John/Kathy Gabrielli – 416 Carter Avenue – Block 178.01 – Lot 5 – Applicant reconstructed an old deck.
John Jackson attorney for applicant stated the applicant reconstructed his deck after Sandy without a permit and is looking for approval. A-3 – Power Point presentation entered. JohnGabrielli, applicant sworn, stated that after Sandy there was minimal damage to his property. When they went to fix the damage, he decided a larger rear deck would be nice. Worried that it might be an issue since he is selling his home he came forward for the variance.
Mr. Dixon inquired if the deck was ever inspected. (No) John Jackson stated that it will be inspected if approved.
Mr. Kelly inquired about the damage he incurred. Not much – just water in the crawl space. House is in the same footprint. Original deck was just a stairwell – Figured if I was fixing the deck, I would make it more usable. Mr. Schneider inquired if the builder said not to get permits – No the applicant just decided not to get permits.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Kelly – We have seen everything you can see since Sandy – many things are your situation – there probably would have been a porch by this time – because of that I will approve this one. People are going to start having problems when they go to sell their homes because they do not have permits for work performed.
Schneider – Obviously not a good thing to do without a permit – but if you had come before the board, I would have approved it – it is di minimus – It fits in with the neighborhood – will judge it like a new application and support it.
Dixon – the deck itself is a modest size – you are not filling up the yard with it – obviously it is a case of its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission – as long as you get it inspected.
LePore – I agree – it enhances the property – my only concern was the permit inspection.
Crasper – I also agree – one thing is the pergola top – it is not a solid roof – if it was a solid roof I might h
ave an issue.
McGee – I also agree – it does enhance the aesthetics of the property.
Reynolds – Had this been a new application with the deck I believe that the board would have approved it.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2019-28 of John/Kathy Gabrielli at 416 Carter Avenue with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-17 – Offshore Pools for Traina – 300 Atlantic Avenue – Applicant installed an in-ground swimming pool.
Jeff Weaver, applicants pool contractor, sworn stated that they had the permits to install the pool and had used Bob Burdick’s survey to install the pool and the survey was not accurate. They installed the pool 10 feet off the fence as the property line and it was not a good decision. The as built reflected different measurements. Jeff Weaver said they should not have proceeded when they couldn’t find the property markers and took the blame. The pool is 9 feet 7 inches off existing fence.
Mr. LePore inquired why the as built does not reflect the fence is not on the property line. Jeff Weaver stated that Bob Burdick’s men still couldn’t locate the property marker and also does not understand why it wasn’t corrected. Ray Savacool stated the property line is imaginary and regretfully the mistake was made. Mr. Schneider inquired who’s fault it is ultimately – Jeff Weaver said at the time he believed he was installing the fence 10 feet off the property line. Vice Chair Reynolds said he would have done the same thing – I would have trusted the professional.
Deliberations
Kelly – This particular case the pool people are responsible to make the appeal – you do the best you can we what you get – you went by the professional survey.
Schneider – This is an unfortunate situation – you tried to pout it in correctly and it was an honest mistake. I would approve it
Dixon – Obviously Off Shore pools did not want to be here tonight. Personally, I think when you built the pool there was no inkling you were under 10 feet. I believe it was an hones mistake. Moving the pool would be ridiculous.
LePore – I also do not believe that there was any ill intent – you relied on someone’s expertise. When in doubt use an extra foot or two when you have the room
McGee – The fact that you have that extra room makes me believe it was an honest mistake
Crasper – Honest mistake – we are all human
Reynolds – I believe asking the hardship of asking you to move the pool outweighs a few inches.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Schneider to approve Application #2019-17 of Offshore Pools for Traina – 300 Atlantic Avenue with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-18 – Alex/Milla Star – 201 Parkway – Block 103; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to renovate front porch and add a new rear deck.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, Power Point entered as exhibit A-3- Elevation is at elevation 9 of adjoining grade- seeking variances for bulk variances and will address flood elevation with Mr. Gardner.
William Jensen, Professional Engineer since 1997, credentials accepted, reviewed application. Pool and driveway will remain the same. William Jensen stated that the applicant is adding a deck in the backyard and porch in the front. Applicant will eliminate existing steps and add a paver walkway with new porch. Steps will not encroach. Front yard setback will be 24 feet which is de minimis. Existing variances are not being increased. Rear deck will be impervious – Deck will be built out of treks so water can recharge. Home is being renovated with additional bedroom being added on second floor. Does not see any negatives to this application. Reducing existing variances and upgrading the structure. A/units will be conforming on east side of structure with screening and retaining wall. A/ c units require a variance and the fence can only be three feet in front yard. Ray Savacool said landscaping should be required to hide a/c units.
Audience questions/comments
None
Michael Collucci, builder, sworn, stated that no utilities will be located below the flood plain. Home will be constructed out of cedar impressions, metal roofing, and will be a beige type color.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Kelly – I think this is a nice upgrade for this particular house and the neighborhood. Do not see a problem with it.
Dixon – Expanding the front yard setback that is there now. Second story will not infringe on anybody’s site line. I see no problem with this application. Concerned that the basement does need to be filled in.
Schneider – Good improvement to the structure and area that is there now.
LePore – Concur with my board members – I do not have an issue with the application.
Crasper – I also have no issues with the application – it is an enhancement to the house.
McGee – I agree – it is an improvement to the property.
Reynolds – with all our corner lots the two front yards present a problem – this is a great upgrade to the house.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2019-18 – Alex/Milla Star – 201 Parkway – Block 103; Lot 1 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-16 – Lee Miller – 47 Inlet Drive – Block 175; Lot 22.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single-family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single-family dwelling.
John Jackson attorney for applicant, reviewed application. Exhibit A-3 entered as Power Point presentation. John Jackson stated that he believes this is a unique piece of property – easements allow it to function as a residential use. There is a tide land claim on this property.
John C. Amelchenko, professional architect, credentials accepted, stated that the applicant would like to add a ground floor for storage and a garage. The easement varies in width – it does provide enough maneuvering room to get into the garage. The front of the homes line up with each other by using the existing foot prints. Ground floor decks extend out to the bulk head. Mechanicals will be located on south side of the property. Outdoor shower will be located on second floor deck which is open decking – upper deck is fiberglass. The building department allows it if it doesn’t have a roof over it – they consider it a foot wash. 1400 square foot house (not including the ground floor). Vinyl siding, horizontal sheathing on lower level, Ground level will be cultured stone and home is FEMA compliant. This home was not a candidate to lift – this structure will be much safer. Elevations and floor plan were reviewed. John Amelchenko believes this to be an aesthetic upgrade and believes that this is an appropriate location for homes. These homes have been there for a number of years and does not believe that there are any negative impacts. The driveway will be gravel – the easement is primarily gravel and that will be continued. Mr. Dixon stated that this is a marine commercial zone and the lot is undersized – inquired if this was designed to be a SF5 house? (yes)Mr. Dixon stated this lot is only 2200 square feet not 5,000 as required – nothing other than the height conforms to the SF5 – If compared to the Boardwalk houses it would be 1 ½ stories. This is two stories on a postage stamp sized lot. Mr. Dixon believes that we are putting 50 lbs. of sugar in a 5 lb. bag. This could be used as a marine commercial area. John Jackson argued that it is hard to change an easement to marine commercial use and believes this fits nicely into the area.
Vice Chair Reynolds questioned the deck going 5 feet over the property line and questioned where the fence is going. Vice Chair Reynolds also questioned how the public will access the property. John Jackson replied that his applicant has riparian rights and that there is no public access.
Jason Marciano, Professional Engineer, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed the Board engineer’s review letter and stated that a commercial development is not appropriate for the subject property and that residential development is appropriate for the subject property because residential homes have existed on this property for decades and because of the configuration of the property. He believes this is a greatly improved situation.
Mr. Dixon believes the applicant is picking the higher numbers out of the MC zone and SF5 zone and using them – this is 18% more than allowed – no reason why the house cannot be lifted as it is. We have people coming here for 1% – as I said before this is 50lbs. in a 5 lb. bag. – this size lot is smaller than the bungalow area lots only are allowed 1 ½ story. Home is beautiful but we are getting saturated with 2 story homes on these minuscule lots. You do not meet any of the standards – nothing fits here.
Audience questions for planner
None
Lee Miller, applicant sworn, stated that she was informed by her builder that the home cannot be raised because it is on a slab. Lee Miller says that she wants her dream house and that she plans to live here year-round.
Audience questions/comments
Debra Focazio – Inquired how they will access the property to build the home. How will you get the equipment in. John Amelchenko said staging will be in the driveway.
John Jackson gave closing statement
Deliberations
Kelly – John Amelchenko could come in with a beautiful home for a sandbox. You cannot get 2 cars in there – I went down there today – vegetation needs to be removed – people in front will lose a little bit of view – but they didn’t buy that house – up to the park will change in the future and then the Dr. is coming in – this house is damages – it is difficult – I like the situation because we are getting a beautiful home for a wreck. Saying no would be like picking a pocket – we are getting a beautiful safe home. I would like to see access to the water – everyone is blocking the water off. There some disadvantages – I see this as a better alternative.
Dixon – No one is denying her the use of her property – she has been living there since the storm – No one is taking it away – she is- she is taking down the structure and wants to build something twice the size on a lot that doesn’t fit into any zone anywhere – except for the height does not meet the requirements of any zone anywhere – we tell people coming before use no for one foot – if someone with a normal lot came in here with those numbers we would not allow it – they would get laughed out of the building in a second – this lot is too small for what she wants to do – – she could raise that home – anything can be rebuilt – I would love that house but it is too big for that lot. We should let the people in the bungalow people do it too – they would like 2-stories also but we keep them at a story and a half. This house is almost built onSF5 zone stands which allows 30% – this is 48% – nothing fits – it has been big enough for her and now she wants it twice the size. It is not even close to what should is allowed.
Schneider – Compliments to John Amelchenko as always – beautiful design – sympathetic to what Mr. Dixon said but those houses do exist on those small lots – something that was created years ago and it is hard to deny the property owner use f their property. The marine commercial zone has a 35-foot height limit and we are not violating that – almost impossible to put something on that little lot. Very difficult decision.
LePore – I see it as the fact of the matter that the lot is the size that it is. It has been that way for probably a hundred years and that is not going to change – there is no more land to give to this lot so we have to deal with that issue. We have a house that is already on the lot and I trust in the expert’s opinion that raising it is not feasible and for those reasons I do not have any objections to the applicant’s request.
Crasper – I feel it is definitely a unique situation for this area. Home is going in existing footprint – It is an improvement to the area. I would rather look at this and it will only benefit the area.
McGee – I am inclined to agree – I think one of the great things about this town is that you have all these different little areas and personalities. There is retail and restaurants – this is a neighborhood as much as the library district is a neighborhood and these are the lots that exist in this neighborhood – these homes are built pre-parkway – no we have people that want to live here full time and I think we should embrace that – we are improving what already exist – I think if we have the opportunity to embrace that progress that we should – I am going to approve it.
Reynolds – For me this is a little difficult – when Sandy happened and applications came in I saw it as an opportunity to eliminate the neighborhood -completely – I think it is a beautiful point and at the time thought it would be more suitable for public access – that being said I wasn’t here the night that we voted on the neighbor’s house so it seems that ship has sailed – I do like the looks of the home – it is a new improved home – if we deny it the old home stays.
Motion by Mr. LePore, second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2019-16 of Lee Miller – 47 Inlet Drive – Block 175; Lot 22.01 – with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Schneider, LePore, Crasper, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: Dixon
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
- The Applicant shall be obligated to comply with all Tidelands regulations.
- The home shall be constructed according to the testimony given at the time of the hearing on May 16, 2019.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
