Borough of Point Pleasant Beach May 18, 2023
The May 18, 2023 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: Kelly, Pasola, Struncius, Dixon, Davis, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Dealmeida
Absent Schneider and Driber
Also present: Karen Mills, Clerk, Ray Savacool, Board Engineer and Ben Montenegro, Board attorney
Denise Sweet – court Reporter
AGENDA
Memorialize minutes
Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of February 2, 2023 –
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Neill, McFadden and Struncius
Opposed: None
Memorialize Resolutions–
Motion by Mr. McGee, second by vice chair Pasola to memorialize the action and vote approving application # 2023-09 of Carolyn/Andrew Messinger – 320 Elizabeth Avenue – Block 13.04; Lot 17 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application # 2023-23 – Over the Moon Dog Grooming – 406 Richmond
In favor: Kelly, Pasola, Dixon, Neill, Dealmeida and Struncius
Opposed: None
Agenda
2023-19 – Kevin/Margaret McGuirl – 427 Yale – Block 115; Lot 23 – Applicant is requesting existing variances for house lift.
John Jackson attorney for applicant reviewed variances requested.
Exhibits entered
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 – Topographic Survey by Lakeland Surveying (dated 4/12/21); Architectural Plans by StudioVano Architecture (2 sheets) entitled “McGuirl Residence”; Plot Plan for Variance by MCO Engineering, Inc. (dated 1/14/23)
A3 – Power Point Packet (17 pages)
4/3/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Jonathan Van Ostenbridge, R.A.,sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the applicants are the title owners of the subject property. The subject property is located in the SF5 zone; single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone and the lot is 50′ in width.
There is an existing single-family home on the subject property with existing nonconformities for front setback and side setbacks. The proposed application will eliminate the existing front setback nonconformity. The existing front setback to the front porch is 21.4′ where 25′ is required. As depicted on the plans submitted, the footprint of the home proposed remains the same as existing. The proposed elevation of the home makes the home compliant with all flood/FEMA requirements. He noted that the finished first floor is at elevation 17.25 while DFE is 12. The ground level floor plan provides for non-habitable garage and storage space. The two stories above the ground floor level as shown on the plans provide for the habitable living space with 4 bedrooms proposed.
In comparing/contrasting the existing home on site (see photos – Exhibit A3) with the proposed elevations and photo simulation of the renovated/elevated home proposed (see Exhibit A3), he stated that the proposed application will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site. He noted that the proposed application meets RSIS requirements for off street parking. He testified that the height of home is calculated at 34.95′, meeting the 35′ maximum height requirement of the zone.
He also commented that the architectural design of the home as shown on the elevations and photo simulation more than mitigates the 88.63% second story ratio where 85% is allowed. He noted that the purpose of the Ordinance is to avoid large box like structures. The proposed home has open decks and window/roof features that make the aesthetics of the design appropriate for the neighborhood. The proposed application would elevate and modify the home to comply with flood zone requirements, thereby improving overall safety of the structure and that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the narrow dimension of the lot and the existing improvements at the subject property.
Deliberations
Kelly – The biggest problem in this area is the relative change. You don’t even recognize the streets anymore. Things change; as long as its conforming.
Dixon – Like the idea that the front yard is conforming. Nice home but it is boxy; would like it to conform to the 85% for the second story. Over all it is nice looking.
Pasola – I also like the idea of moving it back; I understand why you are building it this way. You have proven a hardship – in favor
Davis – I agree with my colleagues; I think it is deminimis
McGee – I am inclined to agree with what my colleagues said about change. I like the improvements and that the front yard setback conforms. Beautiful home
Neill – I do think it is an add; if there was an issue the neighbors would be here.
McFadden – I agree with the other board members. I like that you explained about the excess square footage and that you eliminated the front yard variance.
Dealmeida – I appreciate the challenge of the lift and you have done a good job.
Struncius – I think it is deminimis and that the house has architecture appeal. It is a flood compliant home; new construction. In favor
Motion by vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. McGee to approve application #2023-19 of Kevin/Margaret McGuirl – 427 Yale – Block 115; Lot 23
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Davis, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved
2023-14 – John/Nichole Dougherty – 219 Parkway – Block 103; Lot 10 – Applicant proposes to raise existing home for stand-up storage and add loft space above garage.
John Jackson attorney for applicant reviewed application and variances.
Exhibits entered
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 – Survey by Morgan Engineering (dated 1/8/20); Architectural Plans by Dean Daley, R.A. (dated 12/7/22); Plot Plan by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P. (dated 1/19/23); Survey by R.C. Burdick, P.E., P.P/Stanley Hans, P.L.S. (dated 1/18/23)
A3 – Power Point Packet (11 pages)
5/16/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Dean Daley, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted reviewed the application and plans.
There is an existing single-family home on the subject property with an existing front setback nonconformity to Chicago Avenue (25′ required, 15′ existing). He noted that a re-survey of the property confirmed that the existing (and proposed) side setback from the eastern property line was compliant at 5′. As such, that variance request was eliminated from the application at the time of hearing. The property is a corner lot with frontage on Point Pleasant Parkway and Chicago Avenue. The proposed application would elevate and modify the home to comply with flood zone requirements, thereby improving overall safety of the structure. In discussing his architectural plans, he noted that the ground level would provide for a two-car garage, ground level storage space and entryway with stairs to the above two living levels. The proposed first floor plan provides for the kitchen/dining room, living room, foyer, laundry room, family room and full bath as shown on the plans submitted. The proposed second floor loft plan over the family room was shown on the plans submitted. In comparing the proposed elevations of the home with additions (sheets 1, 4, 7 and 9 of Exhibit A3) with the existing home on site (sheets 3 and 7 of Exhibit A3), he opined that proposed application provides for a significant aesthetic improvement to the site.
He testified that the proposed home is a 3-bedroom home which requires 2 off street parking spaces per RSIS and same is satisfied by the 2 garage parking spaces. He further noted that the driveway (although not RSIS compliant for length dimension) functionally provides for two additional parking spaces as depicted in the photo on sheet 3 of Exhibit A3.
Applicant agreed as a condition that any curb or sidewalk damaged during construction must be repaired/replaced as determined by the Board engineer. He stated that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) and (i) – noting that the proposal provides for a functional and safety improvement to the site by elevating the home for flood zone/FEMA compliance; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good and that there are no negative impacts created by the minimal deviations from strict compliance with the zoning ordinance and that the benefits advanced by the proposed development outweigh any detriments.
Audience questions comments
The neighbor Jacquie Glass submitted a letter saying that she approved of the upgrades.
Deliberations
Kelly – Happy to see this house improved. Keeping the character.
Dixon – Nice addition to the house. Corner lot – porch is not over doing it.
Pasola – I agree – beautiful design. They are here for existing variances.
Davis – I will echo what has been said. I do not see any detriment.
McGee – Beautiful design – improvement
Neill – I think this is an open and shut case. Nice improvement
McFadden – I think the variances are existing – beautiful design.
Dealmeida – Maintaining original character.
Struncius – Getting a flood compliant home – not exceeding the height requirement. Corner lot is a hardship.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2023-14 of John/Nichole Dougherty – 219 Parkway – Block 103; Lot 10 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Davis, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved
2023-02 – Joseph/Denise Lipman – 112 Washington Avenue – Block 18.01; Lot 6 – Applicant submitted revised plans for new single-family dwelling.
Carried without notice from March 16, 2023
John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed changes to the proposed plan.
Exhibits entered
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 – Architectural Plans by Rui Amaral, Architect (6 Sheets, last revision date 3/30/23)
A3 – Power Point Packet (2/16/23- 15 pages)
A4 – Survey (shaded)
A5 – Power Point Packet (5/18/23 – 12 pages)
4/3/23 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Rui Amaral, R.A., still under oath from prior meeting, reviewed the revised plan.
The proposed application will eliminate the existing garage nonconformities and impervious coverage nonconformity. Applicant proposes no change to the existing pool and deck. The deck is approximately 2-3′ above average grade.
In the revised plans submitted for approval at the 5/18/23 hearing, the Applicant eliminated the originally proposed rear yard garage in favor of a fully compliant shed (10′ by 12′ in dimension). Applicant agreed as a condition that said shed shall be for storage only (no habitable space and no cabana use).
The proposed plan calls for the closure of the existing driveway on Baltimore Avenue, in lieu of a driveway added on Washington Avenue. Applicant agreed as a condition that relocation of the driveway requires separate Borough Council approval and applicant must make application for same. He testified that one off street parking stall on Washington Avenue will be lost, while one stall on Baltimore Avenue will be created.
The proposed elevation of the home makes the home compliant with all flood/FEMA requirements. He noted that the finished first floor is at elevation 15 while DFE is 12. He confirmed that the building meets the height ordinance for dimension (32′ above BFE is proposed where 32.5′ is allowed). He testified that the architectural detail that extends an additional 4′ in height meets the Ordinance definition of cupola and therefore complies. He agreed that third floor finished space (344 square feet) constitutes a third story; thus, requiring a variance where 2 stories are allowed. He believes that the design improves the overall aesthetics of the home design and allows for access to the outdoor balcony that provides for a view of the lake. The ground level floor plan provides for non-habitable garage and storage space. The two stories above the ground floor level as shown on the plans provide for the habitable living space with 4 bedrooms proposed. The attic floor plan shown on the plans constitutes the third story with 344 square feet of finished space with access to the rooftop balcony.
Applicant agreed as a condition to modify the rooftop balcony to be a minimum of 5′ from the edge of building to comply with the Ordinance.
In comparing/contrasting the existing home on site (see photo page 4 – Exhibit A5) with the proposed elevations and photo simulation of the home proposed (see Exhibit A5 – pages 1-3), he believes that the proposed application will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site.
Conditions
- The applicant shall comply with all items set forth in the Board Engineer report dated 2/13/23, unless specifically exempted herein.
- Applicant must comply with the following special conditions:
- The rear yard shed shall be 10′ by 12′ in dimension and shall be for storage only (no habitable space and no cabana use).
- The relocation of the driveway from Baltimore Avenue to Washington Avenue requires an application to and approval by the Governing Body of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.
- The rooftop balcony shall be modified on the plans to provide a 5′ distance to the edge of the building to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Kelly – Came back with a suitable plan
Dixon – Beautiful home – seeing the way it lines up – in favor
Pasola – I think it will be a beautiful home – impressed with the changes – they worked with the board. No neighbors this evening. I think it will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Davis – I think you are being a good neighbor – along with that with the removal of the garage I will be in favor. I would like the attic roof line changed – I do not see the purpose of a flat roof.
McGee – This is what is going on Washington Avenue – like the compromise on the garage. Beautiful home
Neill – The front yard setback – appreciate the applicant coming back with adjustments and being considerate of the neighbors. Also, would like the flat roof eliminated.
McFadden – I also appreciate the changes the applicant made and will be in favor.
Dealmeida – I don’t take issue with any variances
Struncius – I do like the fact that the front roof was eliminated; it softens the massing. The fact that the garage and deck was eliminated. The fact that you came down to 31% building coverage and impervious coverage is under. Another corner lot that will look nice.
Motion by second by to vice chair Pasola, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2023-02 of Joseph/Denise Lipman – 112 Washington Avenue – Block 18.01; Lot 6 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Davis, McGee, Neill, McFadden and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved
Application approved with conditions
Meeting adjourned at 10pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
