Borough of Point Pleasant Beach November 7, 2019
The November 7, 2019 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, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Lepore, Mr. DePolo, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Spader, Crasper and McGee
Minutes to memorialize
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of September 12, 2019
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the minutes of September 19, 2019
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, LePore, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the minutes of October 3, 2019
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Vice-Chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of October 17, 2019
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, LePore and Struncius
Opposed: None
Resolutions to memorialize
Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving resolution #2019-31 of Joseph Di Domenico – 317 Parkway – Block 104; Lot 9 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, LePore, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2019-36 – Beach Head Properties LLC (Opdyke) – 308 Route 35 – Block 11.02: Lot – 16 & 54 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, LePore, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Agenda
Application #2019-42 – Ocean Fire Co #1 – 400 Arnold Avenue – Block 78; Lot 16-Applicant wishes to construct a 24-foot by 44-foot garage bay addition to existing Fire house.
Mr. Kelly has recused himself from the Fire Company application.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application. Power Point Presentation has been entered as Exhibit A-3.
John Amelchenko reviewed architectural plans and stated that this garage will be utilized for smaller vehicles. (Chief’s car). Two or three smaller vehicles will be able to utilize addition. Addition is one story and approximately 1,000 square feet. On west elevation there are two doors – one to fire house and one to multi-purpose room – requesting small over-hang roof over doors. Variance on St. Louis side is 10.2 feet. This is a D-2 variance because it is expanding a non-permitted use. This will promote the MLUL by positively increasing safety with ingress and egress. Vice Chair Reynolds inquired if the vehicles when parked would hang over the driveway. (No) Mr. Dixon questioned the apron and the amount of leeway a truck will need. Michael Brodeur, representative of fire company, sworn stated there will be no problem because only the smaller trucks will be parking, they will not require a larger turning radius. Mr. Davis questioned the trees and if they will be remaining. Michael Brodeur stated that any removed trees will be replaced. Vice chair Reynolds questioned if they had considered putting the bay in where the banquet area is? (No)
Tim Lurie, Professional engineer, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed the plan and stated that one tree would be removed. Tim Lurie believes this is promoting the MLUL by promoting public health, safety and general welfare. John Jackson stated that it is an inherently beneficial use.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Mr. Dixon – This is a nice little addition for the fire department – obviously they need the room – not affecting the residential area. Do not see a problem with it at all.
Vice chair Reynolds – I am glad that Paul brought up the inherently beneficial part – there is nothing negative to say about it.
Schneider – It is inherently beneficial to the neighborhood and the entire community.
LePore – I agree – I am for it as well.
Davis – Agreed with all the same; the addition of the awning will improve the visual impact of the curb appeal.
DePolo – Without repeating everybody else’s points – I am in support of it also.
Struncius – I think I will repeat one thing – it is integrated in a way that we won’t notice – it will look like it was always that way in terms of the design – it fits well -and it will help with the operation. It makes complete sense – the only negative thing is that we lose a couple of parking spaces but it is certainly outweighed by the benefit.
Conditions
- The tree on St. Louis Avenue is to be replaced with a new tree.
- The garage is only to be used for small vehicles, i.e. pick-up trucks and ATV passenger vehicles.
- The curb and gutter are to be replaced in kind.
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2019-42 – Ocean Fire Co #1 – 400 Arnold Avenue – Block 78; Lot 16- with conditions
In favor: Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-35 – Larry Kyse – 165 Baltimore Avenue – Lot – 141; Block 4 – Applicant wishes to expand deck.
Mr. Kelly stepped down from the Kyse application.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, Reviewed previous variance and the present request.
Tim Lurie, Professional engineer, sworn, credentials accepted. Power point presentation entered as A-3. Tim Lurie reviewed plans and variance request. Applicant would like a larger deck so he can access the rear deck by both rear doors.
Ray Savacool questioned the calculations – Tim Lurie replied that the original home was built smaller than approved. Chairman Struncius commented that the deck can remain the same size and just add the stairs for the access to rear door – He wants to know why we are adding decking.
Larry Kyse, applicant, sworn, replied that originally the deck was reduced by request of the neighbor at the hearing. Chairman Struncius can understand the request for the stairs but not why the deck would need to be so much bigger. Mr. LePore believes that it is already a fairly large deck. Mr. Kyse replied that the most important part of the application is the stairs. The applicant agrees to just add the landing and stairs which will be reviewed and approved prior to memorialization.
No audience questions/comments
Conditions
- The landing for the proposed stairs will be located on the southern side of the existing deck.
- The proposed steps will be located along the existing deck area to the north and is subject to the approval of the Board’s Engineer.
- The space underneath the proposed steps is to remain permeable.
Deliberations
Dixon – I worry about further encroachment into the rear setback and believe the steps are needed.
Reynolds – I believe that the stairs are needed and promote safety – also concerned with further encroachment into the rear yard – with changes made I am in favor.
Schneider – Definite need for second means of egress – not increasing size of deck – in favor.
LePore – I concur – a second means of egress is absolutely necessary – believe present square footage of deck is adequate – no other issues.
Davis – I concur with egress issues – overall, I think it is an improvement for safety.
DePolo – Improves egress safety – approve modified plan.
Struncius – Everyone has mentioned safety and I also think it is just better that you can get down and back up to the deck. I just don’t think that increasing the deck was a needed thing – it was all about getting the steps and that was important.
Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2019-35 – Larry Kyse – 165 Baltimore Avenue – Lot – 141; Block 4 – with conditions.
In favor: Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-34 – Daniel’s Bistro – 115 Broadway – Block 165; Lot 13/14 – Applicant erected a canopy with roll down windows over outdoor seating without benefit of zoning approval.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed application request. Exhibit A-3 entered – Power Point presentation. Applicant installed outdoor seating area that is in the county right-of-way and is encroaching on setback. The applicant has had the outdoor seating for a number of years and received the neighborhood preservation grant for $5000 to install the awning. This came as a surprise to the applicants when they were told it was not permitted. Referring to the survey, John Jackson pointed out that the property line is very close to the building (4.9 feet). Applicant is hopeful to receive the county license to utilize this area; seeking town approval first. Zoning officer told applicant that the seating is in the right of way. John Jackson stated the ordinance that states that the outdoor seating cannot block the sidewalk; he pointed out that the seating does not block the sidewalk. Seeking board approval before approaching the county.
Karen Gardner-Picard, applicant, sworn, stated that they had replaced the black top with stamped concrete. Originally in 2009 there were 2 picnic tables, black top and a phone booth. It was very ugly – we inquired in the building department if we could do outdoor dining – it was approved and then we were directed to the neighborhood preservation coordinator to apply for a grant. We have been here through two storms – everything was always fine until another business wanted to do an awning and then I was told I needed a variance. The applicant stated that there has never been a problem – outdoor seating is seasonal – area is not heated. The applicant has always been told that she is grandfathered.
Ray Savacool reviewed the other variance elements.
Applicant has been operating restaurant for 10 years.
Applicant stated that they came to the town in 2009 before they spent a dime and was told that they were grandfathered. Ray Savacool explained that the town does not have the right to approve things on county property. Canopy has been installed for 2 ½ years. Furniture has been there for 10 years and is secured by a chain.
Audience questions/comments
Jeff Crasper, 54 Baltimore Avenue, sworn – President of homeowner’s association on Baltimore Avenue – Stated on going problems that they have with applicant. Employees of restaurant hang out smoking and the restaurants garbage is not secured and the seagulls are constantly ripping open garbage bags. Also, the fence screening for the a/c units needs repair.
The applicant stated the fence was erected after the condos were built. Ray Savacool stated the issue is the landlords – Karen Picard is a tenant.
John Jackson stated he will speak with the landlord about concerns.
Deliberations
Kelly – Compliment you on the restaurant. I know this parking area with all the other amenities – not opposed to it – I know there was another restaurant there – have to wait and see what everyone else says
Dixon – I remember when it was a supermarket – next door was Jack Fords and Pee Wees – It is like I don’t want to look at your roof after I build my condo there – anyway – as far as the outside seating goes – I have a problem with the town telling you it is OK and giving you a grant and then turn around and say I don’t know if you should be there. Obviously, this is just that the building department wants the OK from the board so then you can go down to the county. Hopefully it will clear everything up. It is not bothering anybody or blocking the sidewalk. This is an established business that looks nice; the outdoor seating is only 4 to 5 months a year.
Reynolds – Forgot all about it being a store. The main point for me is that the town gave a grant that has the preserve neighborhood name in it. They gave you money to preserve what was there; I can’t see any possible way to deny this.
Schneider – I don’t see why they would give you a grant and after Sandy they said you could replace it. That area has several restaurants with outdoor seating so I really do not have an issue with it. The town allowed the stamped concrete and gave them a $5000 grant.
LePore – I don’t either; I think it complies with the statute and the regs as John Jackson pointed out. I have no issues with the applicant.
Davis – I couldn’t agree more – strikes me as the classic bureaucratic we have to cover our backs because we have an issue with another similar situation. It makes an attractive area and if you need our blessing in order to get the county’s blessing, I hope this helps.
DePolo – Family run business – very responsible people. Maybe work with the neighbors a little bit more.
Struncius – I do agree with everyone but the grant department and zoning board might not have known what was going on. What gets me is the ordinance on outside dining in the Marine Commercial zone. They are in compliance with the ordinance – it goes to light, air and obstruction. It is not bothering anyone – the most obstructed thing is your own sign. The ordinance says this is so allowable for this zone. Not even sure why it was brought say it is here. To me this is a no brainer. Big thing is you have to get the county to say it is OK.
Conditions
- The Applicant shall obtain a County license to keep the canopy in the right-of-way.
- The Applicant shall repair the existing sidewalk and fence on the subject property.
- The Applicant agreed to put the trash in an enclosure.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. LePore to approve application #2019-34 – Daniel’s Bistro – 115 Broadway – Block 165; Lot 13/14 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Application #2019-10 – Scott/Claire Farber – 134 Randall Avenue – Block129.02/Lot 15.01 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single-family house to be FEMA compliant and add decks.
Farber to be carried to February 20, 2020
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to carry application Scott/Claire Farber to February 20, 2020 with out notice. Time for this application to be heard has been waived.
In favor: Dixon, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 9:55pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board.
