Board of Adjustment

January 30, 2025 BOA Special meeting The January 30, 2025 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: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, Chairman Struncius, vice chair Reynolds, Ms. McFadden, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Dealmeida and Mr. Loder Absent – Davis, McGee and Neill Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Esq., Board attorney and Ray Savacool, board engineer Agenda 2025-04 – John Showers/Lori Belko – 207 Princeton Avenue – Block 141: Lot 17 – Applicant wishes to construct open porch and add addition to rear of the dwelling. Jason Shamy, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant is proposing to renovate the property to include an addition to the rear of the home; a covered front porch; a rear yard pool; and removal of a portion of the asphalt driveway The Applicant requested variance relief for front yard setback (primary); side yard setback (accessory); rear yard setback (accessory), side yard fence and building coverage. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Plot Plan /Architectural Plans by Gregory Cox, R.A., Aquatecture Associates, entitled “Showers Residence, 207 Princeton Avenue, Borough of Point Pleasant Beach” (2 Sheets); Survey by Michael S. Lynch, P.L.S. dated 4/30/24. 1/27/25 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. John Showers, applicant, sworn, stated that the intent of the project is to construct a one story addition to the rear of the home to add a breakfast nook as shown on the plan, add a covered front porch and a rear yard pool/paver surround and patio. To reduce overall impervious coverage on the site, applicant proposed to remove a portion of the existing asphalt driveway and replace same with gravel. The home provides for 4 bedrooms (2 on the first floor and 2 on the second floor). Gregory Cox, R.A., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the proposed covered front porch is 6’ 9” in depth the full width of the home as depicted on the plans. The dimensions and design improve the aesthetics and function of the home. He 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 to provide for a breakfast nook (40 SF -squaring off the rear corner of the home) This improves the functionality of the home. The proposed plan provides for a total of 4 bedrooms (2 first floor and 2 second floor). The site meets RSIS parking requirements. There is no impact/change to the off-street parking currently existing on site; nor to the total bedroom count. The rear yard swimming pool is depicted on the plan and is appropriately sized for the rear yard; in conjunction with the existing home and detached garage. The elimination of a portion of the asphalt driveway has reduced total impervious coverage on site from a non-compliant 54.8% to a compliant 49.83%. He testified that the proposed project meets the Borough’s FDPO ordinance and no variance relief is requested, nor granted. If the building addition does not comply with the FDPO ordinance, same must either be eliminated from the project or the Applicant must re-apply to the Board for variance relief. He noted that the last two sections of 6’ fence to the right rear corner of the home in the area of pool equipment are within the side yard as opposed to rear yard and therefore require variance relief for the 6’ height. He stated that continuation of the 6’ fence in that area is a better zoning alternative for aesthetics, equipment screening and privacy for the neighbors. He 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 and that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) (c) and (i)– noting that the proposal provides for a functional improvement to the site by providing for better usable space in the home and on the front porch; while improving overall aesthetics at the site and maintaining adequate light, air and open space; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good. He believes that there are no negative impacts created by the minimal deviations from strict compliance with the zoning ordinance and that the benefits advanced by the proposed development outweigh any detriments. 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 pavers around the pool installed as permeable pavers per ordinance. 3. Applicant agreed as a condition that no trees were required to be removed for the project as proposed. Deliberations Dixon – concern was granting flood relief and since we are not – front porch will be a nice addition – right now I have no issues McFadden – echo Mr. Dixon’s remarks – like that impervious was decreased Kelly – This will be a nice addition to the neighborhood Neill – love the design – nice addition to the neighborhood Pasola – Also happy they are decreasing impervious coverage – excellent presentation – it will be beautiful – like the looks of it McGee – Reducing impervious is a plus – maintains a lot of the cape cod look. Not worried about the breakfast nook. Loder – Concerned with adding any amount of habitable space in a flood zone Struncius – Nothing further to add Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Ms. McFadden to approve application #2025-04 Of John Showers and Lori Belko at 207 Princeton with conditions. In favor: Dixon, McFadden, Pasola, Kelly, McGee, Neill and Struncius Opposed – None Application Approved with conditions 2024-08 – 1309 Oceanfront PPB, LLC (Chernalis) – Applicant seeks to elevate existing dwelling, add half story addition, expand ocean front deck and re-frame roof lines. John Jackson, attorney for applicant reviewed application and stated that the applicant proposes to elevate and renovate the existing single-family home on site. The renovation includes constructing a half-story addition, expanding the existing deck, and reframing the roof lines. Exhibits entered A1 – Certified Variance Application A2 – Architectural/Plot Plans by John Amelchenko, R.A.- Aquatecture Associates; Survey by RW Post A3 – Power Point Packet (11 pages) A4- Power Point Packet (11 pages) A5 – Aquatecture Plans (Revised Rear Deck- Staircase-Shower Plan)  O1 – Opposition Packet (5 pages) by Elizabeth Carter Beach Association O2 – Rear deck photo by Neighbor Gurgo O3 – Rear deck photo by Neighbor Gurgo O4 – Rear deck photo by Neighbor Gurgo 05 - Rear deck photo by Neighbor Gurgo 5/8/24 Board Engineer Report of Raymond W. Savacool, P.E., P.P. Applicant’s Professional Planner and Architect John Amelchenko, sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the subject property contains an existing single-family home and the lot is conforming for the zone. It is unusual in that it has frontage on Elizabeth Avenue, the Boardwalk right of way and a private lane. The applicant is seeking to elevate the home to bring the oceanfront property into flood zone compliance. Applicant seeks to also renovate the home to add a half-story addition, expand the existing rear deck and modify the roof lines, together with internal modifications as depicted on the plans. The rear deck is currently 10’ in width and the proposal was to expand that by an additional 5’ providing for a 15’ wide rear deck. At the 1/30/25 hearing, he clarified that the proposed deck is 14.8’ wide and the existing deck is 10.5’ wide (a 4.3’ expansion in width). The project provides for a non-habitable ground level enclosed with breakaway walls. He stated that the elevated home with addition proposed still meets the ordinance requirement for height and stories. He testified that the home renovation/elevation will be fully FEMA compliant. The DFE is 19 and all finished floors shall exceed that elevation. He noted that the rear deck is at elevation 24.5 whereas the existing rear deck is at elevation 18.3. He acknowledged that the expansion of the width of the rear deck exacerbates the rear setback nonconformity by 5’. The living space provides for 5BR and a functional living space as shown on the architectural plans. Applicant agreed as a condition that the rear deck is an open deck (not covered) and would remain so without a return/relief from the Board. He believes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(1) relief based upon the existence/location of the home on site in conjunction with the property fronting on 3 rights of way. Applicant agreed as a condition that the final lighting plan shall provide for no flood lighting, solely residential sconces at the doors/garage. In response to input from neighbors, Applicant modified the rear deck plan (as shown on Exhibit A5) to relocate the staircase and ground level shower in an attempt to mitigate the impact to the adjoining property owner (Gurgo). In response to input from the Board, Applicant modified the proposed rear deck plan to reduce the width from 14.8’ to 13’. Members of the public appeared to be heard on the Application, both in favor of and in opposition to the Application as modified and presented for approval. Deliberations Dixon – A lot of testimony – when I first saw this, I thought ocean front home adding 4-feet to deck and then I listen to all the stories – massing of home - after Sandy homes needed to lift. As far as the deck goes - beautiful house – building coverage is at 46.5% when it is supposed to be 30%. Impervious coverage will go up to 54%. Problem is you have too mush house on that lot. It was existing, but 50 lbs. of potatoes in a 10lb bag. It will block some of the neighbor’s view. Building coverage is excessive – adding the deck is a lot. It is not a hardship – the deck is a wish. McFadden – I am thinking some what the way Mr. Dixon is thinking. I didn’t like that the numbers were going up instead of down. Beautiful design but the home is too big. Ocean front they should try to minimize the coverage. I cannot justify the size of the deck and coverage. Pasola – Agree with anything Mr. Dixon said. Cannot do anything about the house – It was there but we do not have to add to the coverage. I feel strongly if approved that if what cause a detriment to the public good. Kelly – The parking area is interesting. Last summer I went down there and there were 8 – 10 cars parked there. Concerned about the sidewalk and the road. There is no delineated parking. Quire frankly I am impressed with the drawings but it is too much. McGee -Beautiful house – quite a bit for the lot – concerns with the decking. 46.9% is a tough pill too swallow and there is not hardship Neill – Personally I am looking favorably at it because the footprint is not changing. The structure will not look as attractive without the porch. They have the right to keep the house as is. I appreciate all the compromise. Loder – We know this house is FEMA compliant from a construction point. We have a opportunity to bring this home more into compliance. I would not be in favor if I had a vote. Struncius – I have zero problem with the house proper – once you do something over 50% of value you have to raise the house – I wasn’t sure of the view and how it would be impacted - question is why does the deck nee to be there, The fact that the furniture won’t fit is not a hardship. Deck is big as it currently exists and would be a detriment. A shame that it can’t be bifurcated. Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Ms. McFadden to deny application 2024-08 – 1309 Oceanfront PPB, LLC (Chernalis) In favor: Dixon, McFadden, Pasola, Kelly, McGee and Struncius Opposed: Neill Application denied Meeting adjourned at 10:25pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA Clerk of the Board