Board of Adjustment

February 1,2024 The February 1, 2024 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: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber, McFadden, Dealmeida and Struncius Absent – Pasola, Davis and Neill Memorialize resolutions Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2023-29 of Alex DePalma – 515 Delaware Ave – with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber and Struncius Opposed - None Motion by Mr. Driber, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2024-01 of Raymond Somerville – 305 Curtis Avenue - with conditions In favor: Kelly, Dixon, Reynolds, Driber and Struncius Opposed - None Applications 2018- 27 – White Sands – 1201 – 1205 Ocean Avenue – Block 27 – Lots 1, 4 & 5 – Applicant wishes to demolish two existing single-family dwellings on Lots 4 and 5 located in the SF5 zone and construct a three-story structure. The first floor will contain 28 additional parking spaces, the 2nd and 3rd floors will contain 19 new guest units. The applicant is also requesting to convert 4 rooms from the existing building to staff support facilities and exercise rooms on two levels. The net gain of guest rooms proposed is 34 in total. Carried from November 2, 2023 without notice Robert Shea, attorney for applicant reviewed continued application. A. A D(1)use variance for demolition of the existing single-family homes on Lots 4 & 5 with the proposed three-story hotel addition and ground level parking; which hotel use is not permitted in the SF5 Zone. B. A d(6) height variance for the proposed three story hotel addition. C. C(2) variances for bulk nonconformities for building coverage, impervious coverage, building height (stories), buffer zone between hotel and adjoining residential property and off street parking. The Applicant submitted the following exhibits in support of the Application: Exhibit A1 – Application Package Exhibit A2 – Use variance plan and flood hazard permit plan, by Millis Looney, P.E., dated 9/2/20 Exhibit A3 – Architectural Plans, by Yezzi Associates, dated 9/21/20 Exhibit A4 – Aerial Plan, by O’Donnell Stanton and Associates Exhibit A5 - Site plan exhibit, dated 3/28/19, by Yezzi Associates (Sheet A1) Exhibit A6 – Site Plan Exterior Elevations, dated 3/23/19 by Yezzi Associates (Sheet A6) Exhibit A7 – Proposed cook top – no oven – exhibit Exhibit A8 – Screen wall detail, dated 2/26/21, by Yezzi Associates (Sheet SK1.0) Exhibit A9 – Kitchen Plan Interior Elevations (Sheet SK-2.0) Exhibit A10 – Use Variance plan submitted to Fire Bureau, dated 3/22/21 Exhibit A11 – Letters from Brian L. Martin, Fire Official, dated 2/26/21 and 4/12/21 Exhibit A12 – Photos of Warwick Arms Hotel Exhibit A13 – Use Variance plan, by Millis Looney, P.E., dated 4/9/22 (last revised 9/14/22) Exhibit A14 – Architectural Plans, by Yezzi Associates, dated 9/21/20 (last revised 9/15/22) Exhibit A15 – Prior Resolutions for White Sands Hotel (1996-36, 1997-38, 2002-11, 2005-50(a), 2005-50(b), and 2013-08) Exhibit A16 – Email from Brian L. Martin, Fire Official, dated 4/12/21 (regarding fire lanes) Exhibit A17- Aerial Photo Exhibit A18 – NJDEP Letter of No Interest, dated 10/7/21 Exhibit A19 - Use Variance plan, by Millis Looney, P.E, dated 10/17/23 (referenced in error as A14 at 11/2/23 hearing) Exhibit A20 - Architectural Plans, by Yezzi Associates, dated 9/15/22 (last revised 10/16/23) (referenced in error as A15 at 11/2/23 hearing) Exhibit A21 – Parking Calculation document by Stonefield, dated 11/1/23 (referenced in error as A16 at 11/2/23 hearing) Exhibit O1 – Photo of Portable Dumpsters on SF5 lot Exhibit 02 – Photo of Trash compactor overflow Exhibit 03 – Aerial Map Exhibit 04 – Aerial Map (3D view), dated Sept 2022 Exhibit 05 – Photos of outside trash and vehicle parking Millis J. Looney, P.E., applicant’s professional gave the following testimony over the course of the meetings She is a professional engineer, licensed in the State of New Jersey and prepared the site plan presented to the Board for review and approval. As such, she is fully familiar with the subject property, the plan proposed and surrounding properties. As revised and finalized for presentation to the Board for vote on the use variance, she submitted the variance plan dated 10/17/23. The subject property is located partially in the RR-3 zone and partially in the SF5 zone. Applicant acquired Lots 4 & 5 (both in the SF5 zone with existing single- family homes) and proposes to demolish those homes for the expansion of the hotel as depicted on her plan. The proposal would provide for a net increase in units of 14 (20 in the new construction, with 6 eliminated in existing building). D. The shaded portion of the plan shows the dimensions of the new construction on site. E. The plan shows all parking on site, including the new parking to be on the ground level below the three-floor building addition. F. The plan identifies the one-way traffic circulation in the parking area below the three-floor addition. G. The plan identifies the access points on both Philadelphia Avenue and Washington Avenue together with drive aisles and fire lanes. H. The plan identifies the location of proposed handicap parking spaces as well as EV spaces (4). I. The plan identifies the proposed landscape screen along Washington Avenue in the area of the new ground level parking area. J. The plan identifies the location of the 4’ and 6’ board on board fencing proposed at the southwest property line abutting SF5 residential property adjacent to the subject property. K. She noted that the final plan submitted accurately matches the final revised architectural plans submitted. L. As to stormwater management, she testified that the plan will comply with all Borough requirements and be a net improvement from the existing conditions on site. She noted applicant has received a letter of no interest from NJDEP. M. The addition of the two SF5 lots (4&5) effectively squares off the property. N. She acknowledged that currently the only portion of the hotel site that intrudes into the SF5 zone is the hotel parking lot; whereas the proposed application provides for expansion of the hotel building (3 stories over ground level parking – 4 effective levels) into the SF5 zone. O. As to parking on site, while not compliant, on a % basis the overall parking proposed for this application is improved from the existing condition for the existing hotel site. Proposed application requires 111 parking spaces, whereas 98 are provided (94 spaces plus 4 space credit for EV). P. Applicant agreed as a condition to consolidate the lots, if approved. Q. As to site circulation, she opined that the proposed circulation was safe and adequate for vehicular circulation and parking movements. She agreed as a condition to provide a turning template to demonstrate said adequacy. R. She noted that trash and laundry are removed from the subject property and brought to the sister facility (separate entity/property). Trash is stored/removed from that site by private hauler. There is no trash enclosure/dumpster proposed on the subject site. S. She indicated that on behalf of the applicant, she had not performed any specific shadow study for the proposed addition. Massimo Yezzi, R.A., sworn, stated that he is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey and prepared the architectural plans presented to the Board for review and approval. As such, he is fully familiar with the subject property, the plan proposed and surrounding properties. Revised several times during the course of the hearings, he finalized for presentation to the Board for vote on the use variance, architectural plans dated 9/15/22 (last revised 10/16/23). As shown on the plans, the proposed addition is three stories above a ground level parking area. The proposal provides for the expansion of the hotel onto the SF5 zoned lots 4 & 5 as depicted on the cover sheet of the architectural plans. There are 20 new units proposed in the three floor (four level- first ground level is open parking area) addition. This accounts for a net increase in units on site of 14 units (6 units are eliminated from the existing building as part of the expansion). The goal of the project is to modernize and expand the hotel while providing for larger rooms with eating/living space for their guests. Sheet A1 of the plans shows the first finished level which provides for 10 one-bedroom suites. On this floor, in the existing building three units were eliminated to allow for the proposed exercise room and bathrooms as shown on the plans. Applicant agreed as a condition that this space could not be utilized to provide for additional units/living space without a return to the board for amended relief. Sheet A2 of the plans shows the second finished level which provides for an additional 10 two-bedroom suites (two level). The upper levels of these units are accessed by interior stairs (L-shaped for units 11-15; spiral for units 16-20). On this floor, in the existing building three units were eliminated to allow for the proposed service area room and bathrooms as shown on the plans. Applicant agreed as a condition that this space could not be utilized to provide for additional units/living space without a return to the board for amended relief. Sheet A3 of the plans shows the third finished level which provides for the upper level of units 11-20 as depicted on the plans. The rooftop deck plan is depicted on Sheet A5 of the plans. The rooftop deck on the final plans was reduced to approximately 1800 sf. and provides for a 12’ tall open gazebo. He clarified that the height of the building is 47’ to the top of the rooftop gazebo. The rooftop deck is 35.5’, while the top of the mansard roof is 38.8’. Maximum height permitted is 35’. All 20 of the new units proposed have kitchenettes as depicted on the plans submitted. Those kitchenette facilities provide only for a sink, microwave and refrigerator. There shall be no stove tops/ovens or dishwashers in the kitchenettes. He confirmed that there are no laundry facilities on site. Said laundry services are conducted off-site (at the sister facility diagonally across the street on Ocean Avenue). That facility is separately owned/operated and there are no trash dumpsters/enclosures on the subject site. Said trash storage/removal is conducted off-site (at the sister facility across the street diagonally on Ocean Avenue). His final plan revisions eliminated balconies on the west side of the building to provide added privacy for the residential neighbors. The rooftop is intended for ceremonies (i.e. wedding). Applicant agreed as a condition that said ceremonies would be limited to 60 minutes, allow for a maximum of 80 people total, and limit same to one ceremony per day. No mechanicals shall be located on the ground level or perimeter of building. Same shall be located on the roof in the areas designated as utility spaces. He confirmed the lighting plan proposed will meet all Borough ordinance requirements while providing for adequate safety with low level security lighting. He confirmed there are no proposed pole lights in the parking areas. Matthew Seckler, P.E., T.E., sworn stated the following - He is a licensed professional traffic engineer in the State of New Jersey and is fully familiar with the proposed application, subject property and surrounding properties and roadways. In reviewing the proposed application, plans submitted and use proposed, he noted that the access driveways are existing and will not be modified by this application. He noted that due to fire safety requirements, 3 on-street spaces will be eliminated if the proposal is approved; however, he noted that 2 on-street spaces will be gained by the elimination of the SF5 residential driveways currently existing on Lots 4 & 5. He stated that the additional 14 units proposed will not significantly/detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood from a traffic and parking perspective and that while the proposal for parking is still deficient per Ordinance requirements; the proposal is closer to compliance than the existing condition on site. He stated that the proposed parking, site circulation and ingress/egress is adequate for the proposed expanded hotel use. Gordon Gemma, applicants, P.P., sworn, stated that he is a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey and is fully familiar with the proposed application, subject property and surrounding properties and roadways. He believes that the proposal meets the criteria for D(1) variance relief. He stated that the site is particularly suited to the use due to its history of existing hotel use at the site in location on Ocean Avenue proximate to the beach. In further support of his opinion, he recounted and relied upon the numerous prior approvals granted by the Board to the applicant for the hotel use on the existing property. As to special reasons, he believes that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2). In support of his opinion on meeting the D(1) criteria for the use variance, he noted the following: i. The Master Plan Re-Examination (p.7) identified a general objective “to strive to foster an aesthetically pleasing downtown commercial district for the ease and safety of pedestrians”; he stated that this application advances that objective. ii. The Master Plan Re-Examination (p.7) identified a general objective “to continue developing at prevailing land use intensities”; he opined that this application advances that objective. iii. The Master Plan Re-Examination (p.7) identified a general objective “to regulate the unique and valuable resources in the community …and strengthen the borough’s resort economy and tax base”; he opined that his application advances that objective. iv. The Master Plan Re-Examination (p.25) identified code considerations “to evaluate the quality of tourist accommodations (including hotels.) and determine future changes to zoning code to encourage enhancement of facilities and properties”; he opined that this application advances that consideration. He acknowledged that the governing body has not amended the zoning ordinances related to that stated consideration. v. The Master Plan Re-Examination (p.25) identified code considerations “to reevaluate the conditional use standards for hotels…to identify potential amendments that would enhance and encourage reinvestment and modernization”; he opined that this application advances that consideration. He acknowledged that the governing body has not amended the zoning ordinances related to that stated consideration. In response to questioning re the size of the building intruding into the SF5 zone, he believes that the massing of the building is accommodated by the size of the site and that the size and height of the building is appropriate in scale for the area and while it will have some negative effect on the surrounding residential uses, it does not rise to the level of a significant detriment to the public good. He believes that the overall design was an improvement to the aesthetics at the site. He noted that a component of the height variance required, to wit, the gazebo on the rooftop deck, is an architectural feature that improves overall aesthetics and that benefit outweighs the minimal detriment created by the additional height and that the conditions agreed to by the Applicant regarding the use of the rooftop deck adequately protected the public good and any negative impact created by its use on the nearby residential properties. As to the deficiency in the off-street parking, he believes that the proposed application on a % basis, improves the overall parking condition on site which is a net positive for the proposed application to expand the hotel use on site. Ron Gasiorowski, objecting attorney for some neighbors. Andrew Thomas, P.P., objector witness, sworn stated that he is a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey and is fully familiar with the proposed application, subject property and surrounding properties and roadways. Utilizing the aerial maps (Exhibits O3 and O4), he identified the current hotel site as well as the location of Lots 4 & 5 with existing single-family homes to be incorporated as part of the application. The Exhibits further delineated the zone boundary lines for the RR-3 zone and the adjoining SF5 zone. In the adjoining area zoned SF5, the primary development pattern is for single-family residential uses that are 2 or 2.5 story homes. He noted that renovations and upgrading of those single-family homes in this immediate neighborhood is the current trend; the single-family residential properties and uses are thus being improved and advanced. The nature of the proposed hotel expansion into the SF5 zone, to wit, 4 levels (ground floor parking, three floors of improved hotel units, and a rooftop deck) is uncommon in the area as to height, floors, and mass. Making reference to the zone boundaries on the aerial maps, he pointed out that the proposal is to knock down two compliant single-family homes in the SF5 zone on Washington Avenue and build the hotel addition into the SF5 zone. He noted that the two SF5 lots 4 & 5 are both fully conforming SF5 lots. Each lot is 6,250 sf where 5,000 sf is required in the zone. He further noted that the single-family uses existing on those lots are permitted uses in the SF5 zone, whereas hotel use in not permitted. He noted that approximately 65% of the hotel expansion is located in the SF5 zone and that no zone in the Borough allows for 3 story structures. He noted that no zone in the Borough allows for building height in excess of 35’ (whereas the applicant proposed 47.5’ to the top of the rooftop gazebo). He testified that the scope of the building is exacerbated by the fact that it is truly 4 levels (ground level parking below three finished stories) with an approximately 1800 sf rooftop deck to be utilized for ceremonies with up to 80 people. He testified that due to the significant scope of the expansion project, there is little effort or ability to mitigate the negative impacts by way of any distance or landscape buffering and In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report makes no recommendation to expand the RR-3 zone or to reduce the SF5 zone anywhere within the Borough (no less in this particular neighborhood). In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report makes no recommendation to expand hotel uses or increase height dimensions for hotel uses within the Borough. In contradicting the opinion of applicant’s planner on the code considerations (p.25 of Re-examination Report), he noted that the consideration at #32 was to “…encourage enhancement of facilities and properties…”; not for expansion of facilities and properties. He further noted that the Governing Body has not, in fact, adopted any ordinances that would allow for the hotel expansion proposed by the Application (neither by re-zone of the RR-3/SF5 zone boundaries nor by allowing for larger/taller hotels via bulk standards). In contradicting the opinion of applicant’s planner on the code considerations (p.25 of Re-examination Report), he noted that the consideration at #33 was to “…reevaluate the conditional use standards for hotels…that would enhance and encourage reinvestment and modernization.”; not for expansion of hotel facilities. He further noted that the Governing Body has not, in fact, adopted any ordinances that modified the conditional use standards for hotels that would allow for the hotel expansion proposed by the Application. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.30) provides a general objective to “Continue developing at prevailing land use intensities.” He stated that the proposed application is directly contrary to that objective by eliminating two conforming single-family dwellings and replacing same with 20 hotel units (net 14 more hotel units) in the hotel expansion proposed. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.31) provides a land use objective “to recognize the importance of protecting and stabilizing established residential and commercial areas of the borough.” He opined that the proposed application is in direct contravention of that objective by eliminating two compliant SF5 lots and expanding the hotel use into the SF5 zone. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.31) provides a land use objective “to separate inherently incompatible land uses through…appropriate buffering and screening requirements…” He opined that the proposed application is in direct contravention of that objective. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.31) provides a land use objective “to restrict impervious surface coverage…” He believes that the proposed application is in direct contravention of that objective by increasing impervious coverage on the SF5 lots currently developed with conforming single-family residential homes. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.31) provides a land use objective “To relate land use decisions to the established land use pattern of the borough, with new development taking place at essentially the same scale and intensity as nearby existing development patterns.” He stated that the proposed application is in direct contravention of that objective as the proposed hotel expansion is at a much great scale and intensity than the permitted single-family homes permitted (and existing) on Lots 4 & 5 in the SF5 zone. In support of his opinion that the application does not meet the criteria for D(1) use variance relief, he noted that the 2021 Master Plan Re-Examination Report (p.31) provides a parking objective to “Strictly enforce parking regulations.” He opined that the proposed application is in direct contravention of that objective as the expanded hotel use (with rooftop deck for ceremonies) is deficient for off-street parking as required by the Borough zoning ordinance. He believes that the subject property is not particularly suited for the proposed hotel expansion because it requires an unreasonable intrusion into the SF5 zone. The SF5 lots (Lots 4 & 5) are fully compliant residential lots with permitted uses in a neighborhood of similarly compliant single-family homes in the SF5 zone. He also believes that there are no purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 that are advanced by the proposed application. He stated that to the contrary, purposes of zoning in NJSA 40:55D-2(a)(c) and (i) are not advanced but rather detrimentally impacted by the application. Audience questions/comments Margaret Shaffei – 113 Philadelphia spoke in objection Matt Shaffei – 113 Philadelphia – Spoke in objection Lisa Kent =- 200 Washington Avenue – spoken in objection Joe Lipman – 112 Washington – spoke in objection – light, air, parking reduction Jennifer Donato – 116 Philadelphia – spoke in objection – light, air, parking reduction Russell Bennett – 114 Philadelphia – spoke in objection to the expansion – increased noise and privacy William Towey 1500/1302 Baltimore Ave – concerns over precedent Ron Gasiorowski, attorney for objectors (Cherian,Eckemejian)– summation – Believes the neighbors he is not representing did a wonderful job of presenting their case. John Kaplan, attorney for objecting neighbor (Lolli) gave summation Robert Shea, closing summation - Deliberations Kelly – 9/5/2019 was the first meeting. White Sands has developed extensively. I have been in PPB for quite some time. There was a bar on the corner (Silver Sands). It has appeared before the board many times and has become one of the most successful businesses in town. The board has approved many improvements through the years while I have been on the board. Now it wants to replace 2 residentials homes and expand into the residential zone. Two brand new homes were just built in that area. People are redoing homes in the area: doesn’t make a bit of sense to remove two good homes, Dixon - My first feeling was if I bought a home in a residential area and a commercial business then moved closer to my home, I would not be happy. When you live close to the boardwalk you get employees parking near your home – it is not unique – it is public parking, this is a 2 ½ story structure – they have eliminated numerous balconies and moved the structure back from the residential. People complaining but this is what happens in the summertime – it is going to be noisy and then in October it closes. Many homes are rentals in the summertime – Everything we asked the White Sands to do they have done – they are increasing the parking by a significant amount. We are considered a resort town. Over the last dozen years we have lost a dozen hotels, The Dunes motel is for sale and the Driftwood are looking to build condos. The White Sands is a quality hotel and the two houses they want to tear down are rentals and this will be monitored much better, very few complaints to the Police Department, I think they have proved the positives and this is a quality hotel. Reynolds – My interpretation of the Master Plan is different. #33b is to encourage revitalization and improvement – it does enhance tourism. It is providing charging stations – I do not believe we have any in town yet. It is providing additional parking. We have always had parking issues in the summer – this is nothing new. The RR1 zone is shaped around this hotel – this hotel already does weddings – not doing anything new. I believe it is especially suited for the area – I do not see it being a detriment – I see it being a positive to the area, I have lived here my entire life and have never heard anything negative about this hotel. Driber Any attempt to go into the SF5 zone and tear down two viable houses concern me. You open the door for expansion and I do not think it is a good idea to open the door. I never saw anywhere in the Master Plan that we should expand away from residential. We live in the town of Point Pleasant Beach and I believe we should preserve the residential areas. McGee – I live in a home that backs up to commercial and understand what everyone is saying. This business has been in town for over 40 years and they are investing in a family-owned business. This application is different than the one we received 4 years ago which tells me they heard our concerns and made adjustments. The applicant is doing their best to make efforts to alleviate the parking concerns and noise. Hearing concerns of the neighbors I am going to sit back and see what everyone else has to say. McFadden - The previous cases that we have approved were completely different than this – it is a D1 use that is taking over single-family homes. When you get into the zoning issues – the Master Plan was not changed in 2021. It seems it would have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties based on testimony from the Planner and neighbors. They can make changes without moving into the single- family zone - I would tend to vote against the application Dealmeida – Many good points for and against the application. Applicant has made many concessions over the years and modifications. Struncius – I absolutely see this as a D(1) use variance. This has always been a parking lot and never looked at it as anything else. Previous cases were always about something within the walls. This is a hard case – this is hard because you know the family. When you are not in agreement with the proofs it makes it difficult. To disagree with Mr. Dixon and Mr. Reynolds – just because you are near Ocean Avenue should not be a reason to create a harsher environment by expanding something is not allowed in the zone. Point Beach being a busy town is not a reason. Suitability of the lot is one thing that makes sense because it is a pre-existing non-conformity. If they had been improving within the RR#3 zone I would have had a totally different viewpoint. The light and air is what gets me – 70 feet into the SF5 zone. I have made that turn a hundred time I see the separation between the hotel and the residential. I got out of my car and pictured those two-house gone and being a hotel – as a bulk thing it changes the light and air. Just the sheer size of the change will affect the area – it is huge. An extra story on what exist I might have allowed. I do not think this promotes the purpose of zoning in any way. I do not think we need to add to the congestion by adding rooms. We have two planners quoting the Master Plan and if they switched places, they would be saying the same thing because they are very good. Reinvested and modernization - we could encourage it for the existing. The upper deck is a concern – this has nothing to do with wonderful people and owners – but the next owner can be different. No inherent beneficial use – the negative impact from the bulk size of the building and the use. Sometimes you just don’t believe it is the right thing. Motion by Vice chair Reynolds to approve application #2018-27 of the White Sands In favor: Dixon, Reynolds and McGee Opposed: Kelly, Driber, McFadden and Struncius Application denied Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board.