416 New Jersey Avenue, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742 • 732-892-1118 • www.pointpleasantbeach.org
Welcome to Point Pleasant Beach

Point Pleasant Beach News

Printable Version

February 16, 2017


February 16, 2017 BOA minutes

The February 16, 2017 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. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reynolds, vice-chair Reilly, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo and Ms. Crasper
Absent – Struncius and Davis
Also present – Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the minutes of January 19, 2017.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Crasper
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote amending Resolution #2015-43 Of James Benedetto/Virginia Harvey with conditions.
In favor: Spader and Kelly
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-01 of Joan/Anthony Graceffo – 107 Boardwalk with conditions
In favor- Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and DePolo
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-01 of Michael/Collen Flately – 57 Sanborn Avenue with conditions
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and DePolo
Opposed: None

Application #2017-05 – George/Sibel Fresolone – 23 Niblick – Block 130; Lot 2 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
Mr. Dixon has stepped down from the Fresolone application
George Fresolone, applicant, sworn. Exhibits marked A-3 – Color Rendering A-4 colorized floor plan. George Fresolone stated that he has his modular builder and designer with him. Parents bought the property in 1958; they have four children/grandchildren. When they realized how much damage had been done from the storm they decided to rebuild. They would like to build a four bedroom three bathroom home. They plan on retiring here in the near future. Would like to defer the engineer.
Jason Marciano, professional engineer, credentials accepted, reviewed existing conditions, variances being requested and Board engineer’s comments. The lot has an undersized frontage; air conditioning being moved to rear to eliminate side yard setback variance. Home being moved back on lot to allow for front parking. Proposed structure complies with rear yard setback. Building coverage complies; requesting relief with the 85% on second floor (only 100 square feet over). There have been features added to the front of the dwelling to give it dimension. Ms. Crasper inquired about the siding (Typical vinyl siding).
Ryan Meyers, designer for Atlantic Modular, sworn. Vice - Chairman Reilly inquired why he could not meet the 85% requirement. Ryan Meyers stated that there was a requirement from the applicant for bedrooms and they wanted to keep the footprint to a minimum. Mr. Reynolds inquired about the stone on the foundation (Yes - foundation will be stone) Vinyl siding will be in the tan family. It is a modest house for the waterfront.
Terrance Hegel, builder, sworn, stated that there was a lot of thought that went into the plan. Relatively modest sized home for lot size. It has been a balancing act to meet the needs of the applicant and the land use laws. If there was not an elevator we would not be here. There is no negative impact to the neighbors.
Spader – My concern was the 85% and the look of the building.
Going into the area today and looking at the area closely and hearing the explanations to our concerns. It really doesn’t give the appearance of a pancake house. The architect put some nice additions there. Bottom line I think it fits the neighborhood and will be in favor.
Kelly – Like to commend the architect for taking this house and offering a solution. Commend the architect for the reduction of the setbacks and for moving the home back to add parking in the front. To build and increase the size of the lower floor I would be concerned with the neighbor and to move it back any further would affect the neighbor’s views. I have seen a few of the modular homes and I do know they have trouble with the elevators. The ordinance was drafted to eliminate the boxy cape type home and I think you have done that. I don’t like the idea of moving it back any farther. Some of these homes are being decorated between the garage and the floor and would like to see some landscaping in front. Would like to thank the modular home people; of all the modular homes before us you are only the second builder to appear.
Reynolds - I could like to commend and state that instead of coming in and using the undersized lot as an excuse you worked with it and that is unusual. I really do not have a problem with it at all; I do not think it is over massing. There are other homes in the neighborhood that are popping up that are similar to this.

Schneider – I think they have worked well with a 47 foot wide piece of property. The house is designed nicely, it isn’t boxy; it fits into the neighborhood and is modest in size – not ostentatious – well designed
DePolo - Like to commend the professionals and representatives that came in to explain. They explained it well and makes me feel better they went to some effort and not trying to ram it down our throats. Some non-conforming things are now conforming. I think it will be an asset to the neighborhood – you did a great job.
Crasper – There were various non-conformities that were eliminated which is great. It looks beautiful – there are a couple houses over there that are similar – not usually a fan of modular homes, but this is nice.

Reilly – I would like to congratulate everyone that worked on this, they paid attention to detail and tried to do the right thing and correct the several variances that were there. When I first looked at this I said “wait a minute why can’t they meet the 85% this is brand new the rule is new”– but when I drove out there and looked at the site and looked at the houses around it I got much more comfortable and then with the explanation tonight I will be in favor.

1. The home is to be constructed as shown to the Board, accept that the siding may be in the beige family.

2. The curb cut is to be no greater than 13 feet.

3. The area between the garage doors will be landscaped (landscape island) to be reviewed by the Borough Engineer.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2017-05 of George/Sibel Fresolone 23 Niblick with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo, Crasper and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to approve the request of William Focazio to withdraw application #2014-31 – 41, 41A and 43 Inlet Drive – Block 175; Lots 24, 25.01 and 25.02.
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Reilly
Opposed: None
Application withdrawn

Application #2016-40 – 3983 Destination LLC. (Dunes Motel) – 1601 Ocean Avenue – Block 179.02- Lot 5 & 6- Applicant wishes to demolish existing motel and construct a 16 unit residential condominium.
Mr. Dixon has returned to the dais.
Ben Montenegro, attorney for applicant, stated it is an existing motel use – which is a pre-existing legal use; the motel has 25 rooms. It is a very successful motel; it is highly used in the peak months. From a zoning perspective there are certain negatives as it relates to this location and neighborhood. Those issues including noise, traffic, parking and all the things that go along with a motel use in a residential area. So they are here tonight to apply for a use variance and final site plan to construct a 16 unit condominium structure with parking. Will improve pedestrian safety by eliminating the backing out of parking spaces and providing sidewalks. The theme of this case is an opportunity for a win win situation for the applicant, neighborhood and the town. You will be getting a significant upgrade of the structure; getting a seashore Victorian structure and upgraded site plan. Nature of use will be ownership instead of transient use. Approval of upscale luxury residential use will be consistent with the area. Benefits the town by improving the gateway. Homes in area are upscale colonial homes. Seeking approval of use – will be giving positive criteria and special reasons. This will be a significant upgrade to what exists. It will improve residential diversity, reduction of impervious coverage, parking and aesthetics which are all set forth in the Master Plan reexamination Report.
Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer and Planner, sworn credentials accepted, described existing site and reviewed Board Engineers Letter. Exhibit A-3 Existing building A-4 – Color rendering. Current structure was built in the 1950’s and has had a recent facelift after Super Storm Sandy – Building has pigeon hole windows and window air conditioners. Robert Burdick stated that this will help improve on street parking on Carter Avenue. Ray Savacool had Robert Burdick explain the parking plan; each unit would have their own parking space – the two bedrooms would have stacked parking. The exterior lighting will be residential in nature with no spillage on other properties. Garbage pickup will be arranged accordingly. Pool is going to be removed.
Audience questions/comments
Ed Jankowski, Carter Avenue – Asked for clarification of variances. How many actual parking spaces are there – 7 parking spaces exterior of building; 25 in parking garage.

James Monteforte, Professional Architect, credentials accepted, sworn – A-3 Rendering, A-4 –front view A-5 – North view Created building to have Gambrel look; Materials are composite shingle, hardy type siding (tan and stained). The look reduces the height visually. There will be stacked parking with bumper stops in parking garage. Building is 16 units; 12 two-bedroom units; 2 one bedroom units; 2 three bedroom pent house units. Largest three bedroom unit is 1700 square feet; largest two bedroom is 1400 square feet; one bedroom is 750 square feet. Second and third floor are identical. Amenity to unit owners is a roof top deck with hot tub and gazebo; elevator goes to roof that is fully adaptable and accessible. You will not be able to see people on roof unless they are in the gazebo; roof has parapet walls (42 inches) some gables are higher than that. A/c units are also located on the roof. Would agree to the condition that the roof top deck would close at 10pm. Lattice screening to be provided around garage level. Actual height of roof is 38 BFE; all of the height is an appurtenance. Gazebo is measured at 51 feet from BFE of 9 feet.

Audience questions/comments
Ed Jankowski, Carter Avenue – Stated this structure is surrounded by single family homes. Questioned what the highest point of the structure is. Ray Savacool explained that you are allowed now 32.5 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) which is 9 feet for a total of 41.5 feet in height.

Robert Burdick, Professional Planner/Engineer, reviewed variances. Setback to Ocean Avenue will be 20 feet where 25 feet is required. Setback to Carter will remain about the same (19 feet). Rear setback 30 feet required requesting 7 foot setback. Building coverage allowed 30%, proposing 57.3%, currently 37.2% - that is a 20% increase in building coverage. Impervious – 50% allowed, proposing 74%, currently 91.7% - significant reduction. Building heights measured from BFE – Elevator tower – 53.8 feet; gazebo 50.96 feet; stair tower 47.54; parapet 44.12. Area is the majority single family homes with a couple of motels down the street. Motel has been there since 1957, it is a preexisting non-conforming use. Motel still has 1960’s style; proposed building is extremely attractive. Believes this promotes public safety; cars go directly in.
Proposed units provide parking through proper driveways; parking will be off roadway. Sidewalks will be constructed which will provide enhanced public safety. The entire first floor of the existing structure is below flood elevation and sustained considerable damage during the storm. The proposed construction will be FEMA compliant; will provide fire safety requirements. Improving impervious coverage; will block some air and light with height. Project will provide for full curbing and sidewalk.
With regards to disadvantages of the project, the project does not comply with the SF5 zone. However with the existence of the Dunes Motel believes the plan brings the site closer to the uses allowable in the zoning ordinance and will eliminate a larger non-conformity. The height of the structure will certainly create some shadow effect on the adjacent properties and the proposed height is much larger than the zoning allows.
We believe there are numerous advantage to the project. The property will be much more aesthetically pleasing. It will raise the elevation of the structure to comply with FEMA regulations. It will eliminate sub-standard parking conditions at the site and will actually add to offsite parking along Carter Avenue. It will reduce density form 25 motel rooms to 16 condominiums units. Site will be provided with much more extensive landscaping which will provide further aesthetics. Applicant believes that condo ownership will provide for a more stable population then renting on a short term basis. Occupancy in the motel goes up to 102 people in the various rooms; it was rented at 88% capacity last year. Unfortunately he has to rent to people that are sometimes not old enough and then they bring all their friends. That use will be a lot less frequent with condominium ownership. Reviewed the Master Plan review of 2015 and it does meet quite a few of the Master Plan goals by encouraging diversity of housing to encourage a lower proportion of renters; to restrict impervious coverage; to increase attractiveness of community as a year round community; adopt stricter standards for construction; improves lack of parking based on this I believe the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages and that the plans complies with the MLUL. Believes this plan will not negatively impact the zoning ordinance and that it meets many of the goals of the Boroughs Master Plan. As a Professional Planner Robert Burdick believes that the variances can be granted.
Exhibit A-7 Entered – Aerial photograph of this structure down loaded over the last week by the applicant’s architect. Mr. Dixon questioned if there is a setback from the first level to the second level (No) Mr. Dixon inquired if they ever thought about putting single family homes. (RB – not feasible/economical) Mr. Spader commented that they have had similar applications before the board where they want to build it as big as they can – any consideration to reducing it to make it more acceptable to the community. (BM- they did look at that issue – they could reduce overall height by reducing roof top deck, but thought that was an import amenity for the owners)Mr. Spader stated that if you eliminated the top floor with the two apartments, we would be down to 14 units and the building is dropped down considerably. Robert Burdick said that actually that had been done because the owner originally wanted more than 16 units. Mr. Spader questioned if there is a plan “B”, Robert Burdick stated that this is the Plan “B”, the owner reduced his original goals and objectives. Ms. Crasper questioned if all units have their own balcony to sit outside and have a drink? (Yes) Ms. Crasper stated then you really do not need a roof top deck. Ben Montenegro stated that they are not big balconies. Ms. Crasper replied that is condominium living. Mr. Dixon questioned if the owner would reduce the units to 8 or 6 units. (BM-No- not financially feasible)
Dennis Galvin said that the Board usually tries to help applicants but sometimes you just listen to testimony and vote yes or no. The roof top deck creates outdoor recreation space because they do not have a back yard. Dennis Galvin believes that people on the roof would not be seen because of the way it is laid out, but does not want the board to get distracted by that one element. Mr. DePolo questioned if there would be anything prohibiting the owners from renting these out on a weekly basis. Dennis Galvin stated that he believes legally they could not condition them not to rent; he will have to look into it.

Audience Questions
Roger Denisia, Professional Planner – retained by Gary Stivally – Questioned what the actual ground elevation is. 5.5 to 6 feet
William DeFalco – 1507 Ocean Avenue – Wanted more clarity on the parking. Unclear about the dumpster location (west corner of building). Wanted to know when construction would start. (Maybe next spring) Wanted to know if they have the right to go to his association beach.
Ed Janowski, was an unruly witness. Dennis Galvin tried to explain the proceedings to him, but he would not listen.
Ben Montenegro waived the time which the Board has to act.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to carry application #2016-40 to July 20, 2017 without notice

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Reilly
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board

Published April21, 2017 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2545

Municipal Forms Download for Android Download for Iphone
Download for Iphones
Download for Android

Add/Remove/Update Your Contact Information
SwiftReach Networks, Inc.

Municipal Forms

Power Outage

Hurricane Sandy Information