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


September 15, 2011

Minutes

The September 15, 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 Alternate: Mr. Ardito

Absent: Palisi, Renner and Loder

Memorialization of September 1, 2011 minutes

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to nominate Jim Wolfersberger as acting Chairman.

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of September 1, 2011

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

Letter to amend Resolution #2010-01 of Debra and Kerry Ohlinger

Letter dated September 14, 2011; Applicants had agreed to install a six (6) foot fence at the time of the variance application. They now realized that a four foot fence is allowed and they already have a four (4) foot fence and would like to keep it. Mr. Reilly recollects that a neighbor requested a six foot fence. The Ohlinger’s stated that the neighbor had requested it because the neighbor has a large dog. The Ohlinger’s do not have a dog and now would only like a four foot fence. Dennis Galvin requested the Ohlingers send a certified letter to the neighbor that requested the fence and we will hear their request at the next meeting. Mr. Reynolds recollects there being a long discussion about the fence. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired of the board would you of approved this application without the six foot fence? This matter will be heard again on October 6, 2011. Notification of the neighbor (Danny DePolo) is required.


Application#2011-15 – Russell and Robin Simon – 808 Atlantic Avenue – Block 55; Lot 10.05 – Applicant wishes to enclose an existing porch and construct a new porch.

Dennis Galvin has recused himself due to a conflict and Michael V. Elward, Esq. will be the Board Conflict Counsel on this application
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Russ Simon, applicant, sworn, stated that the porch will be enclosed to enlarge the kitchen and breakfast area. Photographs marked as Exhibits A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. The photos showed that the neighboring properties will not be affected by this addition which is 18 by 19 ½ feet wide. Neighboring views will not be obstructed due to the fact that this is a flag lot and this is the interior lot. Proposed porch will not affect the neighbor’s privacy and will be aesthetically attractive.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – small change and due to the location there are no frontage issues. It is below in building coverage, would be in favor.

Mr. Spader – I like it. I think it fits the neighborhood. In favor

Mr. Kelly – No problem with it.

Mr. Reilly – It is a no brainer, sort of a technicality, doesn’t fit the situation. In favor

Mr. Reynolds – Change is deminimus, does not affect anything, in favor.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2011-15 of Russell and Robin Simon with conditions.

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

Application approved

Application #2011-11 – Matthew Rega – 337 Curtis Avenue – Block 92; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to construct a 7 foot by 36 foot open porch to existing family dwelling

Matt Rega, Applicant sworn explained to the Board that his small front porch leaks and he wishes to replace it with a bigger front porch that he and his wife can sit on. The only concerns the board had was the excessive existing impervious coverage. Rick Tinao, builder, sworn stated that he could bring the impervious coverage into compliance. The Board instructed the applicant to make a good attempt at removing some of the concrete and to present it at the next meeting.

Motion by second by to carry application #2011-11 of Mathew Rega to October 5, 2011 without notice.

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


Application #2011-13 – Tom Cicalese – 109 St. Louis – Block 156; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to construct a 6 foot by 36 foot front porch.

Tom Cicalese, applicant, sworn. Rocco De Santis, builder for applicant, sworn. Applicant looking to build 7 foot by 36 foot porch. Impervious coverage is 74.6%. Dennis Galvin inquired how the applicant is going to reduce the impervious coverage. Jim Wolfersberger inquired if the size of the porch can be reduced. Ray Savacool stated that if the porch is seven (7) feet wide that it will also require a front yard variance. Mr. Reilly stated that the steps will increase the variance. Chairman Struncius stated that the porch will help aesthetically. Mr. Ardito stated it is more of an elevated slab; the porch will be 18 inches high. Chairman Struncius commented that the stairs could be recessed to reduce the setback variance. Mr. Kelly has a major concern about the impervious coverage and was wondering how they received permission for the existing coverage. Rocco DeSantis stated that the home originally had all concrete in the rear and it was changed to pavers. Mr. Ardito commented that the property is void of landscaping and that it needs to be addressed. Chairman Struncius questioned the impervious calculations and believes that the number should be much lower if the rear is all pavers. Ray Savacool recalculated the coverage and found that the impervious coverage is actually closer to 52% range that if the driveway came out and they put in eco pavers it would balance out. Chairman Struncius commented that if the driveway came out and was replaced with pavers it would balance out but if they put in stone it would be closer to 50%. Tom Cicalese stated that he needs the seven foot width so that his mother has room to walk. Dennis Galvin stated that we should have exact figures from the applicant and some form of landscape plan. Mr. Ardito suggested they reduce the length of the porch to help with impervious coverage. Mr. Reynolds stated that he would rather see pavers in the driveway instead of the gravel. Dennis Galvin directed the applicant to think about what they want and submit an updated plan and calculations prior to the next meeting.

Motion by second by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2011-13 to October 6, 2011 without notice

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



Application #2011-08 – Dominick Chirichella – 303 Atlantic Avenue – Applicant wishes to construct a two story addition to existing family dwelling.

Carried without notice from July 21, 2001 meeting

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Steven Lido, architect stated that the home has been reduced by 124 square feet and an existing side porch (220 square feet) removed. Gross reduction of 354 square feet bringing building coverage to 35.9%; reduced bedrooms to 7 and made eighth bedroom an office. Maintained proposal of three new bedrooms and two new baths; Adding open porch above existing front porch. Mr. Spader’ concern is the front of the home is already very close to the street. Ray Savacool stated the added porch will aggravate the already existing variance. Mr. Wolfersberger is not satisfied with the minimal reduction. The office could easily be turned back into a bedroom.

Steve Pardes stated the home has been in the family for years. He understands the Board’s concern if the home is ever sold and it is utilized as a rental unit with eight bedrooms. Mr. Chirichella does work out of the home and needs and office which gives the plan credibility.
Lee Kelly commented when he went by the home he noticed air conditioners in the attic windows and wanted to know if anyone lived up there? (No)

Salvatore Unek, applicant’s son-in-law sworn, explained to Chairman Struncius what is depicted in the aerial view of the rear of the property. A-7 – First and second floor plan Mr. Ardito inquired about the improvements in regard to the Flood Management Regulations.

No audience comments/questions

Mr. Wolfersberger asked for clarification on a few issues; The second floor porch, building coverage of 37% and front yard setback.


Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – Obviously as I said it is very attractive but 37% is excessive, the property is not that large. At what point do we say what enough coverage is? It is 30% and I will not be in favor of this application.

Mr. Spader – I need to stand of my previous decisions regarding coverage. A little bit here and a little bit there but 37% is too much. It looks nice on paper but do not believe that it fots the neighborhood.

Mr. Kelly – My concern in Point Pleasant Beach is density. We are receiving applications with seven and eight bedrooms where parking is extremely difficult. As a fireman I have a concern with four bedrooms in the back with the stairway in front. It is a safety issue. It is an attractive home, I would be sorry to see the side porch go. The home would be sixty-nine feet long; I think the home is too massive for the lot.

Mr. Reilly – I will start with what I like; I like the architecture and the work. I like the idea the family has been here a long time. I cannot ignore the excessive coverage and massing. I cannot ignore something that is 20% over what is allowed.

Mr. Reynolds – Is still on the fence. Putting the porch on the second story does make it look like New Orleans.

Mr. Ardito – Without a doubt it is an attractive home. The building coverage is excessive; lack of the setback in the front is a concern. Would have a difficult time being in favor.

Chairman Struncius – I have looked favorably on applications that were over 30% if it is the right approach. I believe that this is an over use of the lot. Eight bedrooms in the home creates a massing. It is just an over build and an over use.



Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to deny application #2011-08 of Domenick Chirichella.

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


Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published November21, 2011 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1281


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