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


July 15, 2010

Minutes

The July 15, 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. Leonard, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly Alternates - Mr. Ardito and Mr. Renner
Absent – Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Madden
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes from the May 6, 2010 meeting.
In favor- Spader, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed – None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the minutes of the May 12, 2010 Special meeting.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the minutes of June 17, 2010.

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2008-30 of Ann Varosi with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Ardito
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2010-02 of Gregory Mazzatta.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader and Kelly
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2008-34 of James Finlay with conditions.
In favor - Wolfersberger, Spader, Struncius, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-17 of Arthur and Michelle Pellechio with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Reilly, Spader, Kelly, Struncius and Ardito
Opposed - None

Application #2010-16 – Pasquale Capriglione – 706 Grove Street – Block 202; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to raise roof.
Pasquale Capriglione, applicant sworn. Owns a three (3) bedroom home and would like to enlarge one of the bedrooms by adding a shed dormer to make the home symmetrical. Bedroom is located in the rear of the home. It will be aesthetically pleasing without having a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Improvements will not increase the pre-existing non-conformities.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Mr. Leonard – Not increasing non-conformities. In favor
Mr. Palisi – aesthetically it is making the home more symmetrical.
Mr. Reilly – I believe this is technical…In favor
Mr. Wolfersberger – questioned the non-conforming shed.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2010-16 with conditions
In favor – Wolfersberger. Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2009-27 – Catherine Brzezinski – 4 Delaware Avenue; Block 2; Lot 2 – Applicant wishes to construct a deck and also convert an existing two-family dwelling to a single family.
Victor Fortkiewicz, applicant, son-in-law of applicant. Family spends entire summers here in Point Pleasant Beach over the last 25 years. Applicant has made many improvements to property to upgrade aesthetics. Applicant is seeking relief to construct second floor deck to capture views of the ocean and bring two- family to conformity by reducing to one family. Tom Petersen, architect, credentials accepted. Improvements and deck will not block air or impede on neighbors privacy. Home is a little over on building coverage. Eliminating the two -family occupancy makes it a bulk variance instead of a use variance. Impervious coverage does not increase because it is being constructed over concrete. Home has been in the family for fifty (50) years. Materials utilized will match home.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Mr. Wolfersberger – It is a deck and water passes through so I am not concerned with the slight increase in building coverage. In favor.
Mr. Leonard – echoes Mr. Wolfersberger comments. It is not going to affect the neighbor’s privacy. In favor.
Mr. Kelly – Giving up the two family use and improving the encroachment are a big improvement. In favor.
Chairman Struncius - the abandonment of the two family is a huge gain. It is not impeding on anyone and it should be very nice.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2009-27 of Catherine Brzezinski
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Kelly
Opposed - None

Conditions

1. Materials used in deck will match the look of the home.
2. Applicant will give up two family use upon granting of this variance.
Application approved with conditions

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.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Gregory Cox, licensed architect and planner; credentials accepted. Existing home is non - conforming and is located by a fire department and lumber yard. Corner lot and existing garage is too close to the property line. Mr. Kelly questioned having a six foot fence along St. Louis. Mr. Palisi inquired how the grading of the home was going to affect the neighbors. Mr. Galvin commented that if the board thinks the fence is affecting the aesthetics of the project that the board can request some considerations. Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant is making quite an investment and requires some privacy. The home is located on Arnold and St. Louis which is a busy area. Mr. Ardito inquired if they will be bringing fill in. (Yes) Mr. Ardito inquired about what type of landscaping they will have. Greg Cox replied that they have not done a landscaping plan yet. Ray Savacool inquired that there is a rather large paver patio that is elevated at four feet off of existing grade. My concern is that the house is just at 30%. What is proposed there? Greg Cox stated there is a large space between the garage and the patio; the idea is to grade down to the garage so there are not a lot of steps. Ray Savacool stated that he believes the patio should be part of building coverage because it is four (4) feet off of existing grade. The Pavers would be calculated at 7% bringing building coverage to 37%. Mr. Spader and Wolfersberger are concerned with the height of the patio and the six foot fence. Mr. Cox stated that the fence is forty-eight feet long. Chairman Struncius stated that a fort – eight foot white vinyl fence can give a very boxy feel and directed the applicant to come up with some direction to an alternative. Mr. Wolfersberger does not want to approve something he has not seen. Mr. Ardito commented that they have now built a hill and is uncomfortable with the amount of fill this will require. Ray Savacool said it is a 15% slope from the house to the garage and is concerned about negative impact to the adjoining property. Chairman Struncius agreed that it should be reviewed by the Board Engineer because there is uniqueness to this application. Mr. Wolfersberger has a problem with the landscaping and the fence along with the elevation of the slope of the rear yard. Mr. Reilly let the applicant know that these are not criticism, that they are concerns, they like the project and just want to be comfortable with the details.
Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2010-08 of William T. Lyons to August 19, 2010 without notice.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Kelly
Opposed - None
Application carried without notice to August 19, 2010 without notice

Application #2010-09 – Bob and Kathy Maloney – 26 Central Avenue – Block 99; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to demolish front single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Robert Maloney applicant, sworn. Property has been in family for over 50 years. They are looking to build a new home and move here year round. Since the home was purchased the main home has been used for family and the rear dwelling has been a rental unit. Existing home has three bedrooms and no heat. Property is not in compliance with flood regulations. New home will be entirely up to code and comply with the flood regulations and also have three (3) bedrooms. Rear structure will remain as is. Mr. Spader inquired if they would give up the CO on the rear unit. (No) The applicant will be giving up the rental Co on the main building. Steven Pardes stated even though the applicants want to maintain the rear rental CO there is many benefits with this application. Mr. Ardito asked if the applicant would consider bring the rear building up to flood elevation? (No – building will remain as is) Mr. Reilly inquired about the use of the first floor of the rear dwelling. Robert Maloney replied that it is strictly used for family.

Allison Coffin, Professional Planner, credentials accepted. Allison Coffin stated that many properties in the vicinity are mixed residential uses. The applicant has prior use via a court decision. Uses in neighborhood were seasonal and mixed at time of court decision. In evaluating the area there are many properties that maintain a mixed use. This use on this property has been in use since 1948. The Master Plan of 1992 reaffirmed and recognized the continuing role as a family resort and that it wants to maintain a diversity of housing that encourages a lower proportion of rental occupancy. This application reduces the rental units by one (1). Two variances are being eliminated; Front yard and side yard setback. Allison Coffin states that in her opinion special reasons do exist. Subject site has supported three (3) units since 1948. There are a number of Land Use laws that are being advanced 1. Secure safety from fire and flood by brining building up to code. 2. Provides adequate light, air and open space 3. Promotes establishment of appropriate density. Negative Criteria – Her opinion is the application does not change the intensity of the site. Multiunit is an existing condition. Granting of this application supports the Master Plan and brings two bulk variances into conformity.
Ray Savacool suggests that the front stairs be turned sideways not to encroach on the front setback.
Chairman Struncius inquired the enforceability of policing the rental of the front home and asked if the applicant would accept a deed restriction on the new dwelling? Steve Pardes replied that they would like to carry this application to a future date to consider the request and Mr. Leonard comments.
No audience questions/comments
Motion by, second by to carry application #2010-09 of Robert Maloney to January 20, 2011 without notice.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Kelly
Opposed: None

Application #2010-05 – Robert and Irene Morrow – 209 Arnold Avenue – Block 97; Lot 5 – Applicant wishes to construct a two-story addition to the rear of the front house and a second story deck to the rear dwelling.
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant. Charles Gilligan, Licensed Planner and Professional Engineer, credentials accepted, stated that the property is located in the R2 zone across from a hotel. The garage apartment is located on the second floor of the rear dwelling. Proposing a deck off the second floor of the rear dwelling. Applicant is also prosing to add to front dwelling to have a total of eight (8) bedrooms. Variances – front yard variance – 8.4 feet; existing garage side yard and rear setback. Garage height is 18 feet where 16 feet is required. Will be adding an outdoor fire escape to front dwelling. Negative aspects – does not believe there are any; Possible impact with the structure to the rear. Charles Gilligan stated there are many two family properties in the vicinity. Applicant has owned property since 1977 and operated the rental apartment. Tom Spader inquired why they do not utilize the rear dwelling for family if they need extra room. The applicant wants to maintain the rental unit.
A-3 – Picture Board – Entered
Robert Morrow, applicant, sworn stated that the applicant has three children and grandchildren and they do not have the room for all of them at one time. There is a lack of privacy when everyone visits. The proposed bedrooms are very small. We have never had any issues with renters since they have owned it since 1977. Mr. Palisi inquired about parking accommodations. (6 cars can fit)
Thomas Hofmann, AIA, credentials accepted. Thomas Hofmann described bedrooms and layout of addition
Irene Morrow, applicant, sworn stated that when her family comes they are sleeping all over the place. The present dwelling does not accommodate her entire family. Chairman Struncius explained why the board would hesitate to approve eight (8) bedrooms.(Rooming house layout) Chairman Struncius asked the applicant to take time to consider the boards comments .

Audience questions/comments

Robert Santanello, Central Avenue - Commented that the applicant has been a phenomenal neighbor and fully supports the application.
Michele Shamo, Arnold Avenue- Great people and never have had any problems.
Matt Massood, 211 Arnold Avenue – Very nice people and thankful to have them as neighbors. Fully supports application.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Palisi to carry application #2010-05 of Robert and Irene Morrow to November 18, 2010 without notice.
In favor - Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Kelly
Opposed - None

Application #2008-20 – Jenkinson’s North – Beachfront - Block 180; Lot 2 & 3 – Applicant has installed “flooring” to the beach area adjacent to the building in order to hold banquet/reception type functions. Applicant is appealing the decision of the zoning officer. If the applicant’s bid for an appeal is denied, then the applicant will proceed with a request for a Certificate of a Prior Non-Conforming Use. If that bid is unsuccessful the applicant will proceed with the use variance application as well as site plan approval for the proposed renovations.
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger second by Mr. Leonard to carry application #2008- 20 to October 21, 2010 without notice matter will be marked try or dismiss
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly
Opposed - None

Application#2009-17- Foodtown of Point Pleasant/Gerard Norkus – 505 Richmond Avenue; Block 90; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to expand business use by allowing a mobile food vending cart in parking lot.
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2009-17 to September 16, 2010 with notice. Try or dismiss
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Spader and Kelly
Opposed – None
Meeting adjourned 11:09pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published August24, 2010 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1075


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