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


February 17, 2011

Minutes

The February 17, 2011 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. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds Alternate: Mr. Ardito

Absent: Mr. Palisi, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Spader Alternate: Mr. Renner

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes from the January 20, 2011 meeting.

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



Application #2009-19 – Sandra C. Napoletano – 20 Danby Place; Block 121; lot 5.04 -Applicant wishes to move the existing single family dwelling and add a second story.

Application will not be heard this evening

Due to the fact that there are only five board members present for the meeting the applicant has requested to be carried to a future meeting.

Motion by Mr. Kelly second by Mr. Reynolds to carry application #2009-19 of Sandra Napoletano to April 7, 2011 without notice.

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


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.

Applicant carried without notice from February 3, 2011

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Family property since 1977. Stated that the applicant will agree to a restriction that the interior of the garage will be strictly for storage. Charles Gilligan, engineer has reworked the plans and building coverage has been reduced to 30.8%. Prior board concerns are that is might turn into an animal house in the future so the applicant has removed the external stairway and reduced bedrooms to (6) six bedrooms and hope that the board appreciates the aesthetic upgrade. Chairman Struncius commented that the rear garage deck has been removed. Charles Gilligan stated that the kitchen bump out has been removed also. John Jackson states that if the board needs it they will file a deed restriction on the garage that only the second floor will be rented but the applicant would prefer not to. Dennis Galvin agrees with John Jackson and does not see the point to deed restricting the garage.

No audience questions/comments
Conditions

1. Second story closet closest to road is to be removed.
2. First floor of garage is to only be utilized for storage.
3. Building coverage is not to exceed 30.8%


Deliberations

Lee Kelly has trouble with how the space is being utilized and to be fair to the applicant would like to see the application moved to a future meeting.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to carry application #2010-05 to April 7, 2011 without notice

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

Application #2010-22 Mark/Kirsten Micco – 12 Surf and Sand Court – Block 120; Lot 3.04 – Applicant finished first floor of single family dwelling. Property had previous variance that permitted this area to be utilized as storage. Applicant wishes to amend Resolution#1982-26.
Carried without notice from December 2, 2010

Certifications received from Board member Mr. Kelly that he listened to prior meeting

Mark and Kirsten Micco, sworn. Ray Savacool stated that at prior meeting the board requested to see the flood elevation certificate and that the first floor does not comply with the flood hazard prevention ordinance. Ray Savacool stated if you look at section “E” of the elevation certificate indicates the top of the bottom floor does not comply. Applicant is located in an over wash zone and any livable space has to be one foot above any adjoining grade. Steve Ardito explained to applicant the rating and discounts for residents due to the fact that homes are now complying with federal statutes in regards to flood plains. Flood proofing of the walls is not an option; the home would need to be raised.
The lower level space may only be utilized for storage.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to deny application#2010-22 of Mark and Kirsten Micco.

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


Application #2010-19 – Roland P. Cassia – 224 Richmond Avenue – Block 113; Lot 7 – Applicant converted first floor commercial space into a second apartment. Cannot convert back to commercial space without site plan due to intent to abandon commercial use.
Application carried without notice from December 2, 2010

Carmine Villani, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant has been trying to rent the commercial use of his property for eight (8) years without any success. The property is located in a high traffic commercial area. Roland P. Cassia, applicant sworn. A-3 picture array– showing property as it sits today. Applicant stated there is no access from the first floor to the second floor. A-4 – letter sent to town (Zoning officer) in reference to mixed use occupancy in 2003. A-5 – Copy of town’s response confirming that the mixed use is permitted.

Mary Cerricola, real estate agent with Weichert. She has been the applicant’s agent since 2003 and has been unsuccessful in renting it for eight years. They have actively been trying to rent it.
Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer and Planner stated that this property has previously been used as a dog groomer on the first floor and a residence on the second. The owner has been unable to attract a commercial tenant since is purchase of the building in 2003. Property located in the A-E flood zone and it complies with FEMA elevations. Parking for 5 vehicles if needed; Property parking is safer if a residential use. There is talk of a bank buying property in the vicinity and the applicant is open to selling the property if the opportunity arises. Proposed use is safer than the prior use of the property from a traffic stand point and proposal complies with the MLUL. Robert Burdick believes it is a reasonable proposal given the unique location of the property.
Lee Kelly questioned how garbage is picked up on the highway. Carmine Villani replied that whether residential or commercial it is picked up by the town on the highway. Jay Reynolds questioned if the applicant had considered making it a one-family. Carmine replied it is an economic reality that there is no interior stairwell; there is no front door. Lee Kelly stated that it is difficult to pull cars in and out of the parking lot and that it should be limited to 3 or 4 parking spaces for safety. Ray Savacool replied that three cars (3) would be the safest. Mr. Kelly would like that as a condition that the parking spaces are diagonally striped. Dennis Galvin stated that if any future commercial use was intended for this property that the applicant would be required to provide a site plan so not too many restrictions are needed at his time.
No audience question/comments
Deliberations
Lee Kelly – Only concern he had was the parking and that has been addressed. In favor
Mr. Reilly – Agrees with Mr. Kelly and does not see any negatives
Jay Reynolds – Home has been aesthetically improved, residential over commercial in that spot – absolutely
Steve Ardito – You have tried to rent it for years, based on testimony I am inclined to be in favor.
Chairman Struncius – This is a positive change – negative criteria – less intense use next to the commercial use and residential use- as there is no negative criteria. In favor
Conditions
1. The parking for the use of the property as a two-family home is limited to three (3) diagonally stripped parking spaces.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2010-19 of Roland P. Cassia with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2010-27 – Vincent and Cynthia Serrao – 203 Parkway – Block 103; Lot 2 – Applicant wishes to add a new front porch and reconstruct roof of dwelling. Applicant also wishes to obtain a certificate of non-conformity.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Vincent Serrao, applicant, sworn. John Jackson stated that the applicant is requesting to do a substantial upgrade to the primary residence. John Jackson stated that the applicant has compelling proof that second building (rear rental) has existed since 1936. Small modest home which is used for his family in the summer. A-3 packet of maps and letters– Sanborn Map Vincent Serrao, stated that he purchased the home in September of 2009. The home had 2 rental CO’s at the time of purchase; primary home has three (3) bedrooms. Applicants primary home in East Brunswick, they would love to live here year round but the commute to work would be too far. New Jersey historical aerial photos – Government photos taken in 1933…they took pictures of the coast from Cape May to Sandy Hook. Close up of property you can see that the rear dwelling is there. Pictures of interior of home you can see knob and tube wiring which was used in the 1930’s; the rear building also has balloon framing. The Sanborn Map (1950’s) shows the two buildings. Dennis Galvin inquired when the land use ordinance actually changed to restrict two primary uses. (1949) Letter from 1975 – written by Mr. Lynch – previous owner – discussing rear rental unit; Bottom of the garage is just for storage. Ray Savacool s stated that the Sanborn Maps are considered fairly authoritative. They are used quite extensively in the Environmental industry when they are looking for remnants of former buildings; they are considered a very valuable snapshot of history.
Jack Arthur Purvis, professional architect, AIA, sworn. Freehold, Howell and East Brunswick are board’s he has appeared in front of. Credentials accepted. Small addition to the two bedrooms and the existing kitchen. A new bathroom will be added to the rear of the home. Requesting to add porch to front of home; Building coverage will be 20%, well under the allowable 30%. Vincent Serrao commented in reference to his rear yard drainage.

No audience questions comments


Deliberations

Mr. Kelly –Personally knows that the use of the property goes back to eh 1960’s; wonderful looking home. No problem with application
Mr. Reilly – Non issue
Mr. Ardito – Positive improvement for the community.
Mr. Struncius – Applicant did a nice job documenting historical time frame of property. These properties are a part of our community. Improvements are a huge upgrade astatically.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2010-27 of Vincent and Cynthia Serrao with conditions.

In favor – Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed - None
Application #2011-02 - Ken Murphy/Maryanne Russo – 211 Trenton Avenue- Block 80; Lot 5 – Applicant wishes to construct a 15 foot by 25 foot one car detached garage.

Joseph Micelini, attorney for applicant stated that application originally requested two (2) variances; one for impervious and one for lot coverage. Original plan was to build something totally conforming but the original builders plans were not to code. Changes have been made to eliminate the impervious coverage variance by eliminating pavers in the rear yard. Garage is being reduced to twelve (12) feet by twenty feet (20). Building coverage requested now is 32.8% a C-2 variance.
Ray Carpenter, professional engineer and planner, sworn stated that there are eight properties with their parking access off of Liberty Lane. Having a garage serves a multitude of purposes (parking a car and storage). Believes this is a good application which will not have a negative impact on the neighbors. Ray Carpenter believes that it is a positive aesthetically. Chairman Struncius inquired as to the exposed foundations and is the applicant installing foundation plantings. Ray Carpenter stated that a variety of plants will be planted. A landscaping plan will be submitted to board engineer for approval.

Audience questions/comments
Kenneth G. Murphy - stated applicants dilemma.
Conditions –
1. The plan is to be revised to show a reduced garage of no more than 12’ x 20’.

2. The proposed curb cut is to be moved from the easterly side to the westerly side of the property and it must be approved by the governing body.

3. The garage is to have no plumbing and is never to be used for habitation.

4. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan showing the foundation plantings to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

5. The building coverage is not to exceed 32.8%.



Deliberations

Mr. Kelly – No problem with application. Glad to see parking area moved for safety.
Mr. Reilly – Reasonable solution and I wish the applicant good luck.
Mr. Reynolds – Good plan – looks good
Mr. Ardito – It is a shame that the garage had to be reduced but the home is very large. Appreciate the fact the applicant worked with the board. No problem with application.
Chairman Struncius – Applicant made efforts to bring numbers down. Neighborhood has private drive and this fits.

Notion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2011-02 of MaryAnn Russo with conditions.

In favor – Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 10:21 pm

Attest: Karen l. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published April14, 2011 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1194


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