Borough of Point Pleasant Beach The September 17, 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, Secretary Schneider, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Loder, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Reynolds, Spader and Crasper
Motion by Secretary Schneider, second by Mr. Loder to memorialized the minutes of June 18, 2020 –
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Secretary Schneider to memorialize the minutes of July 16, 2020 –
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon, Pasola, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the minutes of July 23, 2020 –
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Pasola, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2020-10 of Richard and Nancy Massaro at 8 Beachcomber Lane with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. McGee to memorialize the action and vote approving Application 2020-16 of Margaret Butler at 5 Franklin Way with conditions.
In favor: Dixon, Schneider, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application #2020-17 – Dean Esposito/Barnegat Bay Home Construction – 400 Newark Avenue – Block 15; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to build new FEMA compliant single-family home. Applicant is requesting front set back variances for both Newark and St. Louis Avenue.
(The Esposito application has been carried without notice from August 27, 2020)
Dean Esposito, under oath, reviewed the revisions to the revised plot plan. The stairs have been slightly recessed on the east elevation to improve the setback to 14.7 feet. The applicant agreed to keep their front porch aligned with the southern neighbors.
Tim Lurie, Professional Engineer, sworn, credentials accepted, reviewed the revisions. Rear setback is set at 30.5 feet. 23 feet to porch – 14.7 feet off front setback on St. Louis. Building coverage is 28.3% and impervious is 36%.
Dean Esposito feels that they truly explained their intention and design characteristics at the last meeting and how it fits into the lake setting. Believes that the current design is fitting for the property and will benefit the neighborhood.
Ray Savacool requested clarification of the second-floor dimensions.
CJ Aker, Professional Architect clarified.
Audience Questions/Comments
Rosa Crowley, neighbor – 1401 St. Louis, sworn, has been in communication with Esposito’s – and has been in her home for 15 years – proposed home is beautiful home, but concerned the St. Louis stairs will block the view. Their porch is the driveway in front of their home. This is their forever home and they want to make sure that this works out for the best.
John Wisniewski, – It is a beautiful house – the stairs on the St. Louis side add to the beauty but they already have a set of stairs and do not feel they are necessary. Have been there a long time and I think other things can be done.
Deliberations
Kelly – Very interesting evening – I would like to commend the property owners for their patience – I think this is a beautiful design and will be an asset to that corner. When I found that 11-foot setback included the stairs it alleviated my concerns.
Dixon – From last meeting I said I do not understand why with a corner lot are we not making them meeting one of the setbacks – they already have front steps on Newark. That is where the driveway is. I do not see it as a hardship. It is not a Sandy house. It would fit perfectly without the steps, sticking to my guns – they are not a necessity.
Pasola – I think the Esposito’s have been extremely cooperative with the neighbors and making the changes. I do not see the view changing all that much. The view will still be beautiful of the lake. Every case is heard on its own merit.
Schneider – very interesting situation – Would really like to know what view would be blocked looking to the north. I believe there should still be a complete view to the north. It will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Loder – Appreciative of the Esposito’s working with the Board – but we need to have a consistency how we look at projects.
McGee – Beautiful home in a neighborhood that was hit hard by Sandy. Corner lot – aesthetics does matter – thinks changes should be made to the Master Plan. At the same time, I understand Rosa Crowley concerns – that being said – I appreciate the changes made.
Davis – appreciate the changes the applicants have made – it is a beautiful house – the neighborhood is a mix of smaller homes and larger newer homes. Agree with Mr. Dixon – in many cases I might be able to see my way around the staircase. It does not serve a primary function. Does not promote the zone or promote good will in the neighborhood.
Struncius – Don’t necessarily agree with what Mr. Dixon said – I think there are a lot of times with an elevation we look for the setbacks of neighboring home. There is decking and staircases – I believe the stairs are a safety feature. I don’t foresee that the stairs will block a view. Will have a definite view of the lake. With the efforts of the applicant recessing the steps – From an aesthetic point of view it fits in the zone. No major issue with what I see.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Secretary Schneider to approve application #2020-17 of Dean Esposito/Barnegat Bay Home Construction – 400 Newark Avenue – Block 15; Lot 20 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Pasola, Loder, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: Dixon
Application approved with conditions
Application #2020-18 – Sandra Kuhlwein – 215 Arnold Avenue – Applicant wishes to install an in-ground pool and convert garage to cabana.
Ray Bogan, attorney for applicant. Reviewed request. Applicant has withdrawn request for a cabana. Existing structure has existing setbacks. Applicant has maintained rooming house license.
Sandra Kuhlwein, applicant, sworn, stated she is requesting to install an in-ground swimming pool for personal enjoyment. Will not be expanding existing non-conformities. A re-charge trench will be installed to reduce runoff. Has been previously used as a rooming house by previous owner. The name of the Guest house was Mary’s Guest house that dates back to 1929. Sandra Kuhlwein stated that she does have proof of mercantile issued back to 1998. (Not entered) Ray Savacool commented that the Board will not rule on certificate of non-conformity at this time and will just address the pool. Continued use proposed is consistent with the neighborhood; there is a motel across the street and a neighboring two-family home. Mr. Dixon confirmed that there is no secondary residence and that a fence will be installed to code. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification of the placements of the mechanicals. Mr. Kelly inquired if the garage is usable. (Yes) Mr. Kelly would like to see some kind of barrier between the driveway and the pool for safety. Mr. Bogan replied that the recharge trench is located between the driveway and pool. Mr. McGee confirmed that the driveway fence is bolted and locked for safety. (Yes) Mr. Pasola stated that the building inspector handles the inspections and enforcement of construction code. Pool will be located 10 feet from rear of home. Ray Savacool reviewed impervious calculations.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Kelly – Not concerned with pool situation; just making sure there is a fence around it. No problem with the rest of it.
Dixon – Obviously resident wants pool there for herself and family; no problem with it.
Schneider – As long as home owner meets with our conditions – I have no problem with it.
Pasola – No problem with conditions in place.
Loder – No problem with the concessions the applicant has made and the conditions in place.
McGee – I agree – 1 % is deminimis – I hope you enjoy your pool.
Davis – This is not an expansion of the living situation – this is a recreational item – recharge is good and as long as the numbers match – in favor.
Struncius – Agree with everything the Board has said – pool is usually a catch basin – you have the recharge trench and the catch basin – even though the percentage is a little over you have the offset – have no issue.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
