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


May 19, 2011

Minutes

The May 19, 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. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Reynolds Alternates - Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the minutes of the April 7, 2011 meeting.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2010-26 of William and Carolan Ammirata with conditions.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2011-01 Of Bertha Hudak and Patricia Stumpp with conditions.

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


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application 2006-43(2) of Penny Ficociello with conditions.

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


Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to allow Mr. Morrow to give testimony on the reconsideration of his the vote on his application on July 21, 2011.

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

John Jackson waived the time for Robert and Irene Morrow’s Resolution to be memorialized.



Letter – LaMannasquan Re: Driveway and fence amendment - Mr. Palisi was upset with the letter commenting that it makes no sense to put a redwood fence behind a restaurant. Mr. Palisi stated that there are homes behind the restaurant and Carl LaManna should consider that. Ray Savacool replied that the concrete is an upgrade and that they still want to install a board on board fence. Ray Savacool stated that Carl LaManna should have worded the letter more delicately. The board found the changes to be deminimus.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve the administrative changes to resolution #2011-04 LaMannasquan for a concrete driveway in place of asphalt; and a board on board cedar fence instead of a redwood fence.

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





Application #2011-09- Steve Ardito – 929 Bay Avenue – Block 36; Lot 26 – Applicant wishes to construct a six (6) foot fence in the side yard.

Mr. Reilly stepped down from the Ardito application.

Steven Ardito, applicant sworn. Applicant is in need of replacing an existing fence on the southern side of the property. This fence encompasses the dog run and his dogs are a fairly good size and the applicant’s feels this will increase the safety of his property and the neighbor’s. Photos taken at 6:30PM on May 19, 2011, entered as A- 3 and A-4. There are number of children on the neighboring property and a basketball hoop and this will protect the safety of the children. Proposes a 6 foot attractive fence which will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties.

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – Visited the home and nothing happening on the side of either home in that location. In favor

Mr. Spader – It is a safety issue. Would be in favor

Mr. Reynolds - Also went by the home; fence does not pass the front of the home. In favor

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2011-09 of Steven Ardito.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Palisi, Struncius, Reynolds and Kelly
Oppose: None

Application approved



Application # 2010-20 Nicole and Alex Goetchius – 917 Bay Avenue – Block 36; Lot 20 – Applicant would like to convert detached garage into habitable space. (Playroom/office)

Carried without notice from February 3, 2011

Original testimony was reviewed. Alex Goetchius stated that it is basically a playroom; the applicant test cell phones so he can work anywhere. The main home is relatively small and the applicant is looking for more room for his children to play. The room will have heating and air conditioning. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that the garage use has been abandoned (Yes) and that it is located way back in the rear of the property. Mr. Palisi also commented that the location makes it very difficult for the town to enforce the conditions. Dennis Galvin explained the reasoning behind a Deed Restriction and why it would make the board more comfortable to have one in place. Steve Ardito stated that as the children get older the possibility of overnights increase especially if there is a bathroom. Mr. Spader agrees that a bathroom opens up many doors. The board agrees that an updated sketch shall be submitted showing the bathroom being omitted.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Wolfersberger – Concerned with the fact they are approving non-conformity. It is a pretty big space. Gone from livable space to one big room with plug in heater…would not be in favor


Spader – Over the years garages have turned into apartment buildings but in this case the need for family space and the restrictions are in place, would be in favor with restrictions.

Palisi – This is a tough one. It is a slippery slope but does feel comfortable with the deed restrictions and conditions in place.

Reilly – Had concerns also but the applicant made modifications to his application which makes him more comfortable. In favor

Reynolds – Part of the boards’ job is to weigh the good and the bad; the negative and the positive. There is no positive with this application. The kids may be young now but in a few years they will be older and this lends it way to a hang out. The building is located way back on the property and I see a place for trouble to happen.

Ardito – Appreciates the fact the applicant gave up the bathroom and will get a deed restriction. Understands the need for more space; will put trust in the applicant. In favor

Kelly – was concerned with the bathroom and the size of the building. The partitions have been removed and the bathroom removed. Wishes the applicant came before the garage doors were removed and applied for the variance. In favor

Struncius - This is a tricky one; still on the fence. I can see it becoming a hang out. Does believe that it has been restricted enough to make him comfortable. The Deed Restriction and no plumbing help.


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2010-20 of Alex Goetchius with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly and Wolfersberger
Opposed: Reynolds and Kelly

Application approved with conditions




Application #2011-07 – Warren Waxman – 27 Arnold Avenue - Block 99; Lot 9 – Applicant has two principal structures on one lot. Applicant wishes to convert structure that contains three dwelling units to a single family dwelling creating two single family dwellings on one lot.


John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that Warren Waxman is looking to upgrade his property to attract a better type of client. There is also a reduction in the non-conformity by going from four rentals to two rentals. David Hartdorn Professional Architect and Planner. Properties are old; rear home from 1925 and front home circa 1945. Photo Boards marked A-3 and A-4. Homes are in disrepair and in need of an upgrade. Plans depict reversed living. Sunroom will be left the way it is; no balcony is proposed. Mr. Wolfersberger commented that he doesn’t see impervious and building coverage listed. Robert Burdick will address the building coverage. Mr. Ardito inquired if they are 1925 homes and that the roof had been replaced in the last year and they are replacing the plumbing and wiring wants to know if the applicant is elevating the home to be flood compliant. (No) Mr. Ardito has problems with the bedrooms being five feet below flood elevation. The applicants architect stated that they are going to side the front home also so they match.

Robert Burdick, Professional Planner/Engineer, sworn. Property located in the RR2 zone with two residences. This property has two homes but will be reduce number of residential units from four to two. Proposed use will lessen the intensity of the property. Both structures are pre-existing non-conformities. There will be a significant aesthetic improvement of this site. There will be a 0.8% increase for the covered entry bringing building coverage to 32.3%; all of the other bulk variances were pre-existing. They believe that the improvements will not be a substantial improvement which would require flood elevation compliance. This use appears to be consistence with the other uses in the area. Mr. Wolfersberger was not pleased that the application did not match what Robert Burdick was saying. John Jackson explained that Robert Burdick was brought in late and the application had already been submitted, but his calculations are the correct ones.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant, Warren Waxman, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant has other rental properties in the Borough. The reason he proposes to improve these structures is to cater to a class of individuals that respect the property creating a good environment for the surrounding neighbors.

B. There will not be any parking allowed in the side yard.

C. The applicant will submit a landscape plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

D. The applicant proposes to remove the asphalt parking lot and will put stone down which will help with storm water drainage.

E. The applicant will install a fence to limit parking. He will not allow his tenants to park in the front yard and will limit the number of cars in the rear parking area to 8 cars at most.

2. The Board finds that the change of use from the three-unit apartment to a one-unit apartment will be a benefit to the community because it will decrease the intensity of the existing use.

3. The Board finds that bringing both homes into code compliance benefits the community.

4. The Board determined that the parking will be better regulated and upgraded which will be a benefit to the community.

5. The Board found that the improvements to the structures will have a positive influence on the community.

6. Board found the removed asphalt will reduce storm water runoff which will benefit the neighborhood.

7. The Board accepts the Planner’s contention that this property has been successfully operating as a multi-family use for a long time and has proven that it does not upset the Zoning Ordinance or Master Plan.

8. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal and will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners.

9. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger - My difficulty is replacing a non-conformity with a non-conformity. A landscaping plan is being submitted to correct the parking.

Mr. Spader- To be consistent I have always found it a good opportunity for Point Pleasant Beach to get something back. The fact that we are going from four (4) rental units to two (20 is a plus).

Mr. Palisi – Clearly it is an aesthetic upgrade and the buildings are being brought up to code. The rental units are being decreased. The applicant is going to clean up the parking on the front lawn. Cannot find a negative; In favor



Mr. Reilly – the only concern I have is the one Mr. Ardito pointed out, you have residents sleeping below flood elevation. Leaning towards supporting this application.

Mr. Reynolds – the positives far outweigh the negatives. It hasn’t floated away yet; in favor of the upgrades. Applicant has done a nice job. In favor

Mr. Ardito – The positives far outweigh the negatives. The intensity is being reduced, it is all good. In favor

Mr. Kelly – Pleased to see the rental units being reduced. Likes the plan; in favor





Conditions

1. The applicant is to submit a landscape/parking plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

2. The plan is to be revised to show the replacement of the asphalt driveway with stone to improve drainage.

3. No cars are to be parked in the front yard.

4. The Board granted this approval based upon the applicant’s agreement to abandon its right to use 2 of the 4 units.

5. The siding on the front and back homes are to match.

6. The applicant is to upgrade both homes to code.


Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2011-07 of Warren Waxman with conditions

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


Meeting adjourned at 9:55pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills


Published June17, 2011 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1218


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