Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Due to the Point Pleasant Beach Public Health Emergency and State of Emergency declared on March 16, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the directive that all events on Borough property be cancelled until further notice, this meeting was held via the online Zoom Meeting platform. The public had the option to participate online or via telephone. Instructions were published in the Ocean Star, Asbury Park Press and on the Borough website.
The October 15, 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. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Pasola, Loder, Spader, McGee and Crasper
Memorialization of Minutes
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the minutes of August 20, 2020
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 August 27, 2020 minutes
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of September 17, 2020
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2020-17 of Dean Esposito/Barnegat Bay Home Construction – 400 Newark Avenue- with conditions
Voting – Kelly, Schneider and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2020-18 of Sandra Kuhlwein at 215 Arnold Avenue with conditions
Voting: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider and Struncius
Opposed: None
Applications
2020-19 – Loughlin/DeSanto Electric – 1609 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03 /Lot 5.16 – Applicants request is not compliant with the 5 feet setback.
John Jackson attorney for applicant, reviewed application.
Roger Loughlin applicant, sworn, stated that he would like to place the generator in the side yard because it would be in the way of entertaining if placed in the rear yard.
The applicant is requesting to place the generator in the side yard setback and the board would like it placed in the rear yard in a more conforming location and requested photos of yard to help with the decision.
John Jackson waived the time for this application to be heard.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Secretary Schneider to carry application #2020-19 November 19, 2020 without notice to provide the board with more information
In favor: Dixon, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
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%
Application carried to November 19, 2020 without notice
2020-22 – John/Lynda Hapstak – 8B Inlet a/k/a/ 10 Inlet Drive Block 176/Lot 42 – Applicant wishes to build an 18 by 24 foot attached one car garage. Private garage/accessory structure not a permitted use in the MC Zone.
John Jackson attorney for applicants reviewed variance request to build garage.
Lynda and John Hapstak, applicants, sworn, explained their need for a garage. Power Point presentation entered as A-3. Applicants stated that the garage will match the aesthetics of the house.
John Hapstak reviewed the plan and explained that the placement of the garage will be well within the property boundary. Garage will not impede the neighbor’s ability to access their property. Applicants agreed to the condition of not installing a side yard fence on the east side of the property. Vice Chair Reynolds wanted clarification of setbacks since residential structures are not a permitted use in the MC Zone; how can you say something conforms when there are no guidelines for residential. Ray Savacool said basically he refers to SF5 standards in this circumstance as an outline. Dennis Galvin stated this is not your typical SF5; there is no yard space – mostly little bungalows. John Hapstak stated that there are a lot of people in the summer and would like a safe place to store possessions and car. John Hapstak commented that people try to cut through his property to the Shrimp Box. Also, would provide storage for Bikes in the winter. Garage will not be accessed from house. Mr. Dixon inquired if the applicant had considered raising the house and parking underneath? (No) House in on block. Elevation of house is 8.2 feet. Chairman Struncius stated that raising the house would cause more of a light and air issue. Mr. Dixon noted that the neighbor should not be parking in front of their house; they have the rear yard for parking.
Audience questions/comments
Robert Short and Jeff Katuski, as members of the public and neighbors sworn, stated their support of the application noting that the proposal will have positive aesthetic benefits and match the character of the neighborhood.
Caroline Kelly, sworn, expressed concern that the proposal may impact her ability to park on or have access to the adjacent lots if the applicants park cars in front of the proposed garage.
Jill Jackson, a neighboring property owner, who provided additional details regarding the parking situation with the adjacent property owners and supports application.
Deliberations
Kelly – Has no problem with the garage; the owners have been very gracious. In favor
Dixon – Was worried about neighbors but technically the neighbor should not be parking in the front yard; the applicant could not be more accommodating to the neighbor.
Schneider – I don’t see that it will be a detriment to the area. Will not be blocking light and air; neighbor is on the east side. In favor
Reynolds – I had issues at first; seems to have a good neighbor situation. We are only looking at a small variance for setback/rear yard. Appreciate the testimony – in favor.
Davis – My thoughts echo what everybody else has said. The applicants have been accommodating to have very little impact. It certainly enhances the existing property. Promotes safety and feel very positive about this application.
Struncius – When I look at the overall situation, I think it should be reconsidered for a MC zone. If I took out the MC and looked at it as a SF5 still well under in building and impervious coverage. From that criteria it is not overwhelming the property; it is a parking lot behind the home. Not restricting the neighbors from their parking situation. Stated they will not park cars in front and block entry. Do not see any negative from bulk and aesthetics. In favor.
Motion by Mr. Davis second by Vice Chair Reynolds to approve application 2020-22 of John/Lynda Hapstak – 8B Inlet a/k/a/ 10 Inlet Drive Block 176/Lot 42 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis and Struncius.
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
- The applicant must comply with the Development Fee Ordinance of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, if applicable, which Ordinance is intended to generate revenue to facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
- The façade material on the garage is to match the façade material on the home.
- The attached garage is not to be used for habitation purposes
- The applicant agreed not to add a side-yard fence as it might block the light and air of the neighbor.
- The applicant has agreed to abandon the duplex use.
Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk to the Board
