May 4, 2006

MINUTES

The May 4, 2006 Special Meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were regular members: Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Struncius, Mr. Moberg, Mr. Cangelosi, Mrs. Tooker Alternates: Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Vacarro

Letter – Thomas/Patricia Bahmer #2004-38 – Mr. Bahmer is requesting to change the style of the porch on his new home that was previously approved. Setbacks and building coverage will remain under 30%.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve amendment of application #2004-38 with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Cangelosi, Spader and Reilly…Yea
Opposed: None

Conditions – Does not exceed 30% building coverage and does not further impact the front yard setback.

Application #2005-32 – Richard Swendsen,(Land’s End Condominium Unit Owner’s), 101 New Jersey Avenue; Block: 48 Lots; 1, 1.01 thru 1.08; Applicant wishes to expand 8 existing units in rear and add roof top deck to Unit 1.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. John Amelchenko, licensed architect, credentials accepted. Color rendering entered – A-3. Corner units are 1,000 square feet. Middle units are 800 square feet. Building built in 1950. Currently the units do not contain laundry rooms within the units. Now they would have their own laundry room. 6 units are adding 350 square feet. Two end units are adding 400 square feet to make them about 1400 square feet. Property is well kept. Pool is located on property. Asking to keep stucco exterior so addition blends.

GM – are the decks useable or are they for aesthetic purposes?

JA – Aesthetic element, cannot walk out on them. It is to allow for a sliding glass door. Intent was to create aesthetic feeling. Currently 6 (1) bedroom units and 2 (2)-bedroom units. Trying to modernize interior. All master bedrooms will be contained within the addition. Two-foot cantilever off the back to break up the elevation.

A-4, Floor plan, A-5 Exterior Rendering, A-6 Site plan, A-7 Color Rendering/Site plan entered

Mr.Struncius – Proposed one story is now two stories. The den could be utilized as a bedroom.

No audience questions

Mr. Vacarro – Commented that the applicant is doing away with 8 parking spaces.

Richard Swendsen, applicant and acting President of Condo Association. Stated that he has a one bedroom. He originally was from Union and now lives here full-time. He commented that he is not used to the cramped quarters, also he knows all the original owners and that they feel the same way that he does. The den is going to be his office. There are no children living at the condos. June through Labor Day is the only time that all of the units are occupied.

Mr. Struncius inquired if any of the units are rentals. (Swendsen – Yes, 2)

James R. Housten, Jr., Land Surveyor, Municipal Engineer and Planner. Has appeared before many boards, primarily in Central, N.J. Credentials accepted.
Mr. Housten – Reviewing Mr. Savacool’s Engineering Report. Currently 16 parking spaces (8 against the building and 8 against the rear property line), proposal is to re-stripe and reduce to 9 feet wide, 18 feet deep, 24-foot isle providing 12 parking spaces.

Mr. Savacool – Questioned why they are referring to the parking standards for garden apartments opposed to condominiums/townhouses.

Mr. Housten – Replied that the units should be referred to as apartments, which lowers the requirements to 14 spaces. Town homes have an upstairs and downstairs.

Steve Pardes – It is possible for the condo owner’s to abandon that use and revert back to garden apartments. The statute is saying you must refer to the use. Therefore I must suggest that it is incorrect that because it is a condo that suddenly it is transformed from flats to a town house.

Mr. Galvin – The RSIS does not clarify what a town home is. In your interpretation you still have a parking shortage.
Mr. Struncius – Has a concern that the den as currently configured can be used as a bedroom. We all have to decide what is a lot of legalese. There is some gray area.

Mr. Galvin – Conveyed that the board is concerned about how many people can live in these apartments. They have to rationalize what the parking standard is.

Struncius – We have to figure out if we have 7 one bedroom, or 2 bedroom units. Each unit has a den that can be easily converted.
Housten – Has not visited site in the evening but has been told that there is adequate lighting. You can stipulate that we will comply with lighting. Mr. Simon inquired how someone was going to turn his or her car around if there is not an empty space to use as a turn space. (JH –You would have to make a double "K" turn; it is not going to be easy, but it can be done.)
Mr. Simon – That will be a difficult maneuver. Mr. Moberg: You say there is no increase in the output of the sewer system, but each unit will now have a laundry room. Mr. Simon replied that they would have to build to code. Mr. Spader reminded everyone that each unit would also have another bathroom.

Mr. Housten went on to explain the positive criteria; to encourage municipal action and safely expand an attractive residential building. He stated hat the proposal would be built to fire codes and provide ample space around structures. Will not negatively impact environment and will make rear façade more attractive. A- 8, colored picture entered.

Audience questions
Anthony Pesa, 1501 Holz Road, Point Pleasant- Wants to know how they are going to change all the pipes going to the main lines to 2 inches.
Mr. Housten – That is the plumber’s job. Mr. Struncius – asked to hear about the site improvements. Mr. Swendsen – We have improved the pool, landscaping and the building is maintenance free. Front porch gets new concealer every year. Mr. Moberg: What amount of parking spaces are we looking for? Sometimes you can live with being short two spaces, but we need to know how many. Mr. Amelnchenko – We can make one entrance to the back rooms to alleviate the worry of the den being utilized as a bedroom.

Deliberations:

Mr. Struncius: I wish the back of the building were the front of the building. Did you ever think of having those architecturals added to the front?
Swendsen: I think the front looks great!
Wolfersberger: I see no positive criteria. I do not know how it benefits the neighborhood. The only thing I hear is to provide more useable space. I am searching for some positive help.
Mr. Pardes: You have testimony that 2 units are rented and two units are occupied all year round. You are more likely to get transients with the smaller units.
Mr. Struncius: I see positive in a sense that the spaces are more useable; 12 – 14 foot expansion, keeps property immaculate. Visual improvement. I do not see a negative affect. I will look to the offer to have the den modified. Parking will be short 3 spaces. Plans would need to be modified.
Mr. Cangelosi: I was present on the application 3-years ago. Our Borough Engineer questioned the parking then. He we are again with parking being three spaces short. I am not comfortable with the usage and the amount of activity taking place on the site. It is purely a question of insufficient parking spaces. I did not gain any sense of meeting the positive criteria requirement. In terms of positive criteria, I do not agree that it promotes open space and light. I do not think this would cause undue hardship if it were denied. Not in favor.
Mr. Moberg: As far as the application goes, I am in favor; accept for the parking. It was a red brick structure that was in a state of disrepair. The use of 8 units could now be 3-single family homes, 16 or 18 bedrooms. Not occupied the entire year, I do not see a hardship.
Wolfersberger: I agree with Mr. Cangelosi: Expansion of non-conforming use. I do not see the positive outweighing the negative.
Mr. Spader: I would have liked to see better use of building housing the electric. It has a major shortfall in a highly used area. Major construction event; should have spent more consideration to alleviating the parking problem.
Mrs. Tooker: I agree more with Mr. Moberg. I see it is a really nice addition. I do have a problem with parking but I think it is a beautiful complex.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to carry application #2005-32 to September 21, 2006 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Tooker and Spader……………………Yea
Opposed: Moberg and Cangelosi…………………………………………………Nay

Application #2006-17 – Kevin & Vanessa Hyland, 103 Boston Avenue; Block: 158 Lot: 8.02; Applicant wishes to construct a single story addition to the existing single-family dwelling.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Mr. Hyland and his wife are looking to add on a 17′ by 17′ family room, which will let them reconfigure their kitchen. Will be removing deck. Building coverage will be 33.7%.

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger: I am reasonably comfortable with the calculations. Based on that and quality of life, in favor.
Mr. Struncius: Even at 33.7%, in favor. I look at the affect on the zone and I think there is no negative impact. I think the things we discussed are positives. No negative impact.
Mr. Moberg: I added a 20′ by 20′ family room when my kids were young. It is a positive addition.
Condition: Applicant is not to exceed 33.7%. Area of addition is limited to 17′ by 17′.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2006-17 with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg,, Cangelosi, Tooker and Spader…………………………………………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2006-04 – Kevin Keefe, 501 Atlantic Avenue; Block 59, Lot 1; Applicant wishes to convert existing commercial Printing business into four residential townhouses. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Mr. Vacarro and Mr. Struncius have stepped down from this application. Bob Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner, sworn. Credentials accepted.
Application complies with MLUL and provides adequate space. Applicant will be abandoning commercial use. Home to West is a two-family residential use. Further west is two lots used for parking. Use to South is single-family homes; use to East is Railroad and school. Building has been upgraded and landscaping installed. Positive – Conversion of commercial structure to condominiums will bring project closer to conforming to the zone. Residential use lessons impact, noise, pollution and light. Negative – There will be more traffic and noise in the evening hours, since now it is a business and it is closed in the evening. Only proposed construction is to slightly expand the parking lot to provide 2 spaces per unit. Bulk variances are pre-existing. Driveway isle will be 22-feet. There will be no external construction except for the installation of doors. Property is adequately landscaped.
Mr. Wolfersberger – What are the special reasons? Mr. Burdick – I believe it provides aesthetics for this site. It is a uniquely located property being on a corner lot and highway/railroad. It is an existing building that is poorly utilized at this time.
Kevin Keefe, applicant, sworn. Went on to explain how the printing business has gone the way of the computer. He is trying to do what is best for him; also not impact the property. He has run out of options. He explained how he cleaned up the property after the previous owner. He had all the intentions of staying here for twenty years, but things have changed too much. He will continue his business in a smaller facility.
Mrs. Tooker: How many square feet are the units? (Keefe – about 1,000 sq. ft.)
Mrs. Tooker: Is there any common area outside? (Keefe – Just the parking lot)
Mr. Moberg – Are we calling these town homes or apartments?
Mr. Pardes – They are condos because that suggest ownership, but the layout is flat, more consistent with an apartment.

Deliberations:

Mr. Wolfersberger – Rezoning by variance; I don’t like it. Special reasons didn’t really sway me. I don’t see where it benefits the community. I have trouble when we have a postage size property with multi-family building. Not in favor

Mr. Spader – The conversion of buildings into condos because there is no other use for them…I agree..zoning creates a problem. What can be done with that piece of property that would benefit the town? Maybe this is that exception that would improve the property.

Mrs. Tooker – If this was an old decrepit building it would be different. It seems like a good use for me. I think they are modest and nice looking; in favor.

Mr. Reilly – I cannot think of an alterative that would end up costing Mr. Keefe a lot of money. It would provide him with undue hardship. This is a move in the right direction. Having commercial use has not worked out. He has an obligation to do the best for himself.

Mr. Moberg: SF5 zone; can’t imagine a huge 4 bedroom house sitting on the corner of the highway t. Two families next to it; Least of a few evils. Aesthetically pleasing, modest units; I agree with Mr. Reilly. In favor.

Mr. Cangelosi: Location is rather special in so far as its location. Changing from commercial to residential. I envision this property as an area that will protect other residential properties around it.

Conditions:
1.)Siding is to be vinyl cedar impression siding
2.) Condo map must be produced in accordance with the Ocean County recording office.
3.) Applicant must submit copy of Master Deed.
4.) Documents must be reviewed the Board’s attorney
5.) Engineer must review lighting
6.) Applicant must match roof. Roof is to be checked by Board Engineer

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-04 with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Spader and Reilly……………………………….Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger and Cangelosi

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-14 of Patrick and Helene Nasdeo.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Reilly………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2005-48 of Robert and Ann Lightburn with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Reilly………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None