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 10, 2013


The April 10, 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 Struncius (arrived for second application) ,Bill Reilly, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis
Absent: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Renner, and Mr. Shamy

Motion by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of the March 7, 2013 meeting, second by Mr. Kelly
In favor - Kelly, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2012-30 – Morgan McLachlan – 1810 Beacon lane- Block 10; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new single family dwelling, cabana and in-ground pool.
Carried from February 21, 2013 with notice

John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the application has been revised. Mr. McLachlan is an insurance broker who knows the devastation that has occurred and how important it is to have a flood compliant home. Mike Melillo, Professional architect, sworn, has been before boards in Point Pleasant, Bay Head and Mantoloking, credentials accepted. He has designed a home that looks like it has been there for 40 or 50 years. Overall height of the home is 31 feet 10 inches. Home was designed before the storm. After the storm they decided to comply with “V” zone requirements. Shingle style home with metal roof finishing. The home is a classic shore home that is appropriate for the location. Home would comply if not for the new flood requirements; home is located on a corner. A-3 entered – aerial photo of area A – 4 Photo of area homes. Roof peak of new home will be at elevation 46.83 feet from sea level; from grade in front of home will be40 feet five inches. Mike Melillo believes this is a good height for the home considering where it is located and that the “V” zone is within 30 feet of the applicant’s home. Mike Melillo believes that you should build as high as you can with being sensitive to the area. He does not understand why they left this little strip of land an “A” zone when it is surrounded by “V” zone. The lower floor will be enclosed by lattice and will be un- habitable. Exhibits A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 photos entered - Depicted homes in the neighborhood. John Jackson addressed Ray Savacool’s engineering letter. Ray Savacool stated that habitable attic space is marginally over the allowable square footage; Mike Melillo responded that they would comply with the habitable attic space requirements. . Impervious coverage will also comply by reducing the paving. Ceiling heights are 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second. Home has a total of four (4) bedrooms, building height is 41.5 feet. Exhibit A -10 – Photo of property across the street. (7 Eleven lot) Benefits outweigh the detriments – aesthetic upgrade, new home built to code and flood compliant. Mr. Spader questioned the lower level having lattice on three sides and then the front being a wall. Mr. Spader was concerned with mold and moisture problems. Mike Melillo said they will use spray foam insulation and that he has not thought that far ahead. John Jackson said they will have a garage door with windows; home will be “V” zone compliant. John Jackson thought the enclosed front with stone had more curb appeal but will do whatever the board wants; the applicants concern is the height, they do not care what happens below.
Lisa McGraff, 1513 Beacon Lane – Questioned the crawl space.

Morgan McLachlan, applicant, sworn, stated that he is trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood while building to the “V” zone. They have four vehicles on average and now they will be able to take those vehicles off the street. Exhibits A-11, A-12 and A-13 – photos depicting devastation of surrounding homes.

Summary – John Jackson


1. Construction will be “V” zone compliant
2. Landscaping plan to be submitted to Board Engineer for his approval
3. Impervious coverage is to be under 50%
4. Habitable attic space is to be 30% or lower
5. Hydrostatic relief valves will be provided
6. Lower floor space is never to be habitable


Spader - Thinks the applicant is putting forth an attractive home but still concerned about the height. The fact that steps were taken to be under 30% and the aesthetics will be in favor.
Kelly – Commend the architect on his presentation. You need a 9 foot ceiling with the open floor plan. Building new home and in the event of a surge the “V” zone construction will be safer. In favor
Ardito – Thanked the applicant for coming back prepared; very good presentation. Aesthetics are wonderful and appreciate that the roof line has been broken up with gables. The first gable is at 35 feet; does not appear to be a 41 foot tall home. The logic was a little fuzzy but understands why you want to build to “V” zone standards. You are batting a thousand – affordable home and a marketable structure. It is a reasonably sized home, not massive and it fits in the neighborhood and there is no detriment to light and air. Will be in favor
Loder - Mr. Ardito hit all the selling points. Safety and a nice home – will be in favor
Davis - Mr. Ardito hit most of the points – When you see a request so much higher than required; it is not reaching for coverage and it hits all of the points that we want and is consistent with the neighborhood.
Chairman Reilly - Also has concerns about the height but there are reasonable reasons. The home fits the neighborhood and not creating any problems with light, air and privacy. Will be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2012-30 of Morgan McLachlan with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Chairman Reilly, Ardito, Loder and Davis
Opposed- None

Application #2013-11 – David Barra – 126 Ocean Avenue – Block 121 ; Lot 9.02 – Applicant wishes to raise the existing two family dwelling to the new base flood elevation. Applicant also wishes to alter the roof to create habitable attic space

Davis Barra applicant and home owner, sworn. Home was devastated by Super Storm Sandy. Takes a great deal of pride in home and feels tied to the community and feels responsible to build the home to compliance. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer and Planner, credentials accepted. Robert Burdick stated that the home has been a two-family for several years. The home has several existing bulk variances that will continue with the new home, the new plan will be built over exiting building foot print. Use variances are required for the building height of 34.5 feet. Home was constructed in 1945, and the applicant has owned the home since 1999. A use variance is requested of a expansion of a non-conforming use of a two-family home. The new structure will provide parking which will add height to the home. First floor elevation will be 13.6 above flood elevation or 8.2 above the curb. The curb in front of the home is 5.4 feet; 17.5 feet to top of second floor.
The property has no off street parking and is surrounded by fully developed lots. The new structure will provide off street parking. Robert Burdick reviewed requested variances. The only changes to the footprint will be additional steps. Applicant is planning to reconstruct storm damaged home. Upper portion of home will be setback to reduce impact; Eve overhangs will be reduced not to encroach over property line. Many adjacent properties are tw0-story and offer parking under the home. Exhibits entered as A-3 and A-4 – Photos of home and surrounding property. Believes proposed home will conform too many homes in the area. Advantages of allowing the variances will be a large safety and aesthetic improvement to the property and provide off street parking. Robert Burdick believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; that the plan complies with the MLUL; that the property is in a unique location and warrants special consideration; believes the variances can be granted without detriment to the zoning ordinances.

Tom Spader inquired if he had given any consideration to complying with any setback variances? The applicant had considered it but the cost to tear it down was just too much of a financial drain. The insurance is not covering a third of the cost. The applicant wants to have curb appeal; there is a home in the vicinity that is a trailer; he wants to do the right thing and build a flood compliant appealing home. Chairman Struncius inquired if the applicant had considered abandoning the two-family use and making it a single family home? (No the applicant had not considered this because he bought the home as an income property) Mr. Kelly stated that he does not want to see another Camp Osborne and see homes three-story high. Mr. Ardito inquired that the applicant calls the garage a car port? Does that mean that you do not have a garage door? (Correct) Mr. Ardito is glad that the bedroom size has not increased; but questions the side stairs; stated that if the applicant had a one story one family home you would not need steps and an additional bathroom. Does not make sense to make this two- family larger and make it very high. Mr. Spader does not think they should make a garage and lose two spaces on the street. . Mr. Spader said that everyone is trying to hold on to everything and crying Sandy, Sandy, Sandy and then you want a third floor for recreation.
Robert Burdick said that based on the boards concerns they will redesign the home. Chairman Struncius said it is not just a height concern it is an expansion concern; he said that if you were just raising what was there it would not be a concern; the applicant is looking for too much on an under sized lot; the applicants need to be modest and strong testimony on why the continuation of the two-family should continue. Mr. Reilly stated that it is just not the height it is the whole package.
No audience questions/comments

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2013-11 of David Barra to May 16, 2013 without notice.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius. Ardito, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

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

Published June06, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1611

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