Borough of Point Pleasant Beach May 19, 2022 BOA Minutes
The May 19, 2022 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, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGee and Mr. Driber
Absent – Pasola and Struncius
Also, present –Ben Montenegro, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet – court Reporter
AGENDA
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2022-08 of Tom/Eileen Swift – 105 St. Louis Avenue with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Davis, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2022-09 of Larry/Karen Testa – 203 Niblick – Block 126; Lot 18 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Davis, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2022-11 –of George/Lorraine Kipel – 302 Trenton Avenue – Applicant is requesting relief from Borough flood ordinance to maintain mechanicals at 10 feet base flood. Complies with FEMA requirements.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Davis, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Agenda
#2022-22 – Matthew/Kristy Crossan – 405 Yale Avenue – Block 156; Lot 9 & 10 – Applicant is requesting to install 6-foot gates to match their neighbors fencing.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
`Kelly – Went down today and spoke to two neighbors. It is a beautiful home – in favor.
Dixon – It is not encroaching or blocking views. In favor
Schneider – looks good – in favor
Davis – It looks much better matching the neighbor’s fence.
McGee – This is a no brainer. Looks great.
Driber – I agree with the rest of the board.
Reynolds – This is a deminimis request – looks good – also in favor
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2022-22 – Matthew/Kristy Crossan – 405 Yale Avenue – Block 156; Lot 9 & 10 with conditions
In favor: Kelly. Dixon, Schneider, Davis, McGee, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Matthew/Kristy Crossan, sworn explained how they installed a fence to match their neighbors fence. Then they found out they would need a variance for a 6-foot fence. `
2022-18 – Steven/Susan Fisher – 1306 Ocean Avenue -0 Block 17,01/lot 23 & 30 – Applicant wishes to divide existing second story balcony to utilize half of the balcony for a closed in office, while the other half remains a balcony. John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant proposes to renovate the existing single-family home as depicted on the architectural plans submitted by dividing the existing second story balcony to convert half of said balcony into an enclosed office. The roof line for said conversion extends the existing building height nonconformity. The Applicant is requesting variance relief for the project for building height.
The following were submitted in support of the Application:
A1 – Certified Variance Application
A2 –Architectural Plans by Virtuoso Architecture (Paul Grabowski R.A.) (dated 12/20/21); and Plot Plan by KBA Engineering Services, LLC (Joseph Kociuba, P.E., P.P.)(dated 3/2/15)
A3 – Power Point Packet (9 pages)
A4 – Surveyor (Fiore) Letter, dated 5/16/16
5/16/22 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.
Paul Grabowski, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted stated that the applicant is the title owner of the subject property. The subject property is located in the SF5 zone. Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. There is an existing single family home on the subject property approved for a height variance via Board resolution 2015-28. It is applicant’s intent per the plans submitted to renovate the existing approved home to divide the existing second story master bedroom balcony to convert half of said balcony into an enclosed office for the homeowner. The proposed modification does not increase the building height existing and previously approved. The application requires bulk variance relief for building height for the 2.2’ nonconformity proposed for the enclosed office space. He noted that based on the location of the subject home, the location of the proposed modification, the existing building height, and the size of the modification, the deviation will have no detrimental impact on the surrounding properties.
He believes that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D- 2 (a), (c), and (i) – noting that the proposal provides for an aesthetic improvement/design to the site while providing a functional improvement to the site for the homeowner; and the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good.
Deliberations
Kelly – I think it is a beautiful home and it is a beautiful view. I have no problem with this.
Dixon – Looks great – you don’t even notice it.
Schneider – Doesn’t bother the neighbors light and air.
Davis – No detriment to the zone – office with a view. In character with the house.
McGee – great transition to office.
Driber – My only concern would be if it affected the neighbors.
Reynolds – Nobody is going to see this – deminimis change – have no problem.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by secretary Schneider to approve application 2022-18 of Steven/Susan Fisher – 1306 Ocean Avenue
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Davis, McGee, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application approved
2022-17 – John/Pricilla McDermott – 301 Newark Avenue – Block 20 Lot: 1 – Applicant wishes to add second story, new siding and windows.
Mike Rubino, attorney for applicant, reviewed application and requested variances. House was previously granted variances for a deck after Sandy. Now the applicant is requesting to build a second story and attic. Second story deck will match deck on the floor below.
John McDermott, applicant, sworn, gave a brief history of the house, his wife and brother purchased the house for his moth-in-law until Sandy. The house was destroyed and then it was restored as a summer house. Variances granted for the lift in 2015. Wasn’t back in the home until 2018.
Ray Savacool explained that they flood requirements have changed since this home was lifted. The new firm map puts this home in an AE10 zone – so the first floor should be at 12 feet. If improvements are over 50% the home would need to be raised again.
The board needs clarification that the home complies to the town ordinance flood requirements. The applicant requested to be carried to August 18, 2022 without notice.
Motion by Mr. McGee, second by secretary Schneider to carry application 2022-17 of John/Pricilla McDermott – 301 Newark Avenue to August 18, 2022 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Davis, McGee, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
2022-15 – Ralph LaManna – 70 Inlet Drive – lot 10.01; Block 176 – Applicant is requesting to install a paver patio, keep existing shed, but relocating it and the shed.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that he is looking for a d(2) variance for expansion of a nonconforming use whereas single family residential use is no longer a permitted use in the MC zone whereas applicant proposed expansion by way of installation of the proposed shower and shed. Sheds are not a permitted accessory use in the MC Zone.
Bulk variances are proposed as follows:
Maximum building coverage where 40% is permitted and 40.24% is proposed;
Maximum impervious coverage where 70% maximum is allowed and 82.2% is proposed;
Minimum accessory side yard setback(shed) where 25’ is required and 8.81’ is proposed;
Minimum accessory rear yard setback (shed) where 25’ is required and .16’ is proposed;
The applicant proposed to remove an existing rear concrete patio (that was previously installed and denied by the Board via Resolution 2021-17, to construct a permeable rear deck, relocate a nonconforming existing shed and keep a nonconforming outdoor shower/rinse station in its existing location.
Applicant submitted the following in support of the Application:
Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application
Exhibit A2 –Variance Plan, by KBA Engineering Services, LLC (Joseph Kociuba, P.E., P.P.)
Exhibit A3 – Power Point Packet (9 pages)
Joseph Kociuba, PE/PP. sworn, credentials accepted, stated the existing site is located in the MC zone and currently contains a one-story single family residential home that is a prior-nonconforming use in the MC zone. The applicant proposes to remove an existing rear concrete patio (that was previously installed and denied by the Board via Resolution 2021-17) to construct a permeable rear deck, relocate a nonconforming existing shed and keep a nonconforming outdoor shower/rinse station in its existing location. He noted that the plan proposes to shift the existing shed and rear fence approximately 3’ off the driveway easement line as an accommodation to the residential neighbors that share the use of the driveway easement.
The plan proposes that the proposed plan (which includes removal of 3’ of pavement in front of the home) reduces overall impervious coverage from 82.9% to 82.2%. He further noted that 16% of that impervious coverage is the shared driveway easement that benefits the neighboring properties.
The 3’ pervious planter area in front of the home shall not contain any plantings that would prevent front vehicle overhang in this space so as to accommodate parking in front of the home without encroachment into the roadway. Ground level/covering plantings are acceptable in the planter space. The rear yard shed is 4’ by 8’. The rear deck shall be open slat decking with permeable surface below.
Audience questions/comments
Claudio Ripoll, 70A inlet – asked for clarification – loves the new idea
Nina Halter – 68A Inlet Drive – Also likes the new plan. Inquired of the time line for the project. (ASAP)
Deliberation
Kelly – The applicant is trying to resolve this and work with the neighbors. I will be in favor.
Dixon – I believe this is a better application – the deck allows water to go into the ground. He has done a lot – he is putting the wood deck back and cutting the fence. Big improvement.
Schneider – Unique area – This compromise is a good one and is good for the neighbors.
Davis – I see a lot of favorable aspects. A person has a right to protect their property – and the applicant is allowing neighbors to drive on his property – this is very nice of him. In favor
McGee – You have gone a long way to get back where you started. You should be commended that you are going to accommodate your neighbors.
Driber – The only thing that bothered me is I didn’t know some things before tonight. It is a pretty simple application.
Reynolds – The reason I brought up the pavers is that they are now counted as 100% coverage unless they are a special paver. Conditions
- The improvements are to be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board as part of this Application.
- The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Board Engineer report, by Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., dated 5/16/22, unless specifically exempted herein.
- The deck to be constructed shall be vinyl (or wood) decking; no concrete or paver patio shall be utilized.
- The rear fence and shed shall be located a minimum of 3’ off of the driveway easement line.
- The front planter (3’ of pervious material from house) shall allow for vehicles to overhang the full 3’ to accommodate parking.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2022-15 of Ralph LaManna – 70 Inlet Drive – lot 10.01; Block 176 with conditions
In favor: Kelly. Dixon, Schneider, Davis, McGee, Driber and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
