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 4, 2013


The April 4, 2013 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. Spader Mr. Kelly, Chairman Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Davis
Absent: Mr. Wolfersberger, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder and Mr. Shamy
Memorialization of Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-14 of Peggy and William Egerter III with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-15 of Laurie and David D’Amico with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Not voting - Spader

Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve the following added meeting dates:
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None
Approval of the following meeting dates if needed –
May 22nd
June 12th and 26th
July 10th and 24th
August 7th and 21st

#2012-09 - Roman Barsky – Antique Emporium request to change roof top area
Steven A. Pardes, attorney, stated that they have come into an issue with the roof top garden. Paul Barlo, architect, informed the board that the original idea for the roof garden is too heavy for the roof.
The original plan would be 32, 000 pounds of dirt; they are proposing a privacy screen with some (4) 4 or 5 foot high evergreen potted plants.
Spader – Reviewed initially the applicant worked with us, this is an after thought, no problem with it.
Kelly – It is an old roof and there was a question; hope this will be the last change
Reynolds – Seems to be a safety issue; no problems with the change
Ardito – Glad it is being addressed now; looks like a good solution to the problem.
Reilly ‘- Like the original plan but have to be practical and would be in favor of this.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to allow the amendment to the resolution for the roof top garden.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2013-23 – Tom and Mary Surowicz, c/o Kim Surowicz – 146 Ocean Avenue – Block121 Lot 2.02 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new dwelling at the new base flood elevation.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Davis has stepped down from this application.
Steven A. Pardes attorney for applicant Kim Suriwicz. The property has been in the family since 1976, it was an investment property but for the last three years it has been Kim Surowicz full time residence. Robert Burdick, Professional Planner,/Engineer, sworn and credentials accepted. . Proposing 30.3 feet for the height where 20 feet is allowed; home will be built on existing footprint. Proposing two-stories where one story is allowed. Home was originally constructed in 1942; parking for structure is in the rear with access from neighboring property. Additional steps will be added for access to the front door; several variances are required. Bulk variances are all pre-existing conditions. The eve over hangs will be eliminated from the plans and the north wall will be fire rated. Home is located in flood zone “A”. First floor height will be 7.5 feet; Roof pitch will be 9.25 on 12. East and south side of structure abut an open area that is utilized to access neighboring properties. Will be nine (9) feet taller that the home directly north of the site, but that home is below flood elevation.

Mr. Spader inquired why when building a new home that they cannot center it on the lot and then they could have an egress from the sidewalk. Mr. Burdick replied that if they moved the home back it would affect the parking and reduce the size of the home. Mr. Spader said right, it is a 25 foot lot and I guess the answer is that you gave no consideration to centering the home. Robert Burdick stated that centering the home would then have detriment to two homes instead of one.
Ray Savacool questioned if the applicant had tried to purchase additional property (no). Steve Pardes replied that the adjacent vacant property belonged to a number of homes and it is how they access their property.
Steve Ardito questioned is the foundation will comply with the “A” zone. Robert Burdick replied that they will have break away walls with flood vents. Curb height is 4.5 feet and flood elevation is 12. Ray Savacool pointed out that the plans say elevation is 13.7 feet; Bob Burdick said that is an error.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the application says three (3) stories, is it only two stories? (Yes)Mr. Ardito once again asked Robert Burdick to clarify that the applicant would be flood compliant to the “A” zone. (Yes) The base of the structure will be used for storage.
No audience questions of the Engineer
Anthony Guzzo, Professional Architect, sworn, has previously appeared before boards in Rutherford, Clifton, Brick and Lyndhurst, credentials accepted. Anthony Guzzo stated that during final construction the north wall will be fire rated and number of windows reduced. The steeper roof pitch was done to give the home some character instead of just having a large structure. Mr. Kelly commented that it is an awful lot of house and he believes it is a safety issue being so close to the home to the north. Anthony Guzzo stated that he home will maintain the look and feel aesthetically that this plan will work and maintain the footprint. The siding will be made from a new product that is fire resistive; the roof line will maintain an aesthetic visual appeal. The Architect opined that in the event the house was pushed back on the lot to accommodate the front entrance, there would be more of a negative impact on the adjacent property. The entrance stairs would not work with another lay out because of the new flood elevation, he stated it would not be feasible.

Audience Questions/Comments
1. John Janoski, of 144A Ocean Avenue, has lived in his house for the past 38 years. His house is located north east of the applicant’s house and he is concerned that the two-story house will affect the light his home receives and will block his views. Pictures entered – N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5, N6, N7, N8, N-9, N-10 and N-11entered. John Janoski is not entirely against the improvements he is just worried about the height of the home and retaining his view.

2. David Cavagnaro, of 118 Parkway, appreciates the loss of light and the loss of views but feels that raising homes is for the safety and it will become the new normal. He was also more interested in maintaining the parking area located to the rear of the proposed home, so he is not in favor of moving the house back on the lot which may compromise the number of available parking spaces.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to carry application #2013-23 of Tom and Mary Surowicz to April 18, 2013 without notice.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Chairman Reilly
Opposed: None
Steven A. Pardes waived the time that the Board has to act.

Application #2012-25 – Ronald Domm – 812 Walnut Avenue – Block 205; Lot 21 - Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family structure.
Carried without notice from January 17, 2013.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Mr. Davis has rejoined the Board. Steven A. Pardes briefly reviewed prior hearing and the changes that have been made to the plans to address the Board’s and the neighbor’s concerns. The setback on Lincoln has been increased to ten (10) feet. A dormer has been added on the west elevation so it does not look like a big wall. Building coverage has been reduced from 29.4% to 25.8%; Impervious was 37.4% and is now 33.8%. Square footage has been reduced from 1840 square feet to 1610 square footage. Home will be a major improvement to what is presently on the lot. Have done a lot to alleviate the concerns.
Joe Carranante, co –applicant stated that the home will be compliant in height. Habitable attic space will be less than 1/3 of floor below.

Audience Questions/ Comments
1. Jane Hoste, of 808 Walnut Avenue, is concerned that the 10 foot front yard setback still is not sufficient and will have a negative impact on the neighbors.

2. Patricia Zapula, of 806 Walnut Avenue, is concerned that the house will block the line of site and will make it unsafe for people crossing the street. She was informed that the house will actually be set back 20 feet from the curb, although it is only 10 feet from the property line. The Board Engineer confirmed that the house will not impede the site triangle.


1. The applicant must submit a landscape plan showing foundation plantings to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

2. The habitable space on the third floor is not to exceed 500 feet.

3. The final architectural plan is to reflect the plans shown to the Board at the time of April 4, 2013. The Board’s Engineer is to conform that the plans conform.

Spader - Has signed a certification that he has listened to the prior hearing. Things change and from he can see the changes to the plan will give it a nice look. The impact on the neighbors will be small and will be in favor.
Kelly - If the applicant met both setbacks the home would only be 18 feet wide and it would be horrible but they would not need a variance. Thinks this is a wonderful compromise.
Reynolds – Corner lot that has issues; increased to 10 foot setback and does not see any line of site issues. Will be in favor.
Ardito – Agree with most of what has been said; does not see a site line issue and if there was one would not allow it. The appearance of the home from the Lincoln Ave side is softened by the dormer. Would be in favor
Davis – Going to differ with much of what everyone has said. Concerned with large vertical mass. Even moving it back 5 feet I do not find myself embracing this application.
Reilly – I like that it has been attractively designed to reduce the mass and the town engineer does not think there is a site triangle issue. Will be in favor

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2012-25 with conditions of Ronald Domm.

IN FAVOR: Mr. Spader; Mr. Kelly; Mr. Reynolds; Mr. Ardito; Mr. Reilly

OPPOSED: Mr. Davis

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

Published May03, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1592

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