Borough of Point Pleasant Beach September 19, 2019
The September 19, 2019 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, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. LePore, Mr. DePolo, Davis, Mr. McGee and Chairman Struncius
Absent – Spader, and Crasper
Also, present – Karen Mills, clerk, Herschel Rose, Esq and Ray Savacool, Engineer.
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Application #2019-25 – Charles Morse – 7 Pilgrim Pathway – Block 121; Lot 18.04 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single-family dwelling.
Morse carried without notice from August 15, 2019
Charles Morse presented his revised plan. He moved utilities into second floor room – home is technically two stories but a portion of second floor will not be habitable. Garage entrance will now be 10 feet wide. House will remain in same foot print so not to affect the parking on the east side. There is a maintenance hatch on the roof for maintenance – there will be no roof top deck.
Audience questions /comments
Laura Messina – Next door neighbor at 6 Pilgrim Parkway – concerned what will happen to her tiny little house. I am kind of sad that the bungalow community is no longer in the Master Plan. We are lowkey and quiet; and we just see the loss of light, air and value. I just hope that this house remains owner occupied – the house plan is cute. I can’t help but be concerned; it would be foolish of me not to express concern.
Laura St George – 3 Franklin Way – Questioned the back-deck setback (same distance as now). Inquired when he would be starting (in the off season)
Lisa Renzulli – 4 Pilgrim Pathway – Only concern is access being blocked to their home.
Deliberations
Kelly – I think the changes you made are good ones. I think I have seen every house down there affected by Sandy. I see no problem with this plan and believe that you will be happy with your home up there nice and dry.
Mr. Schneider – I like that you listened to our recommendations and came back with a plan that’s livable – same foot print but not ostentatious.
Mr. Reynolds – definitely appreciate you coming back – you did listen to us – footprint is not changing – not losing parking on side – glad you are doing it on the off season.
Mr. Davis – Definitely got a revised plan – changes were to the pleasure of other board members but I still have a concern with light and air. Not convinced yet – I feel it is an opposing structure for the neighbor.
Mr. McGee – I can sympathize with the neighbor – the bungalow area is a unique area but unfortunately with the 100- year storm it has to start changing so people can live in them safely. This will become the norm.
Mr. Davis – When I think about Randall Avenue and how everyone became outraged when the first home went up but now it is a little funky elevated community over there. I guess once more of these homes in the bungalow are more uniformed in size and height it will feel normal. So, its hard to distinguish what we are going to allow to be normal. The second floor is larger than it should be – these are hard questions because it is affecting the whole outcome of the neighborhood.
Chairman Struncius – That story is allowed – but it is the square footage distinction – you have something that is a little boxy and overwhelming – it gets into the balancing by how much over is it. We are so close to the water there and can understand people wanting to get them up.
Mr. Reynolds – By getting them up out of the water we are getting the safety features – new plumbing, electric and fire proof siding. What keeps coming into my head is that the ship has sailed – we have approved many – not that we don’t take every case individually – time to start calling that area bungalow plus.
Mr. Schneider – Also concerned with the air and light. It is also on the west side where most the light will come from the east.
Chairman Struncius – I agree that when the third-floor deck was there with a railing it was a no go – I know there are concerns overs rentals but we do not govern that. The town does have a way to deal with noise.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2019-25 of Charles Morse, 7 Pilgrim Pathway with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis, McGee, and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
- The roof top area shall not be used as a deck.
- The neighbors will be notified at least 10 days before the construction of this project will start.
Application #2019-24 – Daniel/Deanna Savino – 128 Ocean Avenue – Block 121/Lot 9.01 –
Applicant is lifting existing single-family dwelling and wishes to construct a new deck in the rear.
Brother of applicant showed up to represent and he did not have a power of attorney document.
Application will have to be rescheduled.
Application #2019-10 – Scott/Claire Farber – 134 Randall Avenue – Block129.02/Lot 15.01 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single-family house to be FEMA compliant and add decks.
Mr. Dixon has stepped down from the Farber application.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Scott Farber, applicant, sworn. Power Point Exhibit entered as exhibit A-3. Albert Varosi, Professional Engineer, sworn. John Jackson reviewed application and requested variances.
John Jackson reviewed the Power Point presentation. The overwhelming majority of flood events and loss of cars is the basis for wanting to elevate. Not practical to have a ground level decks – using creative elevating techniques. Referenced the Cox book Section 28.3. Applicant seeking 45% Building coverage and referenced previous applications.
Albert Varosi gave general overview of applications and explained how the elevated driveway would work. Mr. Kelly inquired how the property would be graded. Vice Chair Reynolds inquired if that would trap water in the rear yard. Mr. Schneider questioned runoff of the sides onto the neighbor’s property – what will happen because the neighbor’s property is not elevated. Mr. McGee questioned if there is a way to build it so no water runs off the sides. Ray Savacool stated it is hard to know at this time because there are no grades to tell him that is the case.
Scot Farber, applicant, reviewed his architectural plans. The object is for his wife to be able to sit upstairs and see the lake and read a book. Chairman Struncius stated that he is very uncomfortable with the front stairs and the decking – there needs to be many changes. There are a lot of things that need to be tweaked. Exhibit A-4 entered – surrounding property calculations Exhibit A-5 Entered – Building coverage calculations.
Mr. Davis stated he thinks he is need of hard data – he is comfortable with the concept and is agreeable to it but needs the plan to be more thorough. Vice Chair Reynolds agrees that the numbers are not there to support the plan. Chairman Struncius stated that we need to know how many risers, what the balcony is going to look like and the configuration of the stairs. Vice Chair Reynolds inquired what materials would be used. John Jackson replied that the house will stay the color that it is and the decking and rails will be white vinyl.
Audience questions/comments
James J. Nazemetz, Ocean Avenue – Appeared before the board 2 years ago – the first thing I saw was Al today and he has calculations about my property that I do not believe are accurate. Worries about drainage and thinks the aesthetics look like a box. I think Mr. and Mrs. Farber are short changing themselves. I believe this house will look like a sore thumb in the area.
Eric Seaberg, Randall Avenue – As far as drainage, there is nothing that is going to fix the drainage on Randall – it has nothing to do with the runoff from one home – the town has to do something. When it rains it just comes down and sits there. We had to turn our stairs; I am glad I did it but we lost a parking space for aesthetics. We are non-conforming lots and we do what we can do.
Motion by Vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to carry application #2019-10 – Scott/Claire Farber – 134 Randall Avenue – to November 7, 2019 without notice.
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, LePore, Davis, McGee and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application #2019-33 – Anthony J. Morriello – 305 Lincoln Avenue – Block- 206/Lot 21 – Applicant removed existing shed and built a new 16 by 16 foot shed that is 17 feet in height.
Zackary and Anthony Morriello, applicants, sworn. Anthony Morriello explained that he believed that if you had a shed it thought it was OK to build a new shed and apologized for not following protocol. New shed will be 1 1/2 stories and utilized to store lawn care, pool and sports equipment. Shed is two feet off property line and 17 feet high – neighbors have a 50 foot by 60-foot gymnasium bordering their property with retaining wall. Anthony Morriello stated that his garage does not have an apartment in the upper story. Access to loft in shed will be a pull-down ladder. Property is located in the LR zone which requires a 15-foot side yard setback. Anthony Morriello believes that the shed does not negatively impact his neighbor. Vice Chair Reynolds believes that the property is big enough to sustain the shed but our ordinances have certain requirements; this is a struggle. Mr. Kelly stated that this particular structure is too close to the line – a permit was not issued. Zack Morriello stated that they wanted to use the existing slab.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Kelly – We have had a lot of these, I got to the point where I call them forgiveness variances. Quite frankly I feel this isn’t too far along – I think you should start over and do it the right way. Down the road I believe it will be in your favor to do that.
Schneider- You made modifications to it – you assured us that there will be no electric, gas or water. I am on the fence.
Reynolds- Going over this I have some reservations – I know the property. Speak to suitability – I do not think it is out of character for the property. If it was a smaller lot and somewhere else, I would definitely vote against it. Given where it is at, I am good for it.
LePore- I am on the fence as well; size and location is OK. In a lot of ways, you are lucky you were stopped when you were. I do this for a living and do property closings. You need to have permits – it always comes up as an issue – this may circumvent it if we give you the approvals. Mr. Kelly is right that sometimes it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission sometimes. Deep down you kind of knew this is not the way to do things and figure you will ask for forgiveness. I understand why you needed a larger shed – this is a tough one.
DePolo – I had to get a permit for my shed – my wife liked the 10 by 14 foot shed. Elaine Petrillo told me you can only have a 10 by 12 foot shed and showed me the setbacks; I followed the rules and my wife only got the 10 by 12 foot shed. I am not going to go home and tell my wife that I approved this shed. I am more likely to decline the application at this point.
Davis – I think that is a very valid point; but I am not on fence with this one. I think the property is uniquely suited to have the shed in the location that it is. It does not interfere with anybody’s light and air; it is setback in such a way that you can interpret it as a rear yard. It is located against someone’s gymnasium, and I don’t think that is going got change anywhere in the near future. The applicant took an oath and I have the tendency to believe them.
McGee- The applicant apologized; pre-existing setbacks. Believe that you didn’t believe that you needed permits. I don’t see any reason to deny the project.
Struncius- My whole struggle was putting it back in the same spot and not moving it. The size does not bother me; a 10 by 12-foot shed would be so small in scale to the property. The size is OK; it was just the location. The is a very large accessory building next to it; I have driven down that street thousands of times and have never seen a shed. I think in listening to other board members in density to unique shape and size; not an obstruction to the neighbors –
Conditions
- No running water or plumbing installed inside the shed.
- Secure building permits.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Vice Chair Reynolds to approve applciaiton#2019-33 – Anthony J. Morriello – 305 Lincoln Avenue –
In Favor: Mr. Schneider, Vice-Chairman Reynolds, Mr. LePore, Mr. Davis, and Chairman Struncius
Opposed: Mr. Kelly and Mr. DePolo
Application approved with conditions
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
