September 15, 2022

         September 15, 2022

 

The September 15, 2022 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, Secretary Schneider, Vice chair Reynolds, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Davis, Mr. Driber, Mr. Neill, Ms. McFadden and Chairman Struncius

Absent –   Dixon and McGee

Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Board attorney and Ray Savacool, Board Engineer

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

                Minutes

                Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of June 16, 2022

                In favor:  Kelly, Davis, Reynolds, Pasola and Driber

                Opposed:  None

 

                Memorialize Resolutions

                Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote                approving application 2022-35 of Michael/Diane Manzo – 303 Woodward – Block 92; Lot 18/18.6 – Applicant is demolishing current structure and wishes to construct a single-family             residence – seeking height, deck square footage and fence variance.

                In favor:  Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Pasola, Neill and Davis

                Opposed:  None

                Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Pasola to memorialize the action and vote             approving application 2022-17 – John/Pricilla McDermott – 301 Newark Avenue – Block 20              Lot: 1 – Applicant wishes to add second story, new siding and windows.

                In favor:  Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Pasola, Davis and Struncius

                Opposed:  None

                Agenda

                2022-23 – Atlantic Pool Pros – 304 Atlantic Avenue – Block 50; Lot 18 – Pool has already been     installed; requiring a 9.3-foot setback variance.    Contractor mistakenly installed pool in wrong   location. The setback is 9.3 feet where 10 feet is required. John Grasso, contractor, sworn   stated that he is a Principal of Atlantic Pool Pros, LLC, the contractor responsible for the pool                  construction project on the subject property. Patrick and Sandra Milano are the title owners of   the subject property and signed/consented to the filing of the subject variance application.

 

                Exhibits entered

  1. A1 – Certified Variance Application
  2. A2 – Final Grading & As Built Survey, by Morgan Engineering (David J. Von Steenburg, P.L.S.) dated 5/10/22
  • A3 – Power Point Packet (10 pages)
  1. 9/12/22 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.

 

 

Deliberations

Kelly – I think this is my 4th or 5th pool application in the wrong location. This is minimal. No problem with this.

Schneider –  8 inches is another mistake. I don’t think it will be a safety concern

Reynolds – No one will fly over and say it is 8 inches too close

Pasola – No problem with this application. Sees the hardship

Davis – For future pool owners they should probably be advised to have a buffer. No detriment to the zone.

Driber – No problem- I think it’s great

Neill – No issues

McFadden – Also no issues

 

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by secretary Schneider to approve application 2022-23 – Atlantic Pool Pros – 304 Atlantic Avenue – Block 50; Lot 18 –

In favor:  Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed:  None

Application approved with conditions

 

2022-29 – Szafransky Family LLC – 406 New York Avenue -Block 33: Lot 17 – Applicant is seeking certification of prior non-con-forming use or the alternative; a use variance to permit the continuation of the current use of the property as a 2-family.

Exhibits entered

  1. Exhibit A1 – Certified Application
  2. Exhibit A2 – 1970 Subdivision Plan; Photos; 1987 Resolution for 410 New York Avenue; Thatcher Furnace Document
  • Exhibit A3 – Photo Packet

 

Jason Shamy, Esq., Attorney for the applicant, reviewed request and background.  Property built in the 1950’s as a two family.

Maryann Safranski, applicant, sworn, testified that her family purchased the property in 1971 and it was a two-family. 

Proofs submitted satisfied the Board.

 

Deliberations

Kelly – I know the property and I have no problem with this.

Schneider – Met the proofs.

Reynolds – In light of sworn testimony and evidence I believe it has always been a two family

Pasola – I have no issues –

Davis – I also have no issues

Driber – I also believe it has always been a two family

Neill – Also agree

McFadden – No issues – I agree

Struncius – I believe the applicant has met the proofs.

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Driber to approve application 2022-29 –pf the Szafransky Family LLC – 406 New York Avenue -Block 33: Lot 17

In favor:  Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed:  None

Application approved

 

2022-32 – Lobella Salon, LLC – 734 Arnold Avenue – Block 91.01; Lot 20.02 – Applicant is requesting to expand footprint of business.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the request.

  1. Exhibit A1 – Certified Variance Application
  2. Exhibit A2 – Architectural Floor Plan, by Verity Frizzell, R.A. of Feltz & Frizzell Architects, LLC (1 sheet, dated 7/6/22); and Exterior Photo of Existing Site
  3. Exhibit A3 – Board Mounted Aerial Photo
  4. Exhibit A4 – Site Plan, by FWH Associates (dated 2/3/22)

 

Brian P. Murphy, P.E., P.P., the Applicant’s Engineer and Planner, sworn, stated that the existing site is located in the GC zone. The beauty salon use (d/b/a “Salon O”) occupies 1,793 SF of a mixed-use building.  Applicant is a tenant in the building and Owner has signed/consented to the Application. The alterations proposed to the property consist of renovation of the interior of the salon (no exterior modifications or change to the building footprint are proposed). Hair/beauty salon is not a current permitted use in the GC zone, having been removed from the list of permitted uses under Ordinance 2017-17.   In 2021, via Ordinance 2021-21 GC permitted uses were amended; however, hair/beauty salons were not added as a permitted use in the GC zone.   Hair salons were added at that time as a permitted use in the HC Highway Commercial Zone. The salon has been in existence before 2017 and has consistently operated (without abandonment or destruction) through to the present. While the premises footprint is not being physically expanded, the interior renovations/reconfiguration is expanding the salon use by providing for 6 additional styling stations and 2 additional wash stations.

Hours of operation are as follows:

  1. Sunday – Closed
  2. Monday – Clean Up Day
  • Tuesday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm
  1. Friday and Saturday – 9am to 5pm

 

He indicated that while the renovations provide for 6 additional styling stations and 2 additional wash stations, the intent of same is not to increase the number of employees.  Same is intended to provide personal work space for the existing employees (many of whom are part time or have flexible schedules).  The proposed layout is a more efficient space for the employees and customers of the salon. Brian Murphy stated that the site is particularly suited for this interior renovation as it is an existing successful use at this location and that the proposed interior renovation/expansion of the nonconforming use advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) and (i) and that the proposed renovation as depicted on the architectural plan submitted will be a significant aesthetic and efficiency improvement to the site for the employees and patrons of the salon.

The site currently provides for 5 parking spaces; dimensions are 9’ by 18’, in compliance with RSIS criteria.  Applicant agreed as a condition to provide one ADA compliant handicap parking space and make the remaining 4 spaces 8’ by 18’ to allow for same and that the proposed application would create no significant detriment to the public good in as much as there are no exterior renovations proposed and the interior renovations will be an aesthetic and functional improvement to the operation at the site.

Verity Frizzell, R.A., sworn, stated that both the existing and proposed floor plan for the salon provides for a rear exit door for safety. The floor plan she drafted and submitted to the Board for approval accurately depicts the current existing condition of the salon and the proposed interior renovation floor plan. The plan identifies the existing 9 styling stations are increased to 15; while 3 wash stations are increased to 5.  The manicure/pedicure stations are reduced from 3 to 2.

 

Applicant Dena Pederson, sworn, stated that she is the owner/operator of applicant Lobello Salon LLC (d/b/a Salon O) and as such is fully familiar with the site and business operation. She confirmed that she has owned and operated (and prior to ownership was an employee at the site) the salon since before the use was removed as a permitted use in the GC zone in 2017. The salon use was never abandoned nor destroyed since 2017 and the current floor plan layout provides for a lot of wasted space and employees currently share styling stations.  Also, the current floor plan (1 bathroom) requires employees and patrons to share the one existing bathroom whereas the proposed floor plan provides for two bathrooms. The business is successful and almost 100% of all business is via appointment; as such, additional reception/waiting space is not needed. The proposed renovation to the interior will be an aesthetic improvement and will be a functional improvement for both the employees and patrons of the business.  She agreed to remind and encourage patrons parking on site that Cramer Road is a one-way street and exiting from the parking lot directly to Arnold Avenue is a traffic violation.

Audience questions/ comments

 

John Pederson – sworn, husband of applicant stated that he knows how hard his wife and employee’s work.

 

Jacqueline Waldman – sworn, employee stated she would love to have her own station so she doesn’t have to keep setting up.

 

 

Conditions

 

  1. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other approvals or permits from other governmental agencies, as may be required by law, including but not limited to the Municipality’s and State’s affordable housing regulations; and the applicant shall comply with any requirements or conditions of such approvals or permits.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. The floor plan renovations are to be constructed in accordance with the architectural plan submitted to the Board as part of this Application.

 

  1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Board Engineer report, by Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., dated 9/12/22, unless specifically exempted herein.

 

  1. Applicant shall provide one ADA compliant parking space (width of the remaining four parking spaces to be reduced to 8’) prior to completion of the interior renovations.

 

 

Deliberations

 

Kelly – Does not see any problems with application. Parking is adequate with lot across the street.

Schneider – Parking across the street – do not see a problem.

Reynolds – No change to outside of building – no problems. I like to support local businesses.

Pasola – See this as a major approvement for employees and clientele. I have been in the business for 60 years.

Davis – For all the reasons stated I agree.

Driber – As long as the handy-cap situation is taken care of I am in favor.

Neill – an improvement and an asset to the community.

McFadden – I was first concerned and thought it was too crowded but now I understand. Nice to go to a salon where each person has their own work station.

Struncius – 14 year running use. I do not see the intensity being overwhelming. It is appropriate for purpose of planning.

Motion by second Mr. Driber, second by Mr. Pasola to approve application 2022-32 of Lobella Salon, LLC – 734 Arnold Avenue with conditions

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed:  None

Application approved with conditions

2022-27– Anna/Richard Vislocky – 1713 Beacon Lane – Block 11.01; Lot 4.01 – Applicant is requesting to build an 18 foot by 18-foot rear elevated deck which will increase building coverage to 42.4% and impervious to 63%.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is requesting variance relief for building coverage, impervious coverage and rear yard setback to construct an 18’ by 18’ rear elevated deck with a landing and stairs.

 

Variance relief requested:

  1. Maximum building coverage where 30% is allowed and 42.4% is proposed (36.2% existing).
  2. Maximum impervious coverage where 50% is allowed and 63% is proposed (59.9% existing).
  3. Minimum rear yard setback where 30’ is required and 16.7’ is proposed (34.9’ existing).

 

Existing Nonconformities to remain unchanged:

Building Height where 35’ maximum is permitted and 38’ is existing.

 

Exhibits entered

 

  1. A1 – Certified Variance Application
  2. A2 – Proposed Deck Plan by Remington & Vernick Engineers (Pamela Hilla, P.E.), dated 3/31/22.
  3. A3 – Power Point Packet (6 pages)
  4. Board Engineer Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P., report dated 9/9/22

 

Richard Vislocky, applicant, sworn, stated that he (together with his wife) are the title owners of the subject property and applicants before the Board for the variances requested. They purchased the subject property, with constructed single-family home, approximately 2 years ago. The intent of the application is to provide for a rear yard deck for outdoor cooking/grilling and entertaining.   The existing condition at the home provides for a 4’ by 8’ deck/landing and stairs to grade. During the hearing, he volunteered a revision to the application to provide for a 12’ by 24’ (in lieu of 18’ by 18’). He further volunteered to remove the existing north side pavers and add a rear yard drywell connected to the roof leaders.

Pamela Hilla, P.E., sworn, stated that she is a professional engineer and prepared the proposed plan submitted for approval and as such, is fully familiar with the subject property and surrounding properties. The home was constructed with a front setback of 40’, rather than 25’ that is required to provide for additional off-street parking.   There is limited on street parking on Beacon Lane and due to its proximity with the public Maryland Avenue beach, on street parking is at a premium during the summer months. Applicants wish to construct an 18’ by 18’ elevated rear deck for outdoor cooking and entertaining. The rear of the property backs up to Ocean Avenue and based on the existing mature landscaping which is proposed to remain and wood wall with privacy lattice, she stated that the proposed deck would have no negative impact to surrounding properties. She confirmed that the existing 4’ by 8’ deck/landing and stairs meets the rear setback requirement of the zone. She confirmed that there is an elevator in the home.  While the elevator provides access to the first and second finished floors; access to the roof top deck is via stairs. Referencing the photos provided, she identified the existing roof top deck.   She noted the second-floor decks on the front of the home are connected to bedrooms.  She further noted that the first-floor decks are narrow and rarely used. She stated that the proposed application meets the criteria for C(1) hardship variance relief based upon the existing location of the developed home together with its location on the curved portion of Ocean Avenue.

 

No audience questions

 

Deliberations

Kelly – Beautiful home – unfortunately for me you made the decision early on to set it back. You only reduced the requested deck by 2-feet. Still unhappy with setback. You have a large parking area.

Schneider – House has quite a few decks and balconies already. They have the rules and distances for a reason.

Reynolds – We are starting out with non-conformities.  6 decks already on the house. There is no hard ship.

Pasola – I do not see a hardship either. Might have considered a smaller deck.

Davis – I concur with what has been said. This house was built out to the limits. The deck proposed it too large. This house was not designed for this addition. No hardship

Driber – Saw the pictures of the adjacent houses. The ones to the north have pools and they were designed for a back yard; yours was positioned for parking in the front yard. I would not support this application.

Neill – a lot of my concerns were already brought up. Impervious is important. Will not be in favor

McFadden – I am very concerned about the large amount of impervious coverage. You bought a house without any wiggle room.

Struncius – I agree with the rest of the board; I do not see a hardship. The applicant said it himself that this is a matter of convenience. Building coverage would be over 40% which is unheard of. No hardship – there is an elevator.

 

Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Davis to deny application 2022-27 of Anna/Richard Vislocky – 1713 Beacon Lane

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed:  None

Application denied

 

2022-30 – Margery/Joseph Centuori – 152 Chicago Avenue – Block 146; Lot 5 – Applicant is requesting to build a single-family dwelling that needs a front yard setback variance.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed the applicant’s request.

Exhibits entered

A1 – Certified Variance Application

A2 –Architectural Plans by Richard Tokarski of Tokarski and Millemann Architects dated 5/3/22. Plot Plan by Michael Intile, P.E., P.P., Crest Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 4/27/22

A3 – Power Point Packet (22 pages – 9/15/22 hearing)

9/12/22 Board Engineer Reports of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P.

Richard Tokarski, R.A., reviewed proposed design that he characterized as modern beach house. The proposed use is a single-family home which is permitted in the zone. The lot is a corner lot (51.8’ by 100’) with frontage on both Chicago Avenue and Harvard Avenue. The existing home as depicted in the photos and aerial pictures provided fronts on Chicago Avenue and provides for 14.4’ front setback where 25’ is provided. The proposed application provides for a home that will be oriented with its frontage on Harvard Avenue (with a compliant 25’ setback) while maintaining a 14.4’ setback to Chicago Avenue. He stated that this orientation is a better zoning alternative and provides for a better defined and functional rear yard. The site has a grade elevation of 6.2 while the DFE is 12 for the subject property; thus, the lot provides a reasonable opportunity to design the elevated home with a ground level garage. The design provides for 3 off street parking spaces which complies with RSIS requirements. He described the architecture as a clean, modern design (which is somewhat unique for the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach); but a popular current trend for new homes being constructed.

The Board had concerns over the coverage and setbacks.  Is giving the applicant time to make revisions.

Motion by Vice-chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Pasola to carry application 2022-30 – Margery/Joseph Centuori – 152 Chicago Avenue without notice

In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Pasola, Davis, Driber and Struncius

Opposed:  None

Application carried without notice

Meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm

            Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA

                         Clerk of the Board