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

July 19, 2012


The July 19, 2012 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Ardito and Renner
Absent: Wolfersberger, Reynolds and Loder

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to approve and memorialize the minutes from June 19th, 2012 meeting.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius and Renner
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2012-09 of Roman Barsky with conditions. This application was bifurcated and this approval is for the “use” portion of the application.
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Ardito and Renner
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader, to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2012-12 of Stephen Roma with conditions
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly and Renner
Opposed: None

Application - #2012-13 Tammie Boydell – Block 32; Lot 11 – Applicant wishes to construct an open deck to existing single family dwelling bring building coverage to 36.7%.
Applicant requesting to be carried without notice due to a conflict

Application #2012-14 – Vincent Cina – 157 Baltimore Avenue – Block 146 Lot – 4; Applicant wishes to construct a single car detached garage.

Vincent J. Cina, applicant, sworn. Gary Siegel, architect and Professional Planner, sworn. Gary Siegel has appeared before boards in Tenafly, Cresskill and Mooresville, credentials accepted. The applicant is proposing to build a one car garage. Built home a few years ago and has now decided he would like a garage for the security of the car and for storage. The existing shed will be removed. Mr. Renner inquired if the big old tree would be removed. (Yes)Vincent Cina stated that the garage would be en (10) feet away from the rear of the home. Pete Renner inquired the size of the home at the time of renovation (29.8%) Pete Renner stated that at the time of construction of the home that room for the garage could have been left.
Gary Siegel went over his thoughts behind the design of the garage and reasons why it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Bill Reilly inquired how he decided on the size of the garage. Gary Siegel replied that he went with the size that would allow the doors of the car to be opened and give some room for storage. Ray Savacool questioned why the garage needs a height variance. Vincent Cina replied that the height is measured from the curb, the garage is actually only fifteen (15) feet in height but when measured from the curb it measures eighteen (18) feet tall with the berm. Gary Siegel stated that if the pitch of the roof is lowered it will look almost flat. Exhibit A-3 entered – rendering of garage. Dennis Galvin stated the Board’s concern is that people design their homes utilizing the full 30% building coverage for the home and then come back later requesting additional coverage for the garages. Mr. Kelly inquired if the applicant would have trouble removing concrete walkway on north side of dwelling in its entirety and replace with pavers. (No-he would replace with pavers))
No audience questions/comments


Mr. Spader – Complimented the homes upgrade, and would be supportive of a 15 by 10 feet garage.
Mr. Kelly - 50 by 100 feet is the smallest size lot in town. The new home is wonderful; there are no neighbors here to oppose it. No problem with this application; I believe it will be an asset to the area.
Mr. Reilly – This is 20% over the allowable building coverage; I have to go back and ask myself if I would of allowed this if it had been included in the original application for the home. The answer I have to say would have been no; unless I am convinced otherwise I will be voting against it.
Mr. Ardito – Also having concerns about building coverage. I can see the usefulness to you, not really a hardship; I am glad that Lee bought up the concrete walk to gain some impervious coverage, it will add to recharge. I am having a hard time with this one, not sure how I am voting.
Mr. Renner – Also struggles with 20%, see that as a very large number. I understand why you want a garage but I am not in favor.
Chairman Struncius – I am struggling with it being over 35% now. Unfortunately I am struggling with the plan view. The home works now because of the air and space around it. The plan seems forced into the space. A larger shed might help you for storage; it is just pushing too much for this zone.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2012-14 of Vincent Cina with conditions
In favor: Spader and Kelly
Opposed: Reilly, Struncius, Ardito and Renner
Application denied

Application #2012-17 – Edwin Goodale – 301 Central Avenue – Block107; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new single family dwelling with a detached garage.
Edwin Goodale, applicant sworn., Christopher Dougherty, architect, sworn stated that the applicant wishes to build a new three bedroom home with detached garage. The home is conforming except for the fact that it is a corner lot with two frontages. The applicant is seeking relief on the Chicago Avenue frontage. The new home has 2,876 square feet of living space. Ray Savacool inquired about the attic and informed the applicant that he is only allowed one third of the second floor in square footage of habitable living space in the attic or it would be considered a third floor. The applicant and architect do not have a clear answer at this time and are directed to clarify the answer. Mr. Reilly wants a definite answer or will consider it a three story home. The applicant is directed to redesign the attic to comply with the ordinance and resubmit prior to the memorialization of the resolution if application is approved. The applicant stated that he wants to comply with the ordinance and will make sure that the plans reflect that at the next meeting and will also submit a landscaping plan. Mr. Ardito inquired how much foundation would be showing above grade (4 feet). Ray Savacool stated that foundation plantings would be required per ordinance Mr. Renner confirmed the number of trees. (2 at 2 ½ inch caliper)Home will be sided with hardy plank. Mr. Ardito asked for clarification of the requested variances. Ray Savacool stated that there are two variances – a front yard setback variance on Chicago for the home and a variance for the accessory garage of 22 foot setback where 25 feet is required.
No audience questions/comments.

1. The garage is not to have any heating or plumbing and is not to be used for habitation.
2. The applicant is to redesign the architectural plan to ensure that the attic is limited to comply with the ordinance.
3. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan.
4. The home and garage are to be built as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.
5. The building is to have hardy planked siding or equivalent.

Mr. Spader – Is excited about the proposal. I believe it will assist the housing stock of Point Pleasant Beach. I would be in favor of proposal with conditions.
Mr. Kelly – I would like to see some tasteful landscaping it will soften that billboard look.
Mr. Reilly – I think this will be a significant improvement and what you are asking for is deminimus. I would caution you to make sure that the attic is not construed as a third story; we will need all the data on that. Will be in favor.
Mr. Ardito – Believes the new house is a positive for the community. The new home will be up to code and meet flood requirements. Thinks the plan is very good. What the applicant is asking for is deminimus and the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Mr. Renner - Also is in favor.
Chairman Struncius – It was only a matter of time before someone came in and upgraded this home. There has been some transformation in this area. The corner lot has hardships and you are only asking for setback relief. In favor.
Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application 2012-17 of Edwin Goodale with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Ardito and Renner.
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published August28, 2012 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1432

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