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


March 17, 2011

Minutes

The March 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. Wolfersberger, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, and Mr. Reilly Alternates: Mr. Ardito and Mr. Renner

Absent: Palisi and Spader

Letter – Ray Carpenter’s letter re: Building coverage – Board felt miscalculation was deminimus and approved the correction.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the amendment to application #2006-34(B) of PLRJ

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

Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-19 of Roland Cassia with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-27 of Vincent Serrao with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2010-22 of Mark and Kirsten Micco.

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2011-02 of Maryann Russo with conditions.

In favor: Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito.


Application#2006-43A – Penny and Fred Ficcociello – 1601 West Street – Block 178.04; Lot 7 -The applicant constructed a new single family home and in-ground swimming pool approved by Resolution #2006-43. The final survey was received and the following variances are required. Original resolution permitted the pool to be 5 feet off the property line and it is 4.7 feet; impervious coverage is 63.4% where 50% is allowed.

Carried without notice from January 20, 2011

Letter from John Jackson requesting for application to be carried to April 7, 2011 without notice.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to carry application #2006-43A to April 7, 2011 without notice.

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





Application #2010-25 – Mary Ann and Robert Wallace – 507 Cramer Avenue – Block 91.02; Lot 13 – Applicant wishes to construct deck which will result in 34.4% building coverage.

Jeanette Kellington, attorney for applicant. Mary Ann Wallace applicant, sworn. Exhibit A-3 (Computer rendering of deck) Home is new construction. Property owned since 1984 by applicants mother. Mother has passed and Mary Ann Wallace retained ownership of home for her and her sister who has a handy-capped son. Construction of this home has been a difficult time. Submitted application for home without deck because the modular home had already been purchased and changes to plans could not be made to add deck and ramp at that time. Exhibit A - 4 Pictures of home as constructed taken on March 17, 2011 by Jeanette Kellington.

The deck will allow water to pass through and percolate into the ground. Home complies in all ways. Only variance required is building coverage for deck and ramp.


Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – Haven’t been convinced by my colleagues; to me it is a large increase. 25 foot deck is a large deck.

Mr. Reynolds – Feelings are the deck was going to cause a problem and you eliminated it from plans. Home is built and looking for approval. Understands applicants plight; increase not that bad in favor.

Mr. Kelly – Has no problem with application – In favor

Mr. Reilly – Has sympathy for applicant. Leaning to be in favor.

Mr. Ardito – under the circumstances can understand. Increase is deminimus; in favor

Mr. Renner – Sympathetic to circumstances. Troubled that they built home knowing they would need additional coverage.

Chairman Struncius – Looking at how the home fits into the zone. It is not a boxy home; roof lines fit. Looking at this from a Zoning perspective; that extra four % that allows rain to pass through is not a problem for me. In favor


Condition

1. Ramp may be removed in the future when no longer need and be replaced by stairs.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application#2010-25 of Maryann and Robert Wallace with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions




Application #2010-30 – Tom and Cecilia Pallaria – 300 Carter Avenue – Block 179.01; Lot 23 – Applicant wishes to construct a dormer on rear of existing family dwelling and two dormers on detached garage.

Thomas and Cecilia Pallaria, applicant, sworn. Applicant looking to preserve home and construct a dormer on the rear of the home and two dormers on the garage. Applicant stated that it would be difficult to move the garage to have it comply with the setbacks. Ray Savacool questioned why they need a dormer on the garage. Cecilia Pallaria stated that now that her children are older they have bigger toys. They also rent the property in the summer and they want somewhere to store the sheets. The applicants stated that there is no heat or water in the garage. The height of the second floor of the garage is approximately 6’ 6” high. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired if it is livable space. (No) The applicants stated that the garage will be strictly for storage and that the renters will not be allowed in the garage except to store beach equipment. Applicant wants to maintain the 1942 beach bungalow look. Applicants stated the dormer extension will have windows facing Lake Avenue. Dormer on garage on the South side will not have a window. The North side of garage dormer will have a window. Jay Reynolds questioned how far the garage was from their neighbor on Lake Avenue. (Not very far) Garage is only 3.3 feet off their property line. Mr. Renner is worried about the neighbor on Lake Avenue’s privacy. They are already looking at a garage wall since the garage is encroaching on the setback on the Reppert’s front yard.

Audience questions/comments

Brian Reppert – Neighbor on Lake Avenue – likes the family and contractor, but they do have a problem with the variance request. Structure is already non-conforming. Photos marked N-1, N-2, N-3 and N-4. Picture showing how small the setback already is. Existing 16 foot high garage is already quite large. Worried that it will become living space for the renter’s; Does not believe that it is a beneficial use and is worried about the water runoff. Has seen a television being used on second story of garage during the summer.

Roland Serwin – 302 Carter Avenue – Pallaria’s neighbor. Great neighbor; good renter. Applicant asks him to keep eye on property for applicant when rented. Understand him needing more storage room. Also understands the other neighbor having concerns about the garage because they are located closer to it.

Ray Savacool corrects previous statement about not needing variance for garage. Two story accessory structures are not permitted and a variance is required.

Tom Palaria stated that there will not be sheet rock on the second story nor will there be insulation.

Steve Ardito stated that when the applicant rents the home they lose control of the renters accessing the garage and he would like to see a locked door to the second floor. Also would like to know if they plan on installing gutters to route the water runoff to the street. (yes)

Applicant does not want to put a gutter on the North side because they do not want to look at a gutter. Cecilia Pallaria stated she trims the Holly tree because it creates moss on the roof. She might remove the tree. She does not want to ruin another roof so she might cut them down. Cecelia Pallaria stated that she will not provide a hatch to restrict access to second floor of the garage. Dennis Galvin explained to them that this might be the difference between receiving the approval and not receiving it. He also cautioned her to be respectful to the Board.


Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – Stated that he has no problem with the garage because it does not violate the setback. His only concern is access to the second floor of the garage. Wants to make sure it does not become habitable space. Inclined to vote in favor.

Mr. Reynolds – Has problem with dormer on south side of garage. Applicant stated they do not want to look at gutter but does not have a problem with the neighbor having to. Not in favor.

Mr. Kelly – Our questioning is not personal; we just deal with summer rentals all the time. We have to be very careful. Does not see a problem with dormers but wants to see restrictions pertaining to the access of second floor of garage.


Mr. Reilly – Feels strongly that something should be in place to restrict access to second floor of garage; other than that he is in favor.

Mr. Ardito – Believes the applicant is not hearing what they are saying. The Board is concerned with habitation of the garage. When a neighbor expresses concerns we listen. Is looking to see how to accomplish this; have problem with dormer; impacts light and air of neighbor. Concerned when applicant is not present that they continue control of the garage. Needs to know the second floor of garage has restricted access.

Mr. Renner – Is not so sure that neighbor hears what they are saying. I heard a neighbor give me a lot of good reasons and concerns; very little space between the two houses. I know that trees a beneficial and taking those trees down might have some consequences. Not in favor of application.

Chairman Struncius – Thinks that the restriction will be hard to enforce. The size of the dormers does create a second story. Knows it is frustrating to hear this and it is not personal but we have garage apartments popping up when there is room to do it. His comfort is in no plumbing, air condition and heat. Worried about future use.

Mr. Wolfersberger – is confused. Is the garage going to be closed off or not? Is it one dormer on the home or are they allowing the garage dormers? They might have to change something.

Chairman requested clarification on the conditions. Chairman Struncius stated that it sounds like the Board wants it closed off by means of lockable structure.

Mr. Kelly stated that locking it up is the only way that it would be enforceable.

Cecilia Pallaria – Stated that no one goes up there. Dennis Galvin stated that it does not look like they would get approval without it being locked when the renters occupy the home.


Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2010-30 of Thomas and Cecilia Pallaria with conditions

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

Application approved with the following conditions


Conditions

1. The garage is to have no heating, air-conditioning, plumbing, or cable and is not to be used for over-night habitation.

2. Renters of the home are not to have access to the upper floor of the garage which is to be accomplished by means of a lockable structure.

3. There are to be no windows on the south side of the garage dormer.

4. The applicant is to record a Deed Restriction setting forth condition number 6. The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to the recording of the Deed and must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

5. All of the dormers are to have rain gutters.





Application #2010-31 – Michael Iuliano – 214 Princeton Avenue – Block 137; Lot 1 & 2 – Applicant wishes to construct a 10 foot by 24 foot pool cabana and in- ground swimming pool.

Donna and Michael Iuliano, applicants, sworn. Mr. Wolfersberger has stepped down from this application.

Home is located on corner property. Requesting to set pool five (5) feet off the rear property; also an issue with the a/c unit and pool mechanical placement. Chairman Struncius inquired if they had thought to go with a smaller pool? (Yes) Applicant stated the pool was too close to the home for safety and if they made the pool any narrower it would be a safety issue with the kids jumping in the pool. Chairman Struncius believes there is a compromise. Pete Renner inquired how close the home on Chicago is located. Mike Iuliano replied that the neighbor’s pool is located in a similar placement which gives them privacy. Requesting to add extension to accessory structure to make a cabana for outdoor living; 120 feet is enclosed and the rest is open space for wicker furniture and outdoor entertaining. Will be installing a white vinyl privacy fence. Ray Savacool questioned grading and drainage with the pavers

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Reynolds – Had problem with pool but am happy with the 7 feet it is a good compromise.

Mr. Kelly - Has no problem with open cabana since it is such a large piece of property.

Mr. Reilly – Should be congratulated; applicant has built a beautiful home. I believe the right balance has been worked out. I will be in favor

Mr. Ardito – thank you for coming prepared and your compromise. The fact that you have such a big piece of property and that the impervious is under and the conditions in place would make me favorable.

Chairman Struncius – Wonderful project and with the conditions in place (Wall around fireplace is open) In favor

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2010-31 of Michael and Donna Iuliano with conditions

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


Conditions

1. The 120 foot covered patio attached to the pool cabana building is not to have any form of enclosure as indicated by the photograph given to the Board at the time of the hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The Board notes that the schematic drawing entered into evidence is incorrect.

2. A Deed Restriction is to be recorded stating that the pool house is not to be used for over-night habitation, and that the pool house is not to be heated or air-conditioned. A copy of the Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to recording. The Deed Restriction is to be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

3. The pool is to be set back 7 feet from the property line.

4. The air-conditioning units and pool mechanicals are to be screened.




Application#2011-04 – LaMannasquan, LLC. – 709-711 Arnold Avenue – Block 202; Lot 8 – Applicant is requesting to amend conditions from Resolution #2003-29 and #2003-29 (A), specifically fact section 8E. Applicant is also requesting to construct a permanent awning and removable canvas awning on second floor. Applicant is also looking to eliminate approved

Carmine Villani, attorney for applicant revisited original plans and explained the changes. Pleased to introduce the executive chef Mike Jurusz. The Wine Shop will now be replaced with a Raw Bar. The bar is built and the restaurant is close to opening. Essentially looking to amend second floor to allow tables on balcony. The original office will now be a liquor storage room; would also like to install awning on balcony. Applicant would like to clarify seats on second floor. Originally had room set up for one hundred and it was cut down to 50 (fifty) people on second floor at time of approval in 2003. Applicant would like approval for Eighty-nine (89) people to occupy the upstairs floor. Wants to relocate where the garbage is stored. Ray Savacool stated that Resolution 2003-29 limits the upstairs to private parties with any occupancy of 50 people and the balcony can only be used at the time of the private party. The public is not permitted to utilize the balcony. Carmine Villani replied that the upstairs is just for private parties. Mr. Wolfersberger says he remembers that it was fifty (50) people occupancy upstairs. Dennis Galvin inquired if they have had this approved by the governing body because a liquor license is involved. (Yes) Dennis Galvin said if changes are approved it will need to be reapproved by the governing body.

Verity Frizzell, licensed architect and Planner, RA, AIA, credentials accepted. A-3 two page floor revision dated March 17, 2011. Side elevation shows new permanent awning they are requesting over the second floor balcony. Awning will not have signage. Bar will be 11 feet by 8 and seating will remain the same. Bathrooms and elevator have been relocated. Mr. Reilly commented that the drink rails have also been relocated. Seating at first floor bar is limited to thirty (30) seats. All alcohol will be served from either the bar on the first or second floor.

Mike Jurusz, executive Chef for 709 restaurant, sworn, stated that this will be a dining establishment that serves alcool. He said he is considered one of the top chef’s in New Jersey. This will not be a rowdy kid bar; it is a very upscale establishment. Will serve lunch and dinner and he stated he is a first class operator and he will be running a family restaurant. They will be getting oysters from all over the world along with other specialties. The sushi raw bars will be strictly food. A-4 Photos entered. Mike Jurusz is trying to get the Food network to come here to tape a show.

Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer and Planner. Fence and landscaping has not been installed yet. Dumpster enclosure will now open to the South which will make it easier for pickup. Driveway will be restored and resurfaced and the drainage has been addressed. Performance bonds are in place. They will rely on public parking which will provide adequate parking. Carmine Villani state there are 114 spots available in the Public Parking lot. Employees will be encouraged to park in the public parking lot.

Carmine Villani reiterated the importance of the approval for occupancy of 89 people in the upstairs room in the winter.

Joseph Leone Introna – Believes this is a good project. He introduced his good friend Mike Jurusz to Carl LaManna and helped put this project together. He is excited for the project and is here to show his support and believes this will be an asset to Point Pleasant Beach.

Deliberation

Mr. Wolfersberger – Will be glad to see it finally open and becoming a plus. Staff seems very energenic. Satisfied with plan and seating. In favor

Mr. Reynolds – It is a beautiful building. It will help put Point Pleasant Beach on the map. In favor

Mr. Kelly – Very happy with it. I agree I think it is a great idea.

Mr. Reilly – Being a foody I am very enthusiastic about it. I think it will be a great addition to the downtown. In favor
Mr. Ardito – In favor of the proposed use. I believe a raw bar and sushi bar is needed. The fact that you are not asking for additional seats and changing that much from previous Resolution is a plus. I like the testimony given and looking forward to it.

Mr. Renner – Ann Light burn and he planted a tree in front of the restaurant and am looking forward to it opening.

Chairman Struncius – Positive for the town. It has been frustrating and looking forward to its conclusion. Hoping it gets to the next level. The changes are deminimus. In favor



Conditions

1. The applicant is to obtain the authorization of the governing body, if necessary, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

2. The conditions imposed in application 2003-29 shall remain in full force and effect.

3. The site plan is to be revised to reduce the number of seats permitted from 294 sets to 253.

4. All tables and seating within dining room “A” shall remain in place during business hours and shall not be modified to increase bar capacity.

5. Alcohol may be served only from the bar area.

6. No alcohol is to be served at the sushi bar or drink rail areas.

7. There is to be no signage on the temporary awning.

8. The total upstairs occupancy (inside and outside) is not to exceed 89 seats or patrons.


Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2011-04 of Lamannasquan, LLC with conditions

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


Adjourned at 11:06pm


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published April25, 2011 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1199


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