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


December 6, 2012

Minutes

The December 6, 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, Reilly, Kelly, Struncius, Ardito and Reynolds Alternates: Loder and Davis
Absent: Wolfersberger, Renner and Shamy
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the
November 29, 2012 BOA minutes
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed: None
Application #2012-15 – Mario Simione – Block 70; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to construct a new family dwelling with building coverage at 45.67%
Carried without notice from November 29, 2012
John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant has taken the comments from the board to heart and it is reflected in the new submission which has reduced many variances. Robert Englert, applicants professional architect, stated they have reduced the height, building coverage and setbacks of the structure. They have completely removed the roof terrace and any elevated amenity space that faced an adjoining yard. There is now a two-story building where the second story is totally enclosed by the roof. The finished first floor has been lowered by three feet. Redesigned the entire first floor and relocated the garage at the first floor level. Reduced the habitable floor area by355.83 square feet; Exhibit A15 – revised first floor plan. The height of the home now complies at 35 feet. The floors have been lowered and the roof has been lowered which reduces the attic space. Exhibit A-16 - The revised second floor plan. Exhibit A-17 – Habitable attic space is 445 square foot space. The mechanicals will be located in the attic crawl space where the ceiling is three feet at best. First floor will be 1,285.3 square feet of habitable space. Width of home and porch has been reduced. Outdoor space has been reduced to 10 foot width with 6 foot porch. The swimming pool is now compliant and pool equipment has been moved away from the adjoining property line. Building coverage is 36.75% with 7% being open porch. Impervious coverage now complies at 46.54%. This is a turnkey home. The porches add aesthetic appeal and value. A-15 - front elevation A-11 gives view of former submission. Gross living space in home is 3,087 square feet with 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and 3 closets.

Audience questions
Victor Deluca – raising a procedural question - The notice letter received on November 15, 2012 stated they were requesting 8 variances and now they are only requesting 3 variances. Dennis Galvin feels the notice was adequate because there is less variance then originally requested.
Patty McAdams – 301 Trenton Avenue – confused because there are so many feet required to build. Wants to know if the applicant was aware of the building requirements? Dennis Galvin stated the comments come later in the meeting that we are now just asking question of the professional’s testimony. She asked for clarification on the now required variances and Dennis Galvin provided them.

William Stevens, Professional Engineer and Planner, sworn, credentials accepted. Are Bill Stevens reviewed the three (3) variances that are now being requested; 26.67 feet to stairs in rear setback where 30 feet is required; 12 foot setback on Chicago frontage where 25 feet is required and 36.67% building coverage where 30% is required (7% is open porch). This is a unique piece of property with having the lake views on the Chicago frontage; Believes that the front elevation makes it aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Ardito inquired if the area under the porch is pervious? Right now it is a concrete slab. Mr. Ardito inquired if it can be changed to pervious coverage so the water can recharge. (yes) Mr. Savacool inquired what the decking is made of. The applicant agreed to have decking so the water can pass through and recharge.
Audience questions of Engineer/none
Audience comments

Robert Sabosik , 1415 Rue Mirador, Point Pleasant – Is here because he knows Mario Simione for a long time. He has a great history and will be a great asset to this town.
Victor Deluca, 306 Trenton Ave – Clearly last time I had objections, but clearly this is a more reasonable plan. I am in favor of this design and have no objections.
George Kipel, 307 Trenton Ave – our original concerns have been addressed and now I am in favor of this application. It is a beautiful home.

Deliberations
Spader - You come in with something overblown and them you come back and reduce it but still ask for more. It is a new home; you should be able to comply with the 30%. Right now I would like to say no, but will listen to the other board members.
Kelly – Would like to commend the architect; I like the plan and the location. Neighbor’s from 302 and 306 Trenton are here and are in favor of the plan.
Reilly - Would have voted against the original proposal; would like to commend the architect for listening to the board. Willing to go along with this the way it is.
Reynolds – always appreciative when an applicant listens to our concerns and come back with changes. I was concerned about the wall. It is still a little bit big for that neighborhood but it is a beautiful home. Happy with what I see.
Ardito – Aesthetically it is one of the more pleasing homes I have seen in awhile. The porch is what is putting you over the 30%; I don’t see any detriment to that. You worked with us to ease the overage with the pervious coverage. The other variances basically deal with steps and believe that is deminimus and having the neighbors say what they said does resonate with the board. I probably will be voting for this.
Loder – Likes the design as well. The fact that the porch is 7% and that you reduced the scope of the project I will be in favor also.
Davis - Reviewed previous audio and it does appear that there has been a great deal of effort to reduce the project. Where is the hardship? It is a corner lot and creates problems architecturally; that question remains a little unresolved. Has one question - this lot floods frequently – Where does the water go? Ray Savacool commented that the water flows easterly, Mr. Stevens will have to provide the roof runoff to be piped to an infiltration area, but that would be hard to do, but it will have to be piped to the street. (Either Chicago or Trenton)
Chairman Struncius - a tremendous amount of change; that is a first time that an applicant came back and addressed each board members concerns. You listened to what we said and made adjustments. The hardship is the architectural challenges and the corner lot. If the porches were not there it is a livable home but we get an aesthetic balance with the added on amenities. I can come to terms on how the equation fits. Likes the 35 dropped ridge line down to 32; it takes out the boxy feel.

Motion by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2012-15 of Mario Simione with conditions, second by Mr. Ardito
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions



Conditions
1. The area under the first floor deck will be comprised of pervious material and the floor of the deck will be designed to provide open planking which will permit the water to recharge. The board found this condition significant to their decision to grant the building coverage in this case.
2. Landscaping plan to be provided to the Board Engineer.


Application#2012-23 – Garrett Vermaas – 205 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 31; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to construct a new 2 story 18’5” by 16’ 4” addition to existing single family dwelling.
Garrett J. Vermaas, applicant sworn, stated that they would like to put an addition on their home because their son visits and they will need room to sleep 10 more people. Some confusion over calculations, Ray Savacool clarified that building coverage would be 39.5%. Dennis Galvin explained that these are high numbers; is there something that the applicant could do to reduce the coverage. The driveway is 6 inches of reinforced concrete. Applicant’s stated that he has a cathedral ceiling and that he could build up and make a two-story home. Dennis Galvin stated that there are quite a few pre-existing conditions so they would need to come before the board with any improvement but in would improve his chances if building coverage is not increased. Ray Savacool stated that if he does not go out of the foot print he would not have to come back before the board.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2012-23 of Garrett J. Vermaas to March 21, 2013 without notice.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None
Application #2012-25 – Ronald Domm – 812 Walnut Street – Block 205; Lot 21 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new family dwelling.

Application to be carried to January 17th with notice


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
Meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm


Published January28, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1508


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