Board of Adjustment

December 19, 2024 The December 19, 2024 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, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis, Chairman Struncius, Ms. McFadden and Mr. Neill Absent – Reynolds, McGee and Dealmeida Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Esq., Board attorney and Ray Savacool, board engineer https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCflODKbSFakXUEKiyxSYdUA/live Add January 30, 2025 to the special meeting calendar Approve 2025 Calendar Motion by Ms. McFadden, second by John Dixon to approve the meeting calendar for 2025. In favor: Davis, Dixon, Kelly, McFadden, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize minutes Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Dixon to approve the minutes of October 17th, 2024 In favor: Davis, Kelly, Dixon, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Memorialize resolutions Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Ms. McFadden to memorialize the action and vote approving application # 2024-30 of William/Mary Magarino – 7 Bowling Green – Block 121/lot 26.02 – with conditions – In favor: Dixon, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2024-32 of Jim/Stacy Bruno – 214 Laurel – Block 80.01/Lot 16 – with conditions – In favor: Dixon, Davis, McFadden and Struncius Opposed: None Agenda 2024-08 – 1309 Oceanfront PPB, LLC – 1501 Oceanfront – Block 13.11; Lot 5 – Applicant wishes to elevate existing dwelling - add half story and expand oceanfront deck and reframe roof lines. (CHERNALIS IS NOT BEING HEARD TO NIGHT- 1501 OCEANFRONT) 2024-35 – Edward Garino – 1617 Beacon Lane – Block 179.03/ lot 5.12 - Applicant looking for approval of third floor bedrooms built by previous owner. Brad Batcha, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is here to obtain approval for the existing third floor that was constructed by previous owner. No additional renovation/addition is proposed by the subject application. The Applicant is requesting variance relief /elimination of prior conditions of Resolution 2000-19 that limited the size and nature of construction on the third floor. Exhibits entered  A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 –As-Built Architectural Plans by FWH Associates, Verity Frizzell, R.A., dated 11/22/24. A3 – Resolution 2000-19 A4 – Deed dated 8/21/00 A5 – MLS document dated 5/24/01 A6 – Deed dated 5/24/01 A7 – Permit dated 3/17/12 for third floor bathroom A8 – MLS document dated 4/15/16 A9 – Permit dated May, 2017 for renovation A10 – Resolution 2019-32 A11 – Architectural Plans dated 8/26/19 A12 – Permit dated 2/12/20 for covered deck/patio A13 – Permit dated 2/12/20 for house generator A14 – Tax record dated 8/27/24 (5 BR/3.5 Bath) 12/11/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Edwin Garino, applicant sworn, stated that he is a principal owner of the subject property. He purchased the home in 2016 and any work performed since his ownership has been done with all necessary building permits, and in the case of the covered patio, with a variance approval from this Board. The original approval for the construction of a single-family home with a habitable third floor on the subject property was granted via Resolution 2000-19 (see Exhibit A3). At the time, neither third floors nor habitable half-stories were permitted by Ordinance. Resolution 2000-19 limited the third floor by conditions 4 (no plumbing), 5 (no sleeping quarters) and 6 (maximum habitable space – 510 SF). Exhibit A5 is an MLS document from 2001 that identifies the property as having 5 bedrooms (3 on the second floor, 2 on the third floor) in violation of Resolution 2000-19. This predated the Applicant’s acquisition in 2016. Exhibit A7 is a municipal permit document for the construction of the third- floor bathroom, also in violation of Resolution 2000-19. This predated the Applicant’s acquisition in 2016. The third-floor bathroom existed on the third floor at the time of Applicant’s purchase in 2016 and has remained without modification/expansion since that time. Exhibit A8 is an MLS document from 2016 prior to Applicant’s purchase which identifies the property as a 5 bedroom and 3.5 bath home. That is what Applicant purchased with the third floor providing for 2 bedrooms and 1 bath with total living space of approximately 990 SF. In 2019, Applicant received variance approval from this Board for a covered patio (see Exhibit A10). The architectural plans submitted for the approval (Exhibit A11) showed the third floor in its existing condition (990 SF, with 2 BR’s/1 Bath). Applicant obtained building permits for the approved covered patio (Exhibit A12); as well as for a house generator (Exhibit 13); as well as for a roof top deck in 2020. The municipal tax records identify the home as a 5 BR/3.5 Bath home (Exhibit A14). The prior non-compliant construction of the third floor performed by a predecessor in title more than 20 years ago was without Applicant’s knowledge. Applicant only learned of the non-compliance during the contract process when he attempted to sell the property (transaction pending, contingent). Verity Frizzell, R.A., sworn, stated there is an existing single-family home on the subject property. She prepared architectural plans in 2019 and 2020 for the covered patio and the rooftop deck and is fully familiar with the home and property. The third floor (approximately 990 SF) with the existing configuration including two bedrooms and a bathroom were in existence since she began work on the property in 2019. No changes or expansions were done by the current owner as part of the projects for which she prepared plans. Under current zoning, the only variance relief that would be required for the third floor is the total SF of 990 SF whereas the current ordinance would allow for a half-story of approximately 507 SF (prior resolution limited the third story to 510 SF). She believes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the history of development and the existing improvements at the subject property and that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) – noting that the proposal allows for a functional and safe use of the site with good overall aesthetics at the site while maintaining adequate light, air and open space; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good. The alternative of compelling the demolition/ reconstruction of the third floor to achieve full compliance would create no significant benefit at a substantial cost to the current owner. Conditions Applicant agreed as a condition that the third floor must comply with all building/fire code requirements with same to be subject to inspection/review by the Boro building department. Deliberations Davis – This makes a good case for deed restrictions – the ordinances have mostly caught to allow what is on the third story. Upsetting as it is I do not see any value making the applicant omit the third story. Dixon – When I first saw this, I had a lot of questions, but Mr. Garino did everything the right way. No reason to make the third floor compliant. It is not affecting the neighborhood. Kelly –Day to day I see homes in town being reconstructed and they are higher and longer. McFadden – Presented very well and answered many of my concerns. Neill – Main concern was safety – as long as that is addressed by the building department, I have no issues. Struncius – I echo what has been said. When you look at the home overall it fits in the neighborhood. Should not hold the present owner liable for previous construction. Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Ms. McFadden to approve application #2024-35 od Edward Garino – 1617 Beacon Lane with conditions In favor: Davis, Dixon, Kelly, McFadden, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions Application #2024-33 – Paul/Angela Sharp - 617 New Jersey Avenue – Block 53; Lot 9 – Applicant is looking to add a front porch and rear deck Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Plot Plan by Matthew Pecora, R.A.; Architectural Plans by Matthew Pecora, R.A., entitled “Proposed addition for 617 New Jersey Avenue, Borough of Point Pleasant Beach” (3 Sheets). 12/12/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Paul and Angela Sharp, applicants, sworn, stated that they would like to construct a second-floor addition and a 1 story addition to the rear of the existing dwelling with a front covered porch and rear covered porch and requested variance relief for front yard setback and side yard setback. The lot is 6,250 SF in lot area and compliant with the zone requirements for lot area, lot width/frontage and lot depth. There is an existing Cape Cod style single-family home on the subject property. The intent of the project is to construct a second-floor addition, a one-story addition to the rear of the home, and add a covered front porch and covered rear deck. The proposed covered front porch is 6’ in depth and improves the aesthetics and function of the home. Applicants noted that the style and size of the porch proposed is consistent with the development in the area. The rear addition expands the kitchen area and opens to the proposed covered deck in the rear which improves the functionality of the home. The side yard setback variance associated with this one-story addition maintains the existing side line setback of the existing home. In response to questions by the Board, applicant agreed as a condition to remove from the plan, the initially proposed side yard staircase (which would have been only +/- 1’ from the side property line). The proposed plan provides for a total of 4 bedrooms (1 first floor and 3 second floor). There is no impact/change to the off-street parking currently existing on site; nor to the total bedroom count. Applicants believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the dimensions of the lot in conjunction with the existing improvements at the subject property. Kristen Hennessey, 619 New Jersey Avenue, appeared in opposition to the application. Conditions 1. Applicant agreed as a condition that the covered open front porch shall not be enclosed in the future (without Board approval) and shall contain no habitable living space (open covered porch with railings only). 2. Applicant agreed as a condition that the originally proposed side yard door/staircase from the kitchen addition shall be eliminated from the plans. Deliberations Davis – I appreciate the applicant is willing to rethink the trash location and relocating the staircase for safety. With respect to the 6-foot front porch I do appreciate Ms. Hennesy’s concerns – and to that point I think the front porch is a community thing to enjoy the outdoor space. It is a very humble front porch.  Dixon – You did a very good presentation – front porch will not affect the neighbor’s view. Hopefully do not put any big bushes. No problem with back expansion. Kelly – Beautiful Street – Would like to see some landscaping in front – other than that I have no problem. McFadden – For safety concerns I am glad you changed the staircase. The front porch is an aesthetic improvement. Neill – Everything has been said – in favor Struncius – The expansion of the kitchen makes sense - benefits outweigh any detriment – aesthetic upgrade – master plan talks about residents investing in their own property. The front porch is modest and remains open. Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2024-33 of Paul/Angela Sharp - 617 New Jersey Avenue with conditions In favor: Davis, Dixon, Kelly, McFadden, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions 2024-34 – Richard Mina – 101 New York Avenue – Block 43; lot 2 – Applicant is looking to add an 2nd floor bedroom and bath addition along with a 200-sf roof deck. John Jackson, Esq., attorney for applicant stated that the Applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition a deck and a rooftop deck to the existing dwelling. The Applicant is requesting variance relief for side yard setback, building coverage, impervious coverage and two rooftop decks. Existing nonconformities for side yard setback (principal) and side yard setback (pool equipment) are proposed to remain without modification. Applicant agreed to modify the proposed roof top deck plan to comply with the criteria for deck area and distance to edge of building per 19-8.4(c) (1) and (3). Applicant also agreed to modify the plan to eliminate the rear yard shed to eliminate an existing side setback non- conformity and to reduce coverage on the site. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Survey by Charles O’Malley, P.L.S. (dated 5/7/18); Architectural Plans by James P. Cutillo Associates, (7 Sheets). A3 – Power Point Packet (10 pages) 12/19/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Richard Mina, applicant, sworn stated that the intent of the project is to construct a second-floor addition, add a deck and a roof top deck as shown on the plans submitted. In response to questions by the Board, applicant agreed as a condition to remove from the plan, the rear yard shed, which eliminated an existing nonconformity for the shed setback and reduced building and impervious coverage on site by +/- 1.44%. No additional bedrooms are created by the renovation proposed and the site currently meets/exceeds RSIS criteria for off-street parking. Applicant believes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the dimensions of the lot in conjunction with the existing improvements at the subject property. No persons appeared in opposition to the application Deliberations Davis – Board has managed to coerce some zoning regulations out of this. Applicant is actually going to remove a structure. Dixon – Nice little addition – rear deck seemed large – now it complies – no objection Kelly – I think it is a nice upgrade - McFadden – I was happy to hear the deck will be compliant – glad the shed is being removed. Neill – I appreciate you coming down in building coverage. Struncius – I think this is a C2 situation – investing in the property and making it a more usable space. Removing the shed makes it more conforming. The other variances are existing. Pretty positive change to the property. Motion by Mr. Neill, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2024-34 – Richard Mina – 101 New York Avenue – Block 43; lot 2 – In favor: Davis, Dixon, Kelly, McFadden, Neill and Struncius Opposed: None Application approved with conditions a. The plans shall be revised to modify the proposed second rooftop deck to comply with deck area [19-8.4(c) (1) ] and distance to edge of building [19-8.4 (c) (3)]. b. The plans shall be revised to note the rear yard shed is to be removed (removal to occur prior to issuance of C.O. at substantial completion of project). c. Applicant shall submit a final as-built plan with updated zoning table, subject to review and approval of Board Engineer. Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board