Point Pleasant Beach News
August 19, 2010
The August 19, 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, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly Alternates - Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Renner
Absent – Mr. Palisi, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Madden
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of the July 15, 2010 meeting.
In favor: Kelly, Spader, Wolfersberger, Reilly and Ardito.
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2009-27of Catherine Brzezinski with conditions
In favor – Wolfersberger, Reilly, Spader, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-16 of Tonya and Pasquale Capriglione with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Reilly, Spader, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve of the 2009 Final Report.
In favor – Kelly, Spader, Wolfersberger, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Renner
Opposed - None
Letter Request to amend Resolution #2010-14 – Doug Bollinger – Re- Increase in allowed bikes and extend season
Doug Bollinger stated that the business is doing well and they are doing better and would like to add ten bikes for a total of thirty bikes (30) and lengthen the season to run April through October.
Spader – Nice to see it has been a successful endeavor. Mr. Reilly – has no problem with the requests. Mr. Ardito inquired if they will want to increase it again down the road. Mr. Galvin said we should just go with this request and have them come back with future requests.
Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Wolfersberger to amend Resolution #2010-14 with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed - None
Zoning Officer’s Letter: Re: Signage at Corner Bagley (Roger McLaughlin)
Roger McLaughlin, attorney for tenant of bagelry – After much discussion it was decided that the owner should be present to discuss the signage that will be placed on the building.
Application #2010-13 – Joseph Seickel – 201 New York Avenue – Block 42; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with in-ground pool . (Building coverage 36.75%)
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant. Christine Cofone, Professional Planner, credentials accepted stated that this application is well suited for this site. The variances required are for building coverage at 36.75% and variance relief. Ex. A-3 – aerial photograph of subject property. There will be a four car parking garage off of Baltimore Avenue. Front yard setback complies on New York Avenue. 6% of coverage is from balconies and porches providing more than adequate off street parking. Christine Cofone referenced the 2007 Master Plan in reference to parking requirements. When researching existing homes in the area we found the proposed home to be consistent to neighboring homes. I find this to be a flexible C-2 variance in the absence of hardship but consistent with area. As a planner Christine Cofone feels granting a C-2 variance would be appropriate in this area. The deck is 437 square feet which accounts for over 4% of building coverage and feels that the density is appropriate for this lot and neighborhood. Tom Spader questioned the unfinished area over 4 car garage and the third floor area. Mr. Reynolds questioned the setback on New York area and stated that it also requires a variance because the setback is measured to the stairs, not building. Positive Criteria is appropriate density and consistence with the character of area.
No audience questions
Dario Pasquariello, A. I. A., R.A., Professional Architect, sworn. Licensed in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Credentials accepted stated the area over the garage and the third floor will not be habitable space. He referenced the pool being an above ground pool. Dolphin Homes will be building the home. Mr. Kelly inquired the size of the area above the garage, (800 square feet). Joseph Seickel, applicant, sworn stated that he hopes to use the unfinished area for a game room and storage. Tom Spader inquired why the applicant cannot come in at 30% building coverage since they are starting fresh. John Jackson replied that 3,500 square foot home on a 9,000 square foot lot is not over development and that the pool deck is 5% of the building coverage. Applicant stated that he needs a four car garage for his antique cars and a work shop. Applicant is planning on landscaping the foundation. Lee Kelly inquired if they could add some windows to the rear of the garage because there is a big void in the upper portion. The architect stated that he can add transom windows to the upper rear of the garage. The applicant stated that this will be their year round home; they are very active in the community.
Nancy Jurasek – Neighbors who are very supportive of this application. She believes that it will enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Kelly – I think the house is quite large. I believe this will be an enhancement to the area. I do think you should consider lighting in the attic. I have been ensured this is the house that you want. In favor.
Mr. Reilly – Not worried about the setback. I am concerned about the coverage. I am probably likely to vote for it.
Mr. Reynolds – I was concerned about the setback, I think it looks like a beautiful project. I am concerned about the pool being so close to the home. I would vote in favor.
Mr. Ardito – As far as concerns, earlier in the testimony you said that you had health concerns so the pool does not bother me a much but the four car garage does bother me. Making the garage smaller would make the house smaller…not sure how I will vote.
Mr. Renner – Questioned the home on a corner lot. This is a 75 foot wide so why doesn’t it meet the setbacks?
Mr. Wolfersberger -I missed that too -I appreciate it; I figured it was a 50 by 100 foot lot. With it being a new home at 36% - I cannot go with that.
Mr. Spader – Looking at the plan and knowing some of the people involved it looks like a beautiful project. I have to be consistent and there is nothing that will let me approve 36% building coverage.
Mr. Struncius – I do not see this type of investment turning into an animal house. I am an elevation guy and typically we would never let a home like this on a 50 by 100 lot but with a 75 foot wide home you could make the adjustments. You could easily come in with a conforming home, but I think this fits nicely in this lot. I am in favor of what I see here. I think it was done well and will be a nice outcome.
1. The plan is to be revised to show transom windows on the rear second floor of the garage.
2. There are to be foundation plantings.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2010-13 of Joseph Seickel with conditions.
In favor – Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed – Wolfersberger and Spader
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.
Carried from July 15, 2010 without notice
John Jackson attorney for applicant. Greg Cox, Architect, stated that the board had several concerns at the last meeting. The Board was concerned about the grading of the property and the landscaping. We have provided a landscaping and topography plan that address the five primary concerns - 1st – storm water retention 2nd – preserve hedge row on west existing 3rd - 18 inch holly trees 4th - rear patio 5th – rod iron fence being in the site triangle
Low rod iron fence will be removed to provide the proper site triangle. Existing grade will remain as is. Leaders will be connected to underground storage for runoff. All rain water will be collected and be put under ground. The tree will remain and the hedgerow will remain. Rear platform will be built in rear for patio – rain water will pass through but now building coverage will be increased by a small percentage and total building coverage will be 30.6%. Mr. Kelly is very pleased with the changes that have been made.
No audience comments/questions
Mr. Wolfersberger – Virtually impossible to comply with both frontages on a corner lot. We have gained on setbacks, building coverage is deminimus. I think it will be an improvement – in favor of this application without the fence.
Mr. Kelly – Very pleased with the changes that have been made. In favor
Mr. Spader – It is a beautiful house – the sensitivity to the flood issues is terrific. Disappointed about the railing; definitely in favor of this.
Mr. Reilly – I thought this was a wonderful proposal last time. I think you responded very well to our questions and that .6% building is deminimus. I am in favor of this application.
Mr. Renner – I think you did a really fine job addressing the Boards questions.
Mr. Ardito – I want to thank you for coming back and addressing the issues that were raised at the last meeting. The town also benefits from having another home that is code and flood compliant. Good job.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2010-08 of William T. Lyons with conditions.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Ardito and Renner
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions
1. Applicant is to submit a landscaping plan showing the landscaping described at the time of the hearing.
2. Grading and drainage plan is to be submitted.
3. The home shall be constructed as described by Mr. Cox at the time of the hearing.
4. The holly tree in the rear of the property is to remain.
Application #2010-12- Roberta and Ronald Kiefer – Applicant wishes to construct a second story addition to accommodate an apartment to an existing rooming house. Property also has a commercial parking lot.
John Jackson attorney for applicant. Applicant is looking to upgrade building and is requesting to add an apartment in the rear for the owner to reside in year round. Gregory Cox, Professional Architect and Planner, credentials accepted. A-3 – 3 Photographs of existing site A-4 - Elevations. This building has been around since about 1920 and is located in the RR2.
The construction is cast concrete. Should this application be approved the exterior fire escapes will be removed. Existing building is 36 feet 8 inches tall, the addition will be thirty five (35) feet. The parking area consists of 24 parking space; Nine for the rentable rooms and fifteen to be rented (paid parking on a daily basis). Proposing a one story with a habitable attic. The first habitable floor is above flood elevation. The entire building will be refaced with Cedar impressions and azek siding ; recreate a new entrance; add a covered porch where there is an existing entrance on the second floor; create a brick base on three sides of the building. Owner’s residence will have a separate entrance. The building is structurally sound it just needs to be upgraded. The addition will only be owner occupied and will be recorded in a deed restriction. Jim Wolfersberger inquired about the garage? Greg Cox replied the garage is existing and will not be changed and that this use is well suited for this area and believes it promotes the purpose of the MLUL. Tom Spader inquired if these rooms were rented in the winter? Roberta Kiefer, sworn, stated that sometimes she does rent the rooms in the winter. Mr. Kelly’s concern is when the beautiful home is built that the property will look like hell and wants to know how the parking spots are designated. Roberta Kiefer stated that the parking lot will remain gravel. Mr. Kelly would like to see some landscaping. Mr. Wolfersberger said that you need some type of landscaping. Chairman Struncius stated that he would like to see some perimeter plantings. Dennis Galvin suggested that they submit a landscaping plan prior to Memorialization if the application is approved. Ray Savacool inquired where trash is stored. Roberta Kiefer replied that she brings the trash to Kiefer’s Quarters.
Joanna Nina – Arnold Avenue - Is there anything being built that will obstruct the neighbors view? Greg Cox said any addition has the potential to change the view. This building meets the setbacks. They are not going to have designated spaces? NO Dennis Galvin stated that the applicant stated they have a permit to rent seventeen spaces and that is the limit even though it is known that they park more cars on the holiday. What is the garage used for – Roberta Kiefer replied that they live, there eat in there and use it to rent the parking spaces.
Lisa Bendickson – Bay Head – It is a non-conforming use with a grandfathered parking lot; doesn’t adding a single family use making it more non-conforming? Yes
1. Single family one-story residence will only be owner occupied and will not be rented.
2. The applicant is to record a deed restriction limiting the new addition’s use exclusively to the owners. The owner’s residence is never to be rented out; even if one of the boarding rooms becomes unavailable for rental. Deed restriction is to be approved by Dennis Galvin and be recorded before the issuance of a building permit.
3. The applicant does not abandon his right to rent the nine (9) non-owner occupied rooms but it is not intended for the owner occupied space to ever be rented.
4. The parking lot gravel is to be graded.
5. The board approved this application contingent on that the applicant submits a landscaping plan prior to Memorialization for the Board’s review and approval
6. The applicant is to eliminate the fire escapes.
7. The garage is to match the look of the house.
8. The facade will be built according to Mr. Cox - Cedar impression frontage with azek siding.
9. Downstairs kitchen will be removed.
10. Railings will be white vinyl.
Joan Alina, sworn – She said it was stated that the building was historic, will it remain looking historic? The rendering does not look historic. Greg Cox stated that they will enhance and give it a shore look and appropriate style but not a true historic restoration.
Mr. Wolfersberger – Initially I had some concerns but looking at the finished product, the place looks terrible now, with some landscaping plans will change, uniquely suited for where it is. It is an upgrade, visually enhances the area. With restrictions in place I would be inclined to vote in favor.
Mr. Kelly – I think you are going to have a beautiful home and building but that you need some landscaping. With the landscaping plan I would be in favor.
Mr. Spader – I have no problems with it at all. I think it is going to beautiful and a nice little centerpiece to the head of Arnold Avenue. With the conditions listed I would be in favor.
Mr. Reilly – My colleagues have stated all the advantages and I agree with Mr. Cox, I do not see any negatives here. So I am for it.
Mr. Reynolds – It is going to be beautiful, getting rid of the fire escapes will really make I look nicer. In favor
Mr. Ardito – The concern about the big parking lot sticking out for lack of landscaping is a concern. Really try to nail that - it will soften it out.
Mr. Renner – I think it is great that you guys are still operating that place and allowing people to come and enjoy the beach. I think it is a great idea.
Chairman Struncius – The positive criteria is very obvious and what we get from aesthetic value and appropriate use. I needed to hear the legal aspects about adding on to a property like that. Hearing the limits on the rentals helped. What we are getting is a really beautiful building.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2010-12 of Roberta and Ronald Kiefer with conditions.
In favor - Wolfersberger, Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Meeting adjourned at 11:03 pm
Attest – Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
Published September20, 2010 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1085