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

June 17, 2010


The June 17, 2010 Regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were regular members: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-10 of Metro PCS with conditions

In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius and Ardito
Opposed – None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-11 of Cellco d/b/a/ Verizon with conditions

In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius and Ardito
Opposed – None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-03 of Denise and Dennis Gesumaria with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-14 of Doug Bollinger with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Renner
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2009-22 of Thomas and Barbara Petrick with conditions

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of May 6, 2010.

Vote – Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Renner

Application #2010-15 – Michele & Arthur Pellechio – 207 Sanborn Avenue Block – 159; Lot 17 – Applicant wishes to construct a 10’ x 30’ deck with a 4’ x 30’ handicap accessible ramp.

Michele and Arthur Pellechio, applicants, sworn. Top deck will be composite board and the wood will be underneath. Deck will be four (4) feet off the ground. Will not impede on neighbor’s privacy. Dirt will be under the deck so water can recharge. Ray Savacool stated that the deck and ramp together are 6.7% of building coverage. Mr. Reynolds inquired how height the rear fence is. (6feet) Mr. Spader inquired if they could put pebbles under the deck. (No) Mr. Reilly asked if there will be a rail around the deck. (yes)


Wolfersberger – Concerned about the 34.8% building coverage, but under the circumstances inclined to be in favor. It will not be noticeable from the street. In favor with stipulations

Mr. Spader – Does not have a problem with it either.

Mr. Reilly – Does not see any problem. In favor.

Mr. Reynolds – It is positive and will help you to enjoy your yard. In favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2010-15 of Michele and Arthur Pellechio with conditions.

In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2008-34 – James Finley – 417 Washington Avenue – Block 24; Lot 9 – Applicant constructed a 10’ x 16’ storage shed 1.5 feet off property line.

James Finlay applicant, sworn. James Finlay, applicant, explained why he built the shed without permits. He stated in other municipalities he wouldn’t need a permit for a shed. He stated the he is a contractor. Mr. Spader commented the applicant didn’t inquire in the Building Department prior to building. Mr. Wolfersberger stated the shed is larger than what is permitted within our code and he can live with that but it should be moved off the property line. Mr. Ardito asked if that was a garage door on the shed. (Yes)James Finlay stated that his son stores his motorcycle in the shed. Mr. Spader wants to see it moved five (5) feet off the property line.

No audience comments/questions


Mr. Wolfersberger – Not happy with size of shed; mistakes are made and one can be corrected, I would like to see it moved off the side yard setback.

Mr. Spader – He agrees; it definitely needs to be five feet off the property line.

Mr. Reilly – Is ditto with Mr. Wolfersberger.

Mr. Reynolds – Definitely needs to be moved off the property line; when you drive down the road you can see it.

Mr. Ardito – Inquired if there is electricity or plumbing? (no) Based on that I want to see it off the property line.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2008-34 of James Finlay with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Renner.
Opposed: None

Application #2008-30 – Ann C. Varosi – 307 Baltimore/302 Chicago Avenue – Block 108; Lots 21 & 22 – Applicant wishes to demolish a single family dwelling on lot 22 and subdivide the lot into two lots. Existing Lot 21 rear property line would be moved. There are two existing principal structures located on lot 21.

Carried without notice from May 20, 2010

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant reviewed the last meeting and request of the board; revisions to the plans have been made. Brendan McHugh presented the new revised plans and explained the changes. Length of home has been reduced by eight (8) feet; aesthetics have been added to side elevations. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired about the size of the original lot. (24,891 square feet) Number of bedrooms? Four (4) Square footage of homes (2,007 square feet, 2046 square feet) Height of homes is now thirty-two feet (32 feet). Brendan McHugh said that each home is about 4,000 square feet of living space. A Varosi stated that the homes he is going to build are smaller than the homes that can be built on Parkway without a variance. Those lots are 7,500square feet which is smaller than these lots. Steve Pardes stated that the applicant should not be punished for owning bigger lots. Steve Pardes said they have a case for positive criteria. There are 61 non-conforming issues in just this one block. A hard ship can be on the topography of the property; also there is a row of garages on Parkway screening this property.

Audience Questions

Pat Krasowski – What is the restriction on the lot on Baltimore? Dennis Galvin read the deed restriction that a new home should not be more that a total of 3,500 square feet.

No audience comments

Tom Spader questioned what happens if the applicant sells the lots and the new owner wants a different home? They will need to come back to the Board if it is a major change. Steve Ardito inquired about why you would go along with the restriction of 3,500 square feet on Baltimore when you are asking for 4,500 square feet on Chicago. Steve Pardes replied that the applicant’s brother lives on the Baltimore lot and plans on staying there; the homes will be worth more on Chicago. Chairman Struncius inquired the feasibility of the enforceability of this where architectural follow the property. Dennis Galvin told the applicant’s attorney that in place of a deed restriction they will record the resolution.

Steve Pardes requested to have two (2) separate votes; one for the “use” variance and one for the bulk “variances”. Dennis Galvin explained that without the “use” variance the board would not have jurisdiction to grant the subdivision and said they could not bifurcate the vote.


1. Lot grading and drainage plan to be submitted for approval to board Engineer.
2. Sidewalk on the frontage of Chicago Avenue is to be replaced.
3. Applicant is to install street trees.
4. Sanitation water/sewer is to be reviewed by the Water Department Supervisor and the Plumbing Official.
5. Front doors must face Chicago Avenue.
6. Applicant will supply access to rear of property from Baltimore frontage.
7. Applicant will provide adequate off street parking in accordance with RSIS.
8. In event that 2nd home is removed on Baltimore lot, new home may not be more than 3500 square feet.
9. Homes will be built according to plans submitted at time of this meeting on June 17, 2010.
10. Applicant will submit conservation easement for the additional land that is being added to Baltimore lot.
11. Subdivision will be done by map.
12. Applicant will have foundation plantings.


Mr. Spader -Unique piece of property. The Board has requested the applicant to make many changes and the applicant has agreed. Has no problem with application with conditions as mentioned.

Mr. Kelly – Property is unique and should be the nicest lot on the East side of town. I do not like to micro manage applications and would not be in favor.

Nr. Reilly – Tough one for him. He commends the architect on the added aesthetics and the reduction in size. The applicant has listened to the Board and gone along with most suggestions. The applicant has gone about as far as they can go and I will give the benefit of the doubt and vote in favor.

Mr. Reynolds – Think it is one of the best test for negative and positive criteria. The size of the homes bothers him but the applicant has listened to input and worked with the Board. Applicant is willing to have a conservation easement. The positive outweigh the negatives; would be in favor.

Mr. Ardito - What is bothersome is the actual size of home. Weighs the fact of if it fits in with the neighborhood and believes a home 3500 square feet would fit better. What helps is any deviation from plans will be back in front of the board. Applicant has done his homework on the properties that surround these lots. Inclined to be in favor

Mr. Wolfersberger - You have come back with different adjustment based on board concerns; the easement is a big plus for the town. Not having bulk variances is a plus. Having the home on Baltimore restricted also helps. I would be much more comfortable with 3500 square foot home…not sure yet.

Chairman Struncius – First starts with “use” portion - Not difficult in this decision – moving lot line and conservation easement granted; agreement on size of singular home on Baltimore; Different factors attached to use is a no brainer . The bulk side of the case makes me wish we had used words like “make it fit the area”. The architectural details make a big difference. From the front elevations - Having 14 feet between the homes is a positive; the reduction of eight feet in the depth has helped it for me. The home no longer reaches into the third lot on Parkway. The second home on Parkways has substantial trees in the rear which creates blockage of the side view. Home to the Southeast is a brand new large home and the Northerly lot will also have a brand new large home. I think you have listened to the board and that is a positive project.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-30 of Ann Varosi with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Kelly

Application #2010-02 –Greg Mazzatta – 202 Ocean Avenue – Block 120;Lot 16.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.

Carried without notice from February 18, 2010

Kevin Sheehy, attorney for applicant. Greg Mazzatta applicant stated this will be utilized as his primary home. The new homes foot print is actually smaller than what exists now the height of the home has been reduced to 29 feet. The applicant took Mr. Reilly’s advice and sat down with his neighbor and discussed the proposed plan and his concerns. The new home will be in line with the other front setbacks. The a/c units will now be located on the roof. Home has been reduced from 2,000 square feet to 1,600 square feet. Mr. Spader stated that he had suggested a story and a half and what he is seeing is the same thing with a /c on the roof. Ray Savacool explained that actually there is only parking for one car even though two are parked there. Mr. Reilly agreed that there is a parking problem and the Board needs to do what it can where parking is concerned. Steve Ardito said if the house could be redesigned to accommodate two cars that would be a win/win situation.

Audience questions/comments

Frank Rizzo – neighbor stated that he sat down with the applicant and his concerns have been alleviated and has no problem with the proposed application now.


Mr. Wolfersberger – Parking is rather limited. He would like to see parking extended on the first floor and reduce the side of the porch. Some adjustments have been made; right now I am not in favor.

Mr. Spader – These things are difficult in this area and the town father’s have put limitations on height. I have to be consistent and not approve it. If the roof had been different and it had been a story and a half I might think differently.

Mr. Kelly – I am concerned with the neighbor’ and the parking is difficult. I have seen some wonderful jobs where they are renovated and one and a half stories. I think it is too much house for that lot.

Mr. Reilly – I appreciate all the improvements and the fact that you met with the neighbor’s. If you are going to live in that area year round you would need more room. I think you almost have to have two floors. I would be in favor.

Mr. Reynolds – I had no problem with the prior application. I appreciate that you listened to the neighbor’s and the fact that we are restricting it to one car. I would be in favor.

Mr. Ardito – There are positives to your proposal. I have no problem with the height. What is really positive is we will be gaining a full time resident; demolish a house that is not up to code and building a home to code. Parking will always be an issue at that end of town. In favor at this time.

Mr. Renner – Additional parking would add to the value of the home.

Chairman Struncius – This is a tough one. The neighbor’s concerns about front setback have been alleviated. Aesthetically I think it is a positive. This is a difficult one but I am in favor right now.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2010-02

In favor: Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Spader and Kelly

Application denied

Application 2010-08- William T. Lyons – 401 Arnold Avenue – Block 95; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new single family dwelling with detached garage.

Deficient notice – Will not be heard tonight

Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published August03, 2010 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1069

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