Borough of Point Pleasant Beach October 21, 2021
The October 21, 2021 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, Mr. Dixon, Vice-chair Schneider, Mr. Loder, Vice chair Reynolds, Mr. Pasola and Mr. McGee
Absent – Struncius, Davis, Crasper and Villani
Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Andrew Ball, interim Board attorney and Ray Savacool, Board Engineer
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Approve – Caughey (Point Lofts) COAH Agreement
The clerk read the Resolution of agreement into the record.
Motion by, Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Dixon to approve and adopt the agreement for Point Lofts.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Pasola, Loder McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Memorialized resolution
#2021-22 – Gio/Angela Debari – 217 Harvard Avenue – Block 154; Lot 12 – Applicant is requesting two variances for house lift – 4.3-foot side yard setback and 38.2% building coverage where 30% is allowed.
AGENDA
2021-17 – Ralph Lamanna – 70 Inlet – Block 176; Lot 10.01 – Applicant installed a shed, patio and shower without permits. Impervious coverage 94.51% Sheds not permitted in MC Zone
(Carried from September 16, 2021)
Board members Secretary Schneider and Mr. McGee have listened to the audio of the previous meeting and signed certifications and will be able to vote on this matter.
Applicant’s attorney John Jackson gave a summation.
John Jackson clarified that Mr. LaManna did get a permit for his fence. He reviewed the circumstances and stated that the changes his applicant is willing to make will make it easier for his neighbors to navigate the access to their property. It is a unique situation because the lots are small and tight.
Deliberations
Kelly – Apparently, we are not going to take the concrete patio out. Has the fence been moved? (No) There were a lot of changes requested.
Ray Savacool stated that if approved the applicant agreed to move fence and shed for the easement access for neighbors.
Dixon – I see the applicant is taking the best of the MC zone and SF zone which is not fair. They are not trying to reduce impervious and building coverage. Still have issues with shed and with the whole back yard being concrete.
Schneider – This is a very tight area. I know the audience agreed if the conditions were met.
Pasola – I feel as long as the conditions are met, I would be in favor. As long as they move the fence/shed it will not affect the easement. I thing there is no detriment to anybody.
Loder – We just had a new rating system updated with FEMA. We have worked tons of hours to get the rating – the applicant put it up and got caught. FEMA controls the flood rates in our town. If FEMA comes in and pulls this application, they will ask why we approved something that was built illegally. Not in favor.
McGee – The rules are there for a reason. This worries me – not in favor.
Reynolds – We are in a very sensitive tidal area; we would not grant this amount of coverage to anyone. Not in favor.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Loder to deny application 2021-17 – Ralph Lamanna – 70 Inlet – Block 176; Lot 10.01
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Loder, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: Pasola
Application denied
2021-21 – Crecenzo Group, LLC – 308 Channel Drive/311 Broadway – Block 167; Lot 4 & 5 – Applicant is seeking a “D” variance and “C” variances to construct 9 Townhouses.
Power Point marked as Exhibit A-3
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Stated his applicant has a long history with Point Pleasant Beach. Pointed out the existing building is old and below flood elevation. Reviewed what happened to the area during Superstorm Sandy. We hope the board agrees that the proposed design makes sense for the area and that it adds to the revitalization.
John Crecenzo Jr., applicant, sworn, reviewed the history of the property and his involvement.
John Amelchenko, Professional architect, sworn, gave an overview of project. Property located in the MC Zone. John believes this design will add to the zone. The building is located closer to the setback; closest being 10 feet on Broadway. There will be two three-story buildings containing a total of 9 units. Closest point to Channel Drive is various setbacks from 10 feet to 29 feet. John kept referencing the MC2 zone. Ray Savacool clarified that this project is not in the MC2 one – it is in the MC zone. John Amelchenko agreed – and stated that a use variance is required but stated he feels the MC 2 zone should be applied here. Reviewed access (18- and 24-foot-wide driveway. Stacked parking – (one interior space and one exterior parking space for each unit). Each unit is approximately 1700 square feet. Each unit will include an elevator except the affordable housing unit. Materials will be pvc shingle that never needs to be painted, horizontal hardy plank material on the lower level. Metal roofing and columns. Decks are designed for a few people to hang out on. Decks are 6 feet by 12 feet. Master sweet balconies are 4 feet by 10 feet. Kitchen balconies are 8 feet by 12 feet. Building as measured at elevation 9 is 35.71. The building is a little less than 10% over the permitted height allotment. Chose not to reduce height for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Loder commented that you needed the height to park cars under neath. Mr. Dixon questioned the third floor which is not allowed and questioned the shadow affect and inquired if they did a shadow study. Mr. Dixon inquired why they did not build to code? John Amelchenko stated the permitted 5 units was not a viable number for his clients. They felt this was the best use for the property; using the criteria for the MC2 zone. The applicant is meeting the parking criteria. The center unit is designated for COAH; comparable square footage but no elevator. Garage height is 8 feet. John Amelchenko stated that Point Beach is a brand and people want to be a part of the brand. There will be street trees and believes this was the intent of the overlay zone. Once again this is not located in the overlay zone.
Audience questions of architect
Janet George – 318 Broadway questioned the building coverage. Lives directly across the street. A building that size in a flood zone concerns me.
John Jackson stated at this time they are just moving forward for the use variance.
Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed the propose plan and the boards engineer review letter in reference to the proposed project.
Audience questions of Robert Burdick
Janet George – 318 Broadway questioned the zones and the criteria of the zone. Also is concerned with traffic flow. She believes there will need to be a light at Channel and Broadway with increased traffic. Robert Burdick believes that this use will be less than a permitted restaurant use. Janet George was concerned with the height. She commented that it will be 7 feet higher than her home. She stated that this is a very substantial building compared to her home. She also questioned why it cannot conform to the setbacks.
John Taikina, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed planning testimony. Referenced that this project is located close to the MC2 zone where it would be a permitted use. He referenced that at present time there are two uses on this property. (Office building and residential) This property is in a transition area. Proposing 9-units that are three stories high. The extra units are to address the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Dixon stated that the density requirement if in the MC2 zone it would only be 5 units. Mr. Dixon stated that if we are going to allow residential housing in a zone that does not allow, they are taking the best of both zones. You are not at 50% impervious you are 70% – you are picking and choosing what works for you. Mr. Pasola inquired how this will affect the public welfare and will it be a detriment to the surrounding area. Particular suitability – similar to MC2 zone project. Front setback deficient but everything in the Master Plan talks about improving pedestrian safety and that is what this project would do by closing up curb cuts. You would have uninterrupted pedestrian walkway. Positive Criteria – E – appropriate density. G – provide sufficient space for a variety of uses. I – provide a pleasant visual environment. The board may approve a project because it is pretty. I believe this is more attractive than what is there. Point Pleasant Beach has a brand and believes these units enhance the brand. Mr. Dixon inquired if this zone is going to be changed to the MC2 zone? Ray Savacool stated he has not heard any conversation in reference to the change. John Taikina stated that the Master Plan states that more uses should be added to the MC 2 zone.
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Dixon to carry application 2021-21 – Crecenzo Group, LLC – 308 Channel Drive/311 Broadway – Block 167; Lot 4 & 5 – to January 6, 2022 with notice.
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Pasola, Loder, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Loder to approve the 2022 Meeting dates
In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, Pasola, Loder, McGee and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 10:25pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
