Borough of Point Pleasant Beach The November 5, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:00pm via the zoom platform. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.”
Present were Board members: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Vice Chair Reynolds, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Spader, McGee and Crasper
Regular Meeting………………………………………………..7:00pm
Open Public Meetings Act
Roll Call
Memorialization of Minutes
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of October 15, 2020 –
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize resolution 2020-22 of John/Lynda Hapstak – 8B Inlet a/k/a/ 10 Inlet Drive Block 176/Lot 42 –
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Applications
2020-19 – Loughlin/DeSanto Electric – 1609 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03 /Lot 5.16 – Applicants request to install generator is not compliant with the 5-foot setback.
John Jackson attorney for applicant reviewed Power Point presentation depicting where the generator will be placed. John Jackson believes that this is the appropriate place for the generator to not inconvenience anyone.
Matthew Wilder, applicants engineer, sworn, reviewed the specs for the generator. Matthew Wilder believes that placing the generator in the rear of the property would be inappropriate placement due to it being the outdoor space and believes it would be more intrusive on the neighbors.
Mr. Pasola questioned elevation of platform and clarified fencing of generator.
Mr. Dixon believes that the generator should be placed in a conforming location.
Andrew DeSantis, sworn, applicant’s electrician reviewed installation and attenuation screening.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Schneider – Generators are very important in time of emergency. No neighbors have shown to object: gas generators are very quiet – it is not the best place. Impervious coverage is terrible.
Dixon – I understand why they want to place it there; it is nice to have but you do not need it. The only reason they are not putting it in a conforming location is because they do not want to.
Reynolds – gave comparisons of decibels of the new generators compared to other appliances. A lawn mower is louder. A modern generator runs around 55 decibels with the attenuating fence it will be lower. Has no objection to the generator.
Mr. Pasola – Looking at the site this morning and listening to the testimony I understand why that side yard is the best place for the generator in the area. I have no objection, especially since none of the neighbors are complaining about it.
Mr. Loder – I also am leaning in favor of this application – I also went down to the property today and understand the placement.
Mr. Davis – I would say based on testimony that this is the least area of impact. I agree that these things are going to become a necessity. I certainly do not see that there is a negative impact to this location. I don’t think when these homes were developed that anyone was aware of the potential of a storm like Sandy. They are far safer than portable generators. In favor of this application.
Chairman Struncius – Last meeting I asked Mr. Jackson to take a picture of the neighbor’s home and he did. There are not any neighbors bedroom windows located in the requested location; it is a staircase. I think it would be more annoying as a neighbor if I am sitting in my yard and the generator kicks on. I think this is a better location and looks appropriate.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2020-19 of Roger Loughlin 1609 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03 /Lot 5.16 – with conditions
In favor: Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-40 – Robert/Maryann Ellsworth – 414 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 24/Lot 13 – Applicant wishes to install a second shed in rear yard and a/c unit in side yard setback.
Robert and Maryann Ellsworth, applicants, sworn, reviewed their application and the reasons that they need a second shed. Applicants are no longer able to access their storage space. As they age, they can no longer climb the pull-down stairs. They do not have a garage and the existing shed is full. The existing bike shed will be removed. They have electric baseboard heating and want to install central air. The window units do not look aesthetically pleasing. Also hoping to install a heat pump. The tree in the yard will remain. Existing shed is 8 feet by 14 feet and will remain and the new second shed is 8 feet by 16 feet.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Schneider – Good reasons why they cannot meet the 5-foot setback; sympathize with getting older. No problem
Dixon – Applicant gave a very good case on why they need the additional storage; do not have a problem with adding the storage.
Kelly – Familiar with the house and they are wonderful neighbor’s and have no problem with this at all.
Reynolds – I do not see any detriment. No problem
Pasola
Loder – The fact that there is fencing to hide the shed is a plus. No problem
Davis – I am inclined to what has been said so far. With respect to the placement of the shed with these small lots it is a squeeze to comply. I don’t see that there is any harm to the zone.
Struncius – Nothing further
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2019-40 – Robert/Maryann Ellsworth – 414 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 24/Lot 13 – with conditions.
In favor: Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Pasola, Loder Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Conditions
- Bike shed is to be removed
Application approved with conditions
Application – 2020-20 – Dominic/Dana Santaite – 214 Atlantic Avenue – Block 49/ Lot 13 – Applicant wishes to install inground swimming pool and coping requiring an impervious coverage variance.
Dominic/Dana Santaite, applicants, sworn, reviewed variance request.
Lawrence Murphy, Professional Engineer, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed Board engineer’s letter. Impervious coverage is being increased.4% to 57.6%; which is an increase of 28 square feet. Considered reducing concrete around pool but wishing not to. It would be a financial burden to reduce concrete under deck. Lawrence Murphy believes this will help as a catch basin. 420 square feet of concrete driveway is being removed.
Mr. Dixon questioned the fencing around property. Fencing in rear will be replaced with 6-foot PVC fence in rear. Chain link around pool will be powdered covered chain link pool compliant fence.
No audience/questions comments
Deliberations
Kelly – I think this is a deminimis increase with the driveway being taken out. Not happy with cyclone fence. No problem with it
Dixon – Engineer did excellent job explaining why they cannot remove concrete by back deck. Would like to see more of a privacy fence. No problem with it.
Schneider – Obviously not an ostentatious pool. Home owner already gave up some impervious by pulling up driveway. No issues with it.
Reynolds – Given the present pandemic people are looking to increase their back-yard entertainment and I have no issues.
Pasola – Small pool that they are putting in. Tried not to increase coverage. No problem with application.
Loder – Nothing to add
Davis – I agree although we have a substantial impervious issue, that is an existing issue. The applicant has done what they can and I find in favor of the application.
Struncius – Although controversial the pool is a catch basin – and it is a deminimis increase from where they were. They have a willingness to remove a portion of the driveway.
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to approve Application – 2020-20 of Dominic/Dana Santaite – 214 Atlantic Avenue – Block 49/ Lot 13 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Reynolds, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
- Applicant is to remove 420 square feet of concrete from driveway.
- Any curb or sidewalk damage made during construction will be replaced by the applicant.
2020-21 – Thomas Berry – 312 Atlantic Avenue – Block 50/ Lot 14 – Applicant is proposing upper/lower deck, in-ground pool, hot tub and cabana. Request exceeds impervious coverage by 8.7% and building coverage by 3.4%
Letter the record reflect that Vice chair Reynolds has recused himself from the Berry application.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed application and requested variances.
Power Point Presentation entered as A3.
Thomas Berry, applicant, sworn, stated he has owned the property for two years. His mother-in-law lives in the house year-round. Thomas Berry reviewed plans for the property. Pool will be 12 feet by 24 feet. Basketball court will be removed. Thomas Berry stated that he will utilize the rear lot for staging construction equipment not to inconvenience existing neighbors.
Darin Vickery, Professional Architect, sworn, credentials, accepted, stated that the existing shed was basically very inefficient, almost unusable. A good portion of it was actually a very kind of pseudo deck that was just really not even a usable area to do anything with. Dennis Galvin stated that he has to commit to what is being approved.
Mr. Loder questioned if there are drawings of the interior of the cabana. (No) Darin Vickery stated there is no second floor. John Jackson stated there will be no walls; it is just indoor-outdoor space. There is a vaulted roof. There is no height variance for the cabana.
No audience questions/comments
Ken Schlatmann, Professional engineer, sworn, credentials accepted. Addressed board engineers review letter.
Mr. Dixon stated there is already a shed back there now you want a building that is another 100 square feet. Why don’t you just work with what you have. Thomas Berry wants to maximize the space and have the addition of the storage.
John Jackson gave his summation
Conditions
- This cabana is not to heated, have plumbing or overnight accommodations.
- Cabana is to be constructed as described at the time of the hearing.
- Applicants buffering plants and trees are to remain and if damaged at time of drainage installation will be replaced at same height. Board engineer will confirm full compliance.
- The deck and surface under deck will remain pervious for drainage.
- Grade is to be maintained with 3 inches of existing condition.
- Existing concrete driveway will be removed and replaced with pavers.
Deliberations
Kelly – When I saw this rendering and checked my garage. My garage is 18 by 30 and I don’t have enough room. I do not see the size as being a problem. Glad to see the basketball go. Confident that this plan is going to provide a neighborhood show place.
Dixon – Can’t argue that the drawing is a nice-looking project. Cabanas are not allowed in the area; I know we have allowed them in the past but they were constructed out of a existing garage. This is a whole new structure. Why would some one put a shed in when they can have a cabana that is twice the size. Nothing to stop people to come in and ask for a giant cabana. I can see what is leaving what is there. We are getting into dangerous territory.
Schneider – I think it is a very nice design for the backyard. The owner is bringing a lot of money into his house and backyard. Lowering some of the impervious which is a plus. I do share Mr. Dixon’s concern with the size; it basically is a garage. Would like to hear some more comments.
Pasola – I have no problem with the pavers, deck or pool. I do have a problem increasing what they are calling a shed. The existing shed looks fine. I have trouble increasing it.
Loder – I am in alignment with Mr. Pasola and Mr. Dixon. Looking to hear more comments.
Davis – I applaud the applicants’ efforts to reduce the impervious coverage. This is a substantial expansion of a non-conforming use. Still showing a two-tier deck and being told it is a single tier. We have some vague idea of a drainage system that is going to remove trees. We are given testimony to what is the proposed grading which is substantia from what was originally proposed. Just leaves me concerned that the plans are not matching the testimony. I do not feel it is nailed down for approval. I would still be uncomfortable with expansion – I believe it is an over reach.
Struncius – When I look at these things I step back and figure out looking at a zone and what is happening in the zone. Sometimes I think we can all get caught up in semantics of things. When I hear the word shed and cabana – I can certainly look at this as a detached garage. We have been OK with garages being cabanas. The cabana has restrictions which does not allow the living space. I believe the ordinance could be written to put the restrictions into place that could make these lovely yard spaces. I look at this as a detached garage with a controlled use – we are not allowing running water or heat. I can reconcile this is this zone. We have a deck that is pervious with space for water to travel through and it is over a pervious structure. This is a lot less than applications we have seen with double decks and balconies that do intrude on the neighbors. This deck is 4 foot above grade- this would be below a fence line. I see the quality of the yard – I see the photos and how it is maintained and see how it might fit in the zone.
Mr. Davis feels Chairman Struncius makes a convincing point – where is the line between garage/cabana – how do you reconcile it. Dennis Galvin stated a garage would have this massing but would be for the storage of a car, chairs and bicycles. The question would be how do we define a cabana. Dennis Galvin stated that the board needs to decide. There always has to be a benefit to the community – not the applicant. How much damage does the granting of the cabana do to the zone? Mr. Pasola stated that until Mayor and Council changes the ordinance to permit a cabana it is not a permitted use.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2020-21 of Thomas Berry – 312 Atlantic Avenue – Block 50/ Lot 14 – with conditions
In favor- Kelly, Schneider, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed- Dixon and Pasola
Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm
Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk to the Board
