Borough of Point Pleasant Beach September 12, 2019
The September 12, 2019 Special 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: Secretary Spader, Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and Chairman Struncius
Absent – DePolo, LePore, McGee and Crasper
Also, present – Karen Mills, clerk, Peter Chacanias, Esq and Charles Cunliffe, Engineer.
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
The clerk read into the record that Board member Howard Schneider listened to the audio for the August 1, 2019 meeting and has signed a certification and is eligible to vote on this application.
Application #2019-07- Ippolito Corporation LLC – 1414 Ocean Avenue – Block – 17.01/17.02 – Lots 5, 6, 47/2.01, 3 – Applicant is requesting variances to demolish existing Driftwood Motel and construct a condominium building with 24 units, ground floor parking, condominiums on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors with roof top deck, pool and snack stand.
Carried without notice from August 1, 2019
Ron Gasiorowski, attorney for objector and Tim Middleton, attorney for objector presented their case.
The objector’s professional is Professional Planner, Peter Steck, credentials accepted, sworn. Peter Steck – Exhibit O1 entered – 4-page document – (google aerial photographs, street view, graphic representations of the footprint, superimposed requested footprint over existing footprint). Peter Steck stated that the applicant’s calculations include the entire property, including the non-buildable front lots. The outriggers exceed the footprint of the property – the building is technically larger than just the walls of the structure. Peter Steck stated that there is no building in the area that is 3-stories over a parking area. Part of his analysis stated he spent a lot of time going over the Master Plan and the planners knew that this hotel was here and they still recommended a single-family zone. Focus of his testimony is on the applicants planning testimony. He reviewed 19 observations of Christine Cofone (applicants’ planner).
John Jackson cross examined Peter Steck.
Vice Chair Reynolds questioned in a normal situation – what the liability of having public access is when it is through private property? Peter Steck could not answer. John Jackson stated there are many areas where the public access is through the property – Example is the Wharf side. John Jackson stated that they moved the access because they thought that is what the board wanted – he said it can be moved back to the south side of the building.
Audience question/comments
Mary Buletza, 1413 Ocean Avenue, sworn – Has attended every meeting – She spoke to the character in the neighborhood. She stated that the intensity of use is just for approximately 3 months – the other 9 months it is quiet. She believes they have picked and chosen the variety of rules that suit their application. They do not have one set of codes for this type of property. Questioned the dumpster placement – having it right on the curb in a residential neighborhood does not meet any aesthetic objective.
Charles Sarnasi, 1422 Ocean Avenue, sworn, – Known the Ippolito’s for years and stated they have run a nice business and understands why they would like to get out of the business. Even if this was his brother, he would say it is too much for the lot. It is a massive structure – it doesn’t belong there. That is why we have a Master Plan – believes it is very important to follow the Master Plan. It is a residential neighborhood and this just does not fit – it is big – much too big.
Chris Johnson, 105 Morrison Avenue – Just bought a house on a double lot and refurbished it. It is the same size as the lot that the hotel is on. As much as I would like to see something happen with the hotel – this is too much and it would change the character of this end of town.
Robert Rogers, 1424 Ocean Front – Lives 4 houses south of Driftwood for 20 years – I echo the sentiments of everyone – would like to compliment the Master Planners that wanted to keep the neighborhood residential. The proposed building is huge – I reflect on the pictures that show how it compares to neighboring property. The building is totally out of place in the neighborhood and believe it would change the character of the neighborhood year-round.
Anthony Abdy, 126 Randall Avenue – Resident for 20 years – If I didn’t want to be close to a hotel, I would not have moved near one. The Driftwood has been here for 50 years. Does not understand some of the comments. They could raise the structure that is there today with parking underneath.
Ron Gasiorowski made a closing statement – Represents the Traico’s to the south.
Tim Middleton – gave closing statement
John Jackson gave closing statement
Charles Cunliffe reviewed proposed conditions if approved
Deliberations
Mr. Spader – Scrabbled this egg many times – taking 37 motel units – dropped from 24 units to 18 units – does not allow for the positives to outweigh the negatives as it stands right now and would have to vote no.
Mr. Kelly – The parking spaces are entirely too small; similar to Manasquan and their parking is horrendous. In order to leave the premises in a car you have to drive all the way around to exit. Parking on the south side appears to be diagonal parking and I don’t believe that you could open your door. The other thing is the retaining walls – looks like a 12-foot retaining wall at the east end of the parking lot. Positive criteria trying to balance – general improvement to the area for safety and flood specifications and parking improvements. Negative criteria – going to tear down existing structure – this is a single-family zone. You are never going to get away from the fact that you need a use variance. Housing density, it is a larger structure – it is taller and bigger. Believes that beach access is going to be reviewed and that it will be an issue – public access should be repaired.
Vice Chair Reynolds – First and foremost is we are being asked to take down a non-conformity and put up another non-conformity – testimony form professionals said it was never considered being changed. It does not further the Master plan’ – density is an issue. We have to consider what is going there – not what is there. Worried about it increasing the need for municipal resources. No hard ship has been proven.
Mr. Dixon – One of the main problems with this application that I have – would it be an improvement having full-time residents opposed to summer – probably. One of the rules in the rule book says is that you do not replace a non-conformity with a non-conformity. There is an opportunity to turn this into a non-conformity. You have 4 buildable lots on this property; I also take note that there is several neighbors here – heard nothing negative about the present operation. If they had their choice the Driftwood would be gone and there would be 4 homes and look like the rest of the area. The application is too big. As of right now I cannot approve this.
Mr. Schneider – Biggest issue is that it is an SF5 zone for single families – they want single family homes to remain. No doubt that the proposed structure is an improvement over what is there now. It is meant to be single family homes – the project is too large.
Mr. Davis – After 5 meetings there are a lot of notes – there is no doubt about it that this is an exacerbation of a non-conforming use. We all see it the same way – it is an over powering non-conforming use. It still far exceeds similar uses in the zone. Believes the parking would be a problem with no turn radius demonstrated. Believes there would be safety issues. Planning testimony – I wholly disagree with turning a seasonal hotel into a year-round use is beneficial. There is an impact to visual light and air. I don’t find a compelling reason to be supportive of this application.
Chairman Struncius – There is directive from the Master Plan – but we grant variances – I cannot say that I can never see a multi-family use here but it is about the scale. Half a football field is a gigantic building. We made it clear from meeting one that the size of this building was an issue. A big part of the revisions was to chop the top off the top and sorry to say this but I think it looked worse than the original building – but neither one belongs here – it is just too big. The scale of what is here is the biggest issue – We had two planners here so we had different ways to look at it – If we look at aesthetic to aesthetic, you are putting up something beautiful in place of something that has been there since the 50’s. There is a certain blend quality – there is the uses of the hotel but this doesn’t have that blend quality. When you look at the rendering of this building among the others – you really said “Wow” – there is half a football field building overwhelming the area. That is what it came down to me – there could have been another multi-family here – you could find ways for something to blend – use and scale is just too much. The parking issues and accessibility to the beach issues. Too me it is not a desirably issue – it is just too big – is what is really came down to.
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to deny application #2019-07 of the Ippolito Corporation, LLC.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application denied
Meeting adjourned at 10:50pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
