Borough of Point Pleasant Beach November 1, 2018 BOA minutes
The November 1, 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, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo, Mr. Davis and Ms. Crasper
Absent – Reynolds, Crasper and McGee
Memorialize minutes –
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the minutes of October 11, 2018
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Dixon and Schneider
Opposed: None
2018-26 – Mary Jean Rossilli-Mitchell – 317 River Avenue – Applicant wishes to demolish existing two family dwelling and construct new two family dwelling with in-ground swimming pool.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that he has a power point presentation entered as exhibit A-3 on the property but has no documentation to prove that it is a valid 2 family home. Seeking a D-1 variance. This is a busy road in one of the nicest areas in town. John Jackson stated that the applicant is not increasing the size of the rental unit. By allowing the main house to be bigger and nicer will be upgrading the structure that is there. They do have tax records stated that it is multi-family. Replacing old home built in the 50’s with a code complaint structure. The lot is double the size of the lot requirement. Believes this is an aesthetic upgrade. The application meets all the bulk requirement and the building coverage is only 24.7%; impervious coverage is 44.98%. This is not a home that was created under the cover of darkness; there are two electric and gas meters. There is more than adequate parking. Mr. Spader questioned if the gas company had records about when the meters were installed. (No) Dennis Galvin stated that if they can prove that it is a valid pre-existing non-conforming use proofs would be easier but since they do not they are asking for the use.
Mary Jean Rosilli-Mitchell, applicant, sworn stated that she purchased the property in August of 2013. She owned a home in Brick that was destroyed by the storm and it was taking for ever to be renovated so she looked for a new home to purchase. The existing home is a two family and she has slept on the couch for the last five years so her daughters could have the bedrooms. She is looking for more bedrooms so her family can visit. The rental unit is cozy and the tenant would like to continue to rent. The unit is a source of income for her. The new rental unit will have 844 square feet.
Audience questions/comments
John Elberson, 319 River Avenue – Inquired if the tenant will have to move while she is building. (Yes)
Bill George Avenue, 315 River Avenue – Questions about water issues. DG – Not the time for this questions. Inquired if there is enough room for emergency vehicles.
Greg Cox, Professional architect/Planner sworn, credentials accepted. Reviewed engineering report and the design of the home. Greg Cox stated that the home will be brought up to code. The present structure has undersized doorways and ceilings and is very close to the property line. There are several issues right now that they would like to correct. Mr. Dixon inquired if she would agree to yearly rentals. (Yes) Greg Cox believe that this in house fits in the area. Greg Cox reviewed pavers and landscaping plan; he will have a five foot strip of landscaping along property line. Ray Savacool inquired the height of the first floor. Greg Cox stated it will be higher than what is required. Mr. Davis questioned the turn radius into the garage – he thinks it looks tight. Greg Cox replied that he believes there is adequate space to turn.
Audience questions
Bill George – 315 River Avenue – Concerned with emergency access. Greg Cox replied that they have standard setbacks. Concerned about the utility pole on the property which seems to be located on his property and wants to know where her electric will be coming from. Greg Cox replied that it is up to JCP & L. Questioned the a/c units being placed in front of the home. He believes it makes it look industrial like a motel or something. Greg Cox stated that the a/c units will be screened. The applicant will be responsible for removal of the electric pole and they will have underground utilities. Bill George inquired about existing shrubbery and the giant old tree. Will over cutting that tree damage it and who will be responsible for the tree if it dies? Greg Cox believes that the tree should be OK. Dennis Galvin stated the resolution will state it is the applicants responsibility if the tree dies within two years otherwise it is something else killing the tree. Bill George is concerned about the house blocking his solar panels. Not the Boards jurisdiction – the house is conforming.
Debbie George – 315 River Avenue – Inquired if the new home will block their solar panels. (Not sure)The house is built to code; no variances are being requested for the structure.
John Elberson – 319 River Avenue – Stated that the square footage of the new structure is 2 ½ times bigger than the existing structure. He is worried about flooding his property and just thinks the home is too big. Hasn’t always had good renters – doesn’t think the year round lease will make a difference.
John Dixon questioned the amount of pavers – half of the property is covered with pavers and worried the high water table might cause flooding. Ray Savacool replied that they will be looking for a certain paver that is permeable because there are so many of them
Deliberations
Spader – Unfortunate that no proofs of pre-existing non-conformity could be provided. Couple of things I do not like about it and a few things I do like. Do not like the unfinished attic space could be 2 more bedrooms; there was no definitive use stated. Right now I am sitting on the fence. Do not know when the meters were installed. I think we have a responsibility to the ordinances.
Kelly – I agree with Mr. Spader over the non-conformity. It is an obligation to weed out the non-conformities. This though is a very nicely prepared building – do not know why it ended so far back on the lot. Now the project is up further and the lot cannot be sub-divided. Project is well prepared – alleviated concerns of the audience. I believe property will be improved.
Reilly – Had doubts when I first looked at this case – but the more I looked at it and thought about it – it won’t’ be the only two-family house in the area and given the size of the lot it makes more sense to have more occupancy. A little bit on the fence but leaning towards approving it.
Dixon –I do not see how this is a positive thing for the area except for the fact the applicant can make some money. We do not know what will happen if the applicant moves. You can have two rentals. The applicant seems like a responsible person but we have to look at what will happen in the future. This seems more like a luxury than a need.
Schneider – I think it is a major improvement to the existing structure. There has not been any documented proof that it pre-existed. The house is great. You have every right to build it as a single family house. I haven’t seen the advantage to the neighborhood to maintain it as a two family house.
Davis – I can’t remember having so many people on the fence. To Mr. Spader’s point I not sure I see how we look at this in the long term and not have concerns. We have to look beyond that and these things are wrought with potential issues down the road. Does this enhance the zone? Not really
Struncius – Also on the fence – from the law perspective I have trouble removing logic – If I see a house in town with 2 by 4’s I know the officials are right on it. If there was no legal proofs they should not have been getting CO’s for 15 years. We have had that opportunity for years. If we were not here with this rental this use this house would be being built. The applicant would not be here. The home is designed beautifully; we are here because it is not an allowed use. I feel when the home owner and the renter are in the same structure it is better than having a separate rental structure in the rear. The running use has been at least since 2003. The town has somewhat granted it.
Dennis Galvin stated that the Board has to decide that the proofs put forward are adequate to grant the use.
Conditions
- The applicant is responsible to remove the tree in the front yard nearest 315 River Road in the event the tree is lost as a result of construction.
- The applicant is to preserve the existing landscaping buffer in cooperation with the neighbor on 315 River Road. Any disagreement shall be resolved by the Board’s Engineer.
- The applicant agreed to limit its right to rent this home in order to reconcile the deviation from the required single-family use by means of a Deed Restriction. The specific restriction is that neither the home nor the apartment shall be rented for less than a year. The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney prior to recording and must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.
- The electric service to the new duplex must be provided underground.
- The applicant agreed to add additional landscape to this property. A landscape plan for the property is to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.
- The pavers are to be permeable.
- The air conditioning units are to be screened in consultation with the Board’s Engineer.
Motion by Vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2018-26 of Mary Jean Rossilli-Mitchell – 317 River Avenue with conditions.
In favor – Kelly, Reilly, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: Spader and Dixon
Application approved with conditions
2018-15 – Ocean 103 Equities, LLC – 103 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 33 – Lot – 1.02 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
(Carried w/o notice from October 25, 2018)
2018-25 – Ocean 103 Equities – 1105 Ocean Avenue Block 33: Lot 1.01 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
(Carried w/o notice from October 25, 2018)
Chairman Struncius and Mr. Davis has listened to the audio from the previous meeting and signed a certification so he is able to vote.
Mike Rubino, attorney for above applications, stated that they have discussed the application at 103 Philadelphia with neighbor’s attorney and come to a compromise, and they are ready to move forward. The applicant took Mr. Dixons comments into consideration and reduced the size of the house by 253 sq. feet which took the house out of the front yard setback.
Ed Liston, attorney for Kevin Crowe who lives at 105 Philadelphia. Happy with the considerations that have been made. The problem he has had is with drainage since the house was removed from the lot. I am sure that the drainage regulations will deal with the issue.
Robert Algarin, architect, reviewed variances. Building coverage at 103 Philadelphia is now at 27.6%. Exhibit A-100 entered – revised plot plan. Robert Algarin stated the cantilever porch was removed.
Ray Savacool stated that on lot 1.01 there is a 20 foot front yard setback where 25 feet is required; on lot 1.02 the front yard from Ocean Avenue is 20.3 feet where 25 feet is required; the lot is also undersized at 4, 945 square feet where 5,000 sq. feet is required; the variance on Philadelphia has been removed; the rear yard setback is 10.1 feet where 30 feet is required; side yard on lot 1.01 will be increased to a minimum 10 feet to provide that extra separation.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Spader – The planning Board did make the decision not to approve any plans. It took two times to get things clarified.
Kelly – I thought the houses were too big in the beginning. The lots are a awkward shape and situation to get houses this big into these lots. I appreciate your cooperation into getting them down to where we feel that we can deal with them. .
Reilly – I think at the last meeting we said you have to get the size down and you did and I think we can live with this now.
Dixon – Pretty much left with a leaky bag because it never should have been subdivided. I think the applicant widened the space between the two homes and satisfied the neighbor to the west. Not happy with the situation but happy with what you are trying to do.
Schneider – Point Pleasant each has a lot of unique situations but I am surprised that they would subdivide this lot. The designs of the houses are nice and they did compromise.
DePolo – Glad it was able to be worked out. Glad the neighbor is happy and I am sure both houses will be nice.
Davis – It appears that it is a good compromise on what initially was a difficult situation.
Struncius – Not much to add either – The Board asked for some things and you provided them.
Motion by Vice Chair Reilly, second by Mr. DePolo to approve application 2018-15 and application 2018-25 of Ocean 103 Equities located at 103 Philadelphia and 1105 Ocean Avenue with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
