Borough of Point Pleasant Beach May 21, 2020 BOA Minutes
The May 21, 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. Dixon, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis, Ms. Crapser and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Spader
Also present – Karen Mills, Dennis Galvin and Ray Savacool
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to approve the minutes of May 7, 2020
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Pasola, McGee, and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the amendment extending Resolution #2018-05 of Point Pleasant Packing, LLC
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Pasola, McGee, and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the amendment to Resolution #2017-19 – 1301 Ocean Avenue LLC – Block 18.01; lot 1 – Applicant requesting administrative deviation from site plan. Requesting to remove garbage enclosure and relocate garbage storage to garage.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, McGee, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the amendment to Resolution 2019-22 (2) – Joe Gankiewicz – 121 Randall –
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, McGee, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Agenda
Application #2020-01 – Lisa/Richard Pizzuta – 301 New York Avenue – Block 41; Lot- 1 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single-family dwelling.
Pizzuta application was carried without notice from the February 20, 2020 meeting. Chairman Struncius, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis have all listened to the audio from that meeting and signed certification and are qualified to vote.
Walter Slomienski, attorney for applicant, reviewed previous testimony and stated that they submitted revised elevations and have eliminated all variances except for the 11-foot setback on the Chicago side. Material to be used on the foundation will be colored split faced charcoal block (photo marked A-6) and landscaped. Nickel lock pavers will be utilized which will be set in sand.
Mr. Kelly inquired if the applicant would be installing sidewalks. The applicant stated not at this time but would agree to a developer’s agreement (bond) for the future if they are ever installed in the area. At this time there are no sidewalks. Mr. Dixon agrees with Mr. Kelly about the installation of sidewalks. Mr. Dixon believes they should be done on all streets. Walter Slomienski, applicant’s attorney, stated it will be part of the approval. Ray Savacool believes it is a reasonable solution as long as it is filed with the Ocean County clerk’s office.
Mr. Davis questioned the third story deck facing New York avenue.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Kelly – In favor of the house – just thinks sidewalks should be installed.
Dixon – Very happy the owner went back and made adjustments – nice looking house – great addition to the neighborhood.
Reynolds – aesthetics presented are great – as was mentioned it is a corner lot – no problems with application as it stands.
Schneider – very appreciative of the changes – good design – fit the neighborhood nicely – like the developer agreement
Pasola – would like to thank the applicant for the changes and appreciates the developer agreement.
Loder – Appreciative that the applicant worked with the town and made the necessary changes. Has no problem with the application.
McGee – Nice design – thank you for the adjustments – has issue with third floor balcony – it is in the front elevation.
Davis – All said and done – it is going to be a nice house – it is going to be imposing for that neighborhood – I think it will blend in down the road I do think it is important to have the sidewalks – it is a safety issue. Third story decks have traditionally been frowned on – just hope all of us will be vigil about the third story decks.
Crasper – Has no issue with application.
Struncius – Also has not much to add – everything was pretty well covered – applicant worked with us and made adjustments.
Conditions
- The applicant will install landscaping and decorative foundation materials in accordance with the testimony presented and to the satisfaction of the Board’s engineer.
- The applicant will prepare a Developer’s Agreement for the future installation of sidewalks at such a time as sidewalks are installed in the nearby vicinity. The Developer’s Agreement shall be submitted to the Board’s attorney for review within thirty (30) days of the time this Resolution is memorialized and recorded in the Ocean County Clerk’s Office within sixty (60) days of the date the agreement is executed.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Loder to approve application 2020-01 of Lisa and Richard Pizzuta – 301 New York Avenue with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
2020-05 – David/Lisa Carver – 310 Baltimore Avenue – Block 101; Lot 9.03 – Applicant is constructing new single-family dwelling and wishes to construct a deck within the rear yard setback.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed application. Stated that he believes this is not a house that is overly developed – applicant is seeking rear yard setback for deck. This deck will allow them to have a table and a bbq grill. Deck is not even the full width of the house.
Charles E. Lindstrom Professional Engineer, credentials accepted, sworn, reviewed Ray Savacool’s letter. Lower floor will have decorative stone and be for storage. Home will be sided in hardy board fire rated plank and azek trim. Driveway easily parks four cars.
Vice Chair Reynolds questioned the curb cut and loss of parking. (Will not cause loss of parking)
Mr. Davis questioned the two third story rear balconies. Concerned with privacy – I do think out door space is important but we have to think about the neighbors. This house already has so much outdoor decking already. Objection is putting these terraces up so high – has an impact on the neighbors. Mr. Dixon also has an issue with the third-floor deck – I think it is a big intrusion on the neighbors.
Mr. McGee – believes the third-floor deck overlooks the neighbors pool and believes it is a privacy issue.
David Carver, sworn, stated that he is disabled and would like to have access to the grill. He cannot walk stairs normally – he needs to take one stair at a time.
Lisa Carver applicants, sworn – stated that there are many third-floor decks and feel they should also have one and be the same. Lisa stated that she spoke with the neighbors and they have no issue with the application.
Mr. Kelly – He stated that he does not think this is a big house.
Audience questions /comments
Stephanie Ciarcia – 117 Central Avenue – stated that her deck up top holds the a/c units. It is not a deck that is used for sitting. She said she has never met the Carver’s before. Just wanted to clarify that her deck is for mechanicals.
Deliberations
Kelly – Believes this is a well-designed house. Very happy to see the 3 homes that are on this lot. Three feet is not a terribly large addition.
Dixon – I know its allowable but I am still going to bring up the third-floor deck. We told the Ciarcia’s that they couldn’t have a third-floor deck. The applicant even stated that she thought the neighbor’s deck was intrusive.
Reynolds – Deck upstairs is a non-issue since it is permitted. Design of house is beautiful. No issues with this application.
Schneider – I do not see a big issue with the third-floor deck. Well designed for lot.
Pasola – I think it is a beautiful house – I like that it is not a big monster – the decks do not bother me – all over town there are second and third floor decks. Do I like them – no but the ordinance needs to be changed.
Loder – I think the variance house is deminimis. I think the houses are being designed to be rentals.
McGee – I do not think many of us are fans of the third-floor decks. I think the opportunity to get it on the record is important for changes in the future.
Davis – To the applicant for your testimony – it is a nice design – not a fan of the third-floor deck.
Crasper – no issue with the 4 feet on the deck. I do not think the third-floor deck is not necessary. Mrs. Carver said she spoke to the neighbors and she didn’t.
Struncius – Design of home fits nicely – it is not over built and crammed into the lot. The deck adds to living space. As far as the third-floor deck – this board works with applicant to resolve issues. This home is not super huge and I do not think the deck will be an issue. OK with application
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Vice chair Reynolds to approve application 2020-05 – David/Lisa Carver – 310 Baltimore Avenue – Block 101; Lot 9.03 –
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: Dixon
Application approved
2020-07 – Robert/Crystal Giardina – 109 Atlantic Avenue – Block 63; Lot 5 – Applicant previously lifted and renovated existing single-family dwelling. The deck in rear was extended and stairs relocated.
Richard Stanzione attorney for applicant – Here for bump out that was added for the bbq.
Stuart Narofsky. Professional architect, credentials accepted, reviewed history. Home purchased in May of 2017. Applicant had received updated survey, then he was retained as architect. There was a pre-existing structure – the house now has fewer non-conformities. The applicant considered the work so minor that they moved forward without receiving a variance and are very apologetic. Tried to locate the surveyor but he cannot be reached. Ronald Post was hired and produced a new survey which indicated 32% building coverage and impervious coverage was 52% and then we made a formal application to the board. Building coverage was previously 36% and is now 32.94%; Impervious was 68% and has been reduced to 52.93%. Side yard setback has been improved to 5 feet.
Ray Savacool stated he witnessed that these pavers have “0” runoff. He believes these pavers will not create any runoff. Mechanicals will be located in the corner of the yard which will require a variance. The property line is against a paved parking lot. Bbq area will blend with the rear façade; consistent with the other elevations.
No audience questions /comments
Deliberations
Kelly – Normally I get upset with forgiveness variances; but with all of the problems the applicant had with the surveyor I think they deserve consideration.
Dixon – Have to agree with Mr. Kelly
Reynolds – I also agree with Mr. Kelly and the testimony; it is actually better than when they started out. Good explanations
Schneider – They actually improved the situation and did a remarkable job.
Pasola – I think the case was well presented and agree with what has been said so far.
Loder – I agree with what has been said so far; I like the additional egress
McGee – I concur on all counts – I remember the case last year with the surveyor being inaccurate
Davis – I wouldn’t say the variances are deminimis but it is an approvement from original structure; wish the applicant well
Crasper – no additional comments
Struncius – In a case where we are looking after the fact we think what would we have done – 32% is not de minimis but I think it fits. Most likely I think I would have gotten it to 50% impervious if I had the choice and had them rip some pavers and add a garden.
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by secretary Schneider to approve 2020-07 of Robert/Crystal Giardina – 109 Atlantic Avenue – Block 63; Lot 5 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills , Clerk of the Board
