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


April 7, 2011

Minutes

The April 7, 2011 Special 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. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds Alternates: Mr. Ardito, Mr. Renner and Mr. Loder

Absent: Mr. Wolfersberger and Mr. Renner

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of the February 3, 2011 meeting.

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of the February 17, 2011 meeting.

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

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of the March3, 2011 meeting.

In favor: Kelly, Struncius and Ardito
Opposed: None


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2010-30 of Tom and Cecilia Pallaria with conditions.

In favor: Kelly, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-25 of Mary Ann Wallace with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2011-04 of Lammanasquan with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2010-31 of Mike and Donna Iuliano with conditions.

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

Applicant carried without notice from February 17, 2011

John Jackson attorney for applicant. John Jackson stated that the applicant has made significant changes to the plans. Applicant stated that they have revised plans to have 6 bedrooms, reduced from 8, outside stairway has been removed, and deck has been removed from rear garage and changed to a 6 foot by 6 foot landing. A bump out has been removed from kitchen to bring building coverage to 30.5% coverage. John Jackson sated that the applicant has owned the home for 35 years and has never has any complaints. They are looking to upgrade the home.

Mr. Spader has an issue with the two rentals still remaining a possibility. He would like the property to only have one CO.

Deliberations

Mr. Spader – believes there should be a restriction to one
Certificate of Occupancy on the property.

Mr. Kelly – Has a problem with existing home and the number of bedrooms. He is unsure how empty space will be utilized.

Mr. Reilly – Appreciates how the applicant has tried to address the concerns of the board as raised, however has a problem with both buildings being rented.

Mr. Reynolds – Applicant has made appropriate changes, with the economy the way it is I do not think we should restrict the ability to rent. In favor

Mr. Ardito – Applicant has addressed issues that have been raised, two rentals may bother me but the upgrades and a history of no complains would be in favor.

Mr. Renner – A little concerned about the two rentals but would be in favor.

Mr. Struncius – The location has a great deal to do with this. It is in a commercial area and is amongst a similar situation. Will not say no because of the rentals. Applicant has worked with the board and made many changes and cut back in bedrooms and building coverage.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2010-05 of Robert Morrow with conditions, second by Mr. Ardito

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

Application denied





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.

Applicant carried without notice from February 17, 2011

Jerry Dasti, attorney for objector William Reilly presented his summation.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant presented his summation.

Conditions

1. The building height is not to exceed 21 feet 11 inches and the applicant is to submit an as built elevation survey confirming the exact height.

2. The home is to be constructed with materials as shown and described to the Board at the time of its meeting of January 20, 2011.

3. The plan is to be revised to limit the number of windows on the north side of the second floor to three (3) windows.

4. The applicant is to record a landscape easement requiring the applicant and all future owners to maintain the landscape strip as shown on Exhibit A-14. The easement shall also codify the planting plan setting forth the types and sizes of plants to be used and which the owner will replace if damaged or destroyed. The Board Engineer is to confirm the planting plan. The easement itself is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney. The easement once approved must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Deliberations


Mr. Spader – This is always tough in the 4th district because there are not two properties the same. People that live in the area understand that it is going to be close. Bottom line that the applicant is allowed to use their property. This will be an improvement to the neighborhood. They will be putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into the property and will be careful who they rent to.

Mr. Kelly – I wondered why that home is so far back and why something had not been done sooner. Has a real problem with a home four feet from the adjoining home. As a fire fighter he has seen homes destroyed because they cannot access it. Not decided

Mr. Palisi – Born and raised here and the family piece is important to him. Applicant has done a beautiful job planning the home. The present home is strange. On the fence; most likely going to attract visitors that we would like to have.

Mr. Reynolds – Taking a situation where we have a small older home and getting a home with fire proof siding and the setbacks will be improved. The new building will be up to code and creating off road parking. Believes that even as a rental a new home will attract a better clientele; Sees a lot of benefit to it. No problem with the home whatsoever. Applicant put a real effort considering their neighbors.

Mr. Ardito – The Board members have stated most of his feelings. Trying to balance his decision between the neighbor’s quality of life and the applicant’s rights to utilize their property. Concerned with the special needs neighbor in the rear and the applicant has taken the time to address the neighbors needs. Believes this plan addresses the needs of the area. Pleased at how honest the applicant is. The fact that it is a better building and up to date to code and flood codes. In favor

Mr. Renner – struggles with this application. The plans do not meet what he thinks is the beach/bungalow zone. I think it is going to increase density where density is already and issue.

Chairman Struncius – When you say this area is for a bungalow home you look to the north and south and the homes are similar to this. It has aesthetic value. The home to the South is also close to the property line; they are adding parking where there is none. The applicant has added buffers; it is a definite win. The applicant has made every accommodation to ensure your neighbor’s view; it fits in the zone with the current homes. I like some of the improvements with the newer homes. The applicant could have jammed a 15 wide foot home right up to the board walk; the application gave the board control.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2009-19 of Sandra Napoletano with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Palisi, Struncius, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Kelly and Renner

Application approved with conditions








Application #2011-01 – Bertha Hudak & Patricia Stump – 227 Baltimore Avenue – bock 103; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to construct a 12’ by 18’ deck.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Bertha Hudak applicant sworn. Home has been being built for three years. First builder left applicant in a lurch with many problems. Applicant thought she had a deck approved and now has found out that it wasn’t. Applicant is looking for a rear setback variance, building coverage of 34.05% and a shed for storage. Pictures of home entered as exhibit A - 3; taken this week by applicant. The deck will be open and located on the second floor off of the bedroom over the patio.

Deliberations

Mr. Spader – I think the concession of giving up the shed that the deck being 12 feet by 18 feet is consistent with the patio underneath and not have a problem with it.

Mr. Palisi – Consideration of taking away the shed and the consistency with the patio I do not have any problem with it.

Mr. Reilly – Does not count as full building coverage due to the deck underneath. In favor

Reynolds – In favor

Mr. Ardito – Elimination of shed; deck will be open and it is located over pavers. Aesthetically will complete the home. In favor

Mr. Renner – In favor

Conditions

1. Applicant is to eliminate the shed from the plans.
2. Home and deck are not to exceed 32.8% building coverage.


Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2011-01 of Bertha Hudak with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito

Application approved with conditions



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.

The board is concerned about this issue not being addressed. They feel it is important to see a site plans and know future plans for the property.

Mr. Reynolds made a motion to carry application #2009-17 to June 16th 2011 with notice with the condition that nothing is outside except for what is permitted by ordinance until the application is heard, second by Mr. Spader.

Dennis Galvin will send a letter to the applicant’ attorney and the board secretary will contact the Zoning Officer and let her know of the Board’s decision.

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

Application#2006-43A – Penny and Fred Ficociello – 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

John Jackson attorney for applicant. Bob Burdick’s revised plan calculation’s was inaccurate and impervious is 56%, not 63.4 %( the pool had been counted twice). John Jackson believes that the property is nice and would like the board to consider approving the 56%. The driveway is stamped concrete and the lot is located next to the railroad tracks. The pool is technically a catch basin. The lot does not look over developed. Mr. Kelly’s concern is how long it has taken the applicant to respond to the letters from the Zoning Officer. The applicant apologized for not responding quicker. Mr. Renner’s concern is drainage. The applicant stated that she does not have any drainage problems.

Deliberations

Mr. Spader – The location has a lot to do with it and the stamped driveway looks better than stones. As much as I would like to see it taken up I will vote for forgiveness.

Mr. Kelly – Would not like the driveway to be removed either.

Mr. Reilly - I do not see evidence that there is a runoff problem. I would be in favor.

Mr. Reynolds – Concerned about how this came about. Not concerned with runoff, the pool is a catch basin. I think it looks good.

Mr. Ardito - The pool doesn’t concern me. It is a very nice driveway. Do not want to penalize the applicant for the mistakes of the contractor and will be in favor.

Mr. Renner – Happens to like stone. We live in a very vulnerable area and we are creating runoff every day. I do not think it is that beautiful. Will not be in favor.

Chairman Struncius – I am doing the balancing act. The pool does act as a catch basin.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2006-43 (2) with conditions –

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






Meeting adjourned at 10:47pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published May20, 2011 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1209


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