Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Minutes
May 17, 2018 BOA minutes
The May 17, 2018 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. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Vice chair Reilly, Secretary Reynolds, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo, Mr. Davis, Ms. Crasper, Mr. McGee and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Dixon
Also present – Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet – court Reporter
Memorialize Minutes
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of April 19, 2018 –
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Davis, Crasper, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Memorialize resolutions
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2018-10 of Bernard Michalski – Miles 119 Trenton – w/conditions
In favor: Spade, Kelly, Reynolds, Davis, Crasper and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving the one year extension of resolution 2016-08(02) of the Godwin Family Properties, LLC – 403 Channel Drive
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Crasper, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Executive Session
Roll Call
Motion by Vice Chair Reilly, second by Mr. Schneider to direct the Board attorney to file an appeal in reference to the Tirpak decision.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application #2017-22 – Ocean Avenue. Partners, LLC – 149 Ocean Avenues – Block 149; Lot 25 – Applicant wishes to demolish two existing single family dwelling units and create off street parking. Application carried without notice from April 19, 2018.
(Board members voting tonight on Application #2017-22 – TS, LK, JR, DD, TD, SC and PS)
John Jackson, applicant’s attorney gave summation.
Mr. Spader commented that our experience has been with replacement homes in the bungalow section that they can rebuild in existing footprint – if you are only 8 inches off the property line – 20 years down the road gets rid of the driveway and wants to build a home they will have to come back to the board for variances right? They will not be able to build a new home 8 inches off the property. Then in the future there will only be one home on the lot Line. The two home use is abandoned.
Deliberations
Spader – Some applications are a no brainer – believes this is in the best interest of the town for air and light. You do not buy in the bungalow section for a view. We do not need a lot with weeds. In favor.
Kelly – Tough one – too many cars in the driveway – believes they will have problems backing out. Drove her on Mother’s Day and traffic was bumper to bumper. Parking is a problem but I have to weigh that against the buildings there. The buildings will be gone. Owners down the road might want to put a house there and one house will work.
Reynolds – Prime example that things are not as easy as they look. I do not think anyone thought this would take so long. Sees this a significant improvement to light and air. Can’t see how anyone would complain about these buildings being gone. Would like to see a chain when empty. For all those reasons I see this as a benefit. (Chairman Struncius commented that these buildings will be gone anyways because they are unusable)
DePolo – initially when we heard the application was reluctant of approving it with the easement but after listening to the tape with the safety improvements I am leaning in favor. I think they will be happily surprised that it will turn out better than expected. I think it will be lightly used and have little impact. One question is if this is sold down the road will the use remain. (Dennis Galvin replied that the use runs with the land. The next owner could rent their home and then the lot would be utilized more.)
Davis – Went back and reviewed notes – essentially have a hybrid parking concept to a difficult parking situation. Do agree that this will be a primary use to a non-conforming property. Non-conforming use – does not see it as a positive – Primary concern being ingress and egress to the property. Requires multiple cars to jockey out of the parking lot. Testimony to other parking lots in the area but there was no evidence that they are legal or well maintained. Cannot base an approval on illegal activities. Believe that it is totally unenforceable restriction. Believe the application is unique. Does not enhance the zone. Our job is to see the impact of approvals in the future – proposed arrange is fraught with opportunity for friction between neighbors. For all of those reasons I cannot get behind this application.
Crasper – Existing use is not a permitted use – the homes are not habitable. Believe removing the homes reduces density in area and opens up air and space. Biggest thing is safety concern – fire hazard in general. Will be in favor.
McGee – Application is a no brainer – improves safety. Should be restricted to six (6) cars. Any more than 6 cars would be too much.
Struncius – Have never seen anything that says we should be taking away homes and building parking lots. I don’t quite get it. This is a place that homes are approved. They would have to bring those homes up to code to be usable. There are many homes like that – we have seen many before. The applicant herself said she has no interest in being a landlord. Not beneficial to the community it is convenient to the applicant. We can predict that someone is going to be smart about getting their car out. I can see people in the street stopping cars so they can get their car out. There is no guidance in the Master plan that says we should put parking lots in lots zoned for homes. For that reason I struggle. I just can’t get behind it – I don’t support it.
Conditions
1. There is to be a deed restriction that these parking spaces are limited to six (6) spaces that are owner occupied and it is never to be used for public parking.
2. The curb cut needs council approval.
3. Easement use is to be blocked by fence until the parking lot use is abandoned.
4. There will be a chain and sign for private parking.
5. Surface is to be gravel and apron to be extended to property line to contain the gravel.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Secretary Reynolds to approve application #2017-22 of Ocean Avenue. Partners, LLC – 149 Ocean Avenues – Block 149; Lot 25 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, DePolo and Crasper
Opposed: Davis and Struncius
Application approved with conditions
Application 2018-08 – Joseph Montalto/Jill Jordan – 1614 East Street – Block 178.02; Lot 11 – Applicant intends to raise existing single family dwelling to FEMA compliant standards and add front and rear decks.
Joseph Montalto applicant, sworn.
Jill Jordan, applicant’s wife, sworn. Jill Jordan stated that they have a little home that was built in 1950. They are hoping to redirect the stairs and add decking. Jill believes that having a center stair is more elegant. Requesting front setback relief and small front porch and covered front door; home is small (Cape Cod). Also looking for Building coverage relief. Lawn will be grass with additional landscaping. Bottom of home in rear will be open for extra living space. Bldg. cov. Is 33.7%. Shed will be eliminated.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Spader – Thinks the questioned have been answered and does not see this as a problem. In support
Kelly – Nice jobs with the additions. No problem.
Reilly – Agree – pretty straight forward. In favor
Reynolds – Also agree – request is deminimus – didn’t come asking for height or additions. Removing the shed should make you happy. Am good with it.
Schneider – Good addition to the neighborhood. Much better than it was; good improvement.
DePolo – Deminimus request; improvement to the neighbor – all for it
Davis – Nothing I can add
Crasper – No issues with application
McGee – Improvement to an area that was particularly hard hit. In favor
Struncius – All of a sudden throwing around 35% building coverage’s like it is no big deal – but it is. We have to come to terms with that – applicant willing to get rid of the shed which brought it down to 33% – We have turned down applicants for 33% but we took into consideration the open decking (4%) – not overly bulked – we get flood compliance and safety with the rebuild.
Conditions
1. The shed is to be removed.
2. The stone on the front lawn is to be replaced with grass.
3. The ground under the decks will be stone or grass.
Motion by Vice chair Reilly, second by Secretary Reynolds to approve application #2018-08 of Joseph Montalto – 1614 East Street – Block 178.02; Lot 11 – with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2017-04 – Vasseel Verdis – 513 McLean Avenue – Block 110: Lot 38 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.
Harvey York, Esq., attorney for applicant, stated that this is a house that was built in 1925 on an irregular lot that is squeezed between two garages. The attorney described it as a dump that is in need of an upgrade. Proposed to tear it down and build a larger 3 story structure of 1700 square feet. It will improve the neighborhood and improve the house. The side yard setback will be improved but the remaining variances will stay. If you built to code you would have no house. One of the neighboring garages is probably larger than this house. Will try to get curb cut approval to have small driveway. Lots that are east to west of this have much larger lots and detached garages. Dealing with something that was built in 1925.
Matthew Wilder, Licensed PE/Planner, credentials accepted, stated that this property is located near to the train station and bagel shop. The front yard setback is consistent to the neighborhood. There is no additional land to be purchased to eliminate these conditions. Dennis Galvin inquired if they had made an offer to buy the next door property. (No). Chairman Struncius said they are giving consideration to the size and shape of the lot. Harvey York stated that complying would give them a home of 360 square feet. The home being proposed is a modest increase from what exist today. Matthew Wilder stated the client will change the driveway to stone to comply with impervious coverage.
Ray Savacool commented that a 3 story structure is not permitted so that also requires a variance. Matthew Wilder stated that the structure to the west is higher than the proposed structure. Harvey York stated that the size of the lot is a hardship – Matthew Wilder agreed. The house will have vinyl cedar impressions in front and it will be a neutral color. Ray Savacool commented that the curb cut will not impact on street parking.
Deliberations
Spader – Unusual applications tonight – walked the property today. There are some improvements – if the applicant wants to build there I can’t be anything but supportive.
Kelly – I like the whole ides of this building being built here. It reflects what the town used to look like at one time. In favor
Reilly – What they are proposing will be a significant improvement for the neighborhood and safety – they do have a problem because the lot is smaller than ideal – we have to take that into account – I think the design is pretty clever to get that much living space into that small of area. Will be in favor
Reynolds – Definitely go an undersized lot – the home that is there is aged – we will get a compliant safer home.
Schneider – I think it is a major improvement to the area. It is a small lot – the house is not too ostentatious in fits into that size lot as best as possible. Will be a safety improvement – those structures a very close. In favor.
DePolo – Undersized lot and that probably is the worse house on the block so it will be a great improvement to the neighborhood. You did a nice job with it and I am all for it.
Davis – Along with all else that has been said the setbacks are reasonable considering the size of the lot. You have improved the one side yard setback.
Very small lot and it is an improvement.
Crasper – modest home on an undersized lot. It is only going to make that area look better aesthetically so I am in favor.
McGee – I think you have done a lot to make it look better.
Struncius – I can’t believe how many times I have pulled out of that lot because I like bagels – I cannot even tell you what this house looks like. I think the one thing that can become somewhat questionable is the third story – but giving yourself some of that outdoor living space – we are a little soft because we have an elevated deck in a residential area – that has to be used properly because that can be an issue with sound. So again having that third story makes it a more livable space.
Motion by Vice chair Reilly, second by secretary Reynolds to approve application #2017-04 – Vasseel Verdis – 513 McLean Avenue – Block 110: Lot 38 with conditions.
Conditions
1. The home is to be sided in front with vinyl cedar impressions.
2. Applicant is to receive council approval for curb cut.
3. Home is to be painted a neutral color.
Meeting adjourned at 9:55pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
