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 18, 2013


The April 18, 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 ,Bill Reilly, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis
Absent: Mr. Wolfersberger and Mr. Shamy

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of March 21, 2013
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Struncius, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote amending Resolution #2012-09 (3) of Roman Barsky
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Reilly
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving resolution #2012-25 of Ronald Domm with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2013-06 – Victor Fortkiewicz – 4 Delaware Avenue – Block 2; Lot 2 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing deed restricted two-family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.
Victor Fortkiewicz, applicant, sworn stated the following; the original house has been in the family for over 50 years and was constructed as a 2-family home in 1929. The house served as a summer residence that the family used. Over the last 20 years, there have been significant improvements made to the interior, exterior, and the landscaping. In 2010, the applicant received approval to build a second floor deck. At that time, the home was brought into zoning conformance by giving up the right to continue using it as a 2-family home. A Deed Restriction was filed at that time converting it to a single family residence. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and rebuild a single family home on the lot, which will conform to all codes including FEMA.
Tom Petersen, R.A., Professional architect, sworn, stated the following: The house was severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy and was unable to be salvaged. The entire front of the first floor of the house was torn away and the back wall was pushed out. The property is conforming in size, but it is a corner lot causing some challenges to rebuild without variance relief. The proposed house will front on Delaware Avenue. The proposed house is similar to the existing house having a one car garage to the side. The first floor will have a couple of bedrooms, a living area, kitchenette and a bathroom. The living area will be used by the applicant’s mother. The second floor will have three (3) bedrooms and the main family area (kitchen and dining area) and a covered deck. The half story on the third floor will be an open area with an office, a half bathroom, and a small covered deck.
There will not be any exterior stairs to the half story area. Access to the half story will only be through the inside of the house. Although the proposed house will reduce some of the non-conformities, variance relief is still needed. The property slopes from one end to the other. Delaware Avenue at the eastern end of the property, at the top of the curb is 8.6 feet. Along Ocean Avenue, the top of the curb is 6.2 feet. The height of the house will be 37 feet at the centerline. The surrounding houses are higher up so visually they look taller FEMA requires the house to be at least 11 feet, at minimum, to the first floor. The proposed house will be 13 feet at the first floor. At the time of the hurricane, the house had water measured at the 13 foot level; so notwithstanding FEMA regulations, the applicant asking to raise the home to13 feet. The square footage of the house will be approximately 1,500 square feet on the first floor, 1,360 feet on the second floor, and 440 feet on the third floor. The building coverage is 31.9% which includes all decks and stairs. The actual footprint of the house is below the maximum building coverage of 30% at 28.6%.Below the first level will be a crawl space. The style of the proposed house is in keeping with the seashore motif. The façade will have wood cedar shake siding. The columns, rails, and trim will be painted white. The foundation will consist of piles and concrete block. The applicant will provide landscaping to cover the 4 feet of exposed foundation. The landscape plan will be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval. The access off Ocean Avenue will be closed; access to the house will be on Delaware Avenue.
Audience questions/comments
Debra Korzeniowski, sister-in-law to the applicant, lives 2 doors down stated: The family has owned the subject property for a long time and has brought generations of the family to Point Pleasant Beach together during the summers and on holidays. The house is important to the family dynamics and it is important that they rebuild the house.
Loder – Challenging cases where everyone is asking for a little here and there. Sorry for the applicant’s loss; Building will be deminimus in comparing with your neighbors. Leaning in favor of this application
Spader - Past applicant’s have used Hurricane Sandy as a green light to grab for more and over build properties; this application is a little bit over and a little bit higher, “V” zones are on each side, do not find that to be a problem; 37 feet is very consistent with the area. The applicant and their family is the type of family that we want to keep in Point Pleasant Beach. Will be in favor of this application.
Kelly - When he saw the photographs realized how bless he is. In favor of this application
Reilly – Went and looked at this property and agree with pretty much everything that has been said. The home is little bit over on the bulk variances but an improvement on what was there before. Variances are deminimus and will be in favor.
Reynolds- This application has absolute evidence that the home needs to be at a certain height. Height is an issue but based on the evidence will be in favor.
Ardito – Faced with challenges, variance for height due to map change and required free board is not sufficient for you in rebuilding. Structure will be very well suited; presented the application really well and will be in favor.
Renner - Do not see the home having a impact on any surrounding properties. Will be in favor.
Davis – We are seeing the home meeting the coverage requirements and then having porches bumping it over. People are building to the limits and then requiring variances for stairs. It is an overage without a hardship. We need to keep an eye on this.
Struncius - Everyone is seeing the half story as a right; as long as things architecturally fit and keep the home in character that is a positive. The plus is the safety concern with the proximity to the water.

1. The access on Ocean Avenue is to be closed.

2. The home is to be built in accordance with the drawings shown to the Board at the time of the hearing.

3. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval. The landscape plan must show foundation plantings to screen the foundation.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-16 of Victor Fortkiewicz with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius.
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2013-06 – LaMannasquan, LLC “709” – 709- 711 Arnold Avenue – Block 202; Lot 8 – The applicant seeks to obtain approval to amend a condition of site plan approval as set forth in Resolution of approval #2012-11 as approved by the Zoning Board on April 19, 2012, specifically condition #6 which prohibits live music in the restaura
Kevin Starkey, Esquire, applicants attorney stated that the music was permitted to be piped in throughout the restaurant; however, no live music was permitted pursuant to condition number 6 of Resolution 2012-11 dated April 19, 2012. The applicant had a lot of requests to have live music after Hurricane Sandy because other establishments, which were previously booked to have holiday parties, were unable to due to the damage from the storm. The Mayor and Council granted temporary permission for live music with the provision that the applicant would seek formal approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment if it wished to continue to provide live music. The applicant has provided live music since early December of 2012 and has had no complaints from any surrounding neighbors.Exhibits A-3 and A-4 were submitted to the Board indicating where the area for live music would be located on both the first and second floor.
Carl LaManna, applicant, sworn, stated that the band on the first floor will be situated along the sushi bar area and on the second floor, the band would be situated in the inside south east corner of the room. No live music would be permitted outside of the building for any reason; the type of music that would be played will consist of 60’s, 70’s and 80’s style music and would not consist of rock style music. Since the time the applicant provided live music, there have not been any incidents where reports were filed with either the police or the ABC. The applicant sent out a notice to the neighbors within a 200 foot radius informing them of a community meeting asking for concerns they may have with the continuation of live music. Only one woman appeared, Mrs. Archer, who was concerned that there may be a noise factor. When the applicant asked her if she has heard anything in the past 3 ½ months, she informed him that she has never heard anything. The hours for the live music will not extend beyond 11:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and will not extend beyond 12:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The live music will not cause any negative impact for anyone outside since the neighbors reside to the rear of the building and the music will be located towards the front of the building. The applicant informed the Board that the walls are made from 8-inch thick concrete which will provide a good buffer for any noise. The applicant agreed that when they there is any live music, the doors to the building will be kept closed.
Mr. Reilly inquired if you could limit the type of music played. (No)
No audience questions comments
Loder – Based on the conditions and the limited scope I am leaning towards approval.
Spader – As mentioned earlier the intensification of a non-conforming use is a problem. There is a possible change of patrons after 10pm and this is looking for trouble and I will not support the application. Would like to be able to review the situation in a year if approved.
Kelly – As much as I like this place I will have to vote no. The original variance was to expand the bar and the bar to me is the concern.
Reilly -I think Mr. LaManna has done what he originally planned to do, create a fine dining restaurant. I think the conditions that we have put together have dealt with it the best we can, they are not perfect. The one concern I have is it becoming more of a bar then a fine dining restaurant; I will be in favor.
Reynolds _-I commend you for coming to us first. You have been before the board three (3) times with request which tells me that you have been up front with us and respect the town laws. Instead of doing something and getting caught you are coming to us and asking us. I have concerns about two bands playing at the same time; but with the conditions in place I will be in favor. The applicant has a great establishment and it has done wonders for the downtown area.
Ardito – My thoughts pretty much echo what Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds said. You have been a very good part of the community. In the absence of the neighbors being here, with the conditions in place I will be in favor.
Renner – Biggest concern were the neighbors. The business will take care of itself and am impressed that nobody is complaining about it.
Davis – Everybody likes what you are doing but have no control over the next owner. We appreciate that you do what you say. I believe that your restaurant is an anchor of the downtown. Spoke with the Chief of Police and said there have been no complaints. It is very commendable and very much in favor.
Struncius – This is one of those situations where we have a barometer. You have the establishment and are asking for an amenity. Having taken a tour of the facility it really lends itself to having a small wedding or corporate wedding. It is well suited for that. What you have done has been of the highest quality. The long term concern is where this goes 30 years from now. Obviously in favor.

1. There shall be no live music permitted on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) after11:30 p.m.

2. There shall be no live music permitted on weekends (Friday and Saturday) after 12:30 a.m.

3. Live music is never to be heard beyond the building limits and all windows and doors shall be closed when bands are playing.

4. The live bands shall perform within the locations shown on Exhibits A-3 and A-4 attached to this Resolution.

5. The music must be consistent with a fine dining experience.

6. The bands shall be limited to no more than four (4) performers per group.

7. The tables and chairs shown on the existing floor plans are not to be re-arranged to increase the audience area.

8. No cover charges are permitted to be paid to watch the bands.

9. DJ music shall only be permitted for events held upstairs.

10. The applicant is to memorialize these conditions by means of a Deed Restriction. The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney prior to recording this Deed and it must be sent to the County Clerk for recording within two (2) weeks of the memorialized Resolution. In the event the Deed is not sent for recording within two (2) weeks, the applicant may not have live music until the Deed Restriction is sent for recording. A copy of the recorded Deed shall be provided to the Board Secretary.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-06 of LaMannasquan with conditions.
In favor: Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: Spader and Kelly
Application approved with conditions

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
Carried without notice from the April 4, 2013 meeting
Mr. Davis has stepped down from this application.
Steven A. Pardes attorney for applicant revisited prior testimony and stated that the following variances are being requested:
Building coverage of 64.08%, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted.; building height of 30 feet, whereas 22 feet is the maximum permitted; front yard setback of 0 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; side yard setback of 8 inches (north side) and 1.6 feet (to the porch), whereas 5 feet is required; 2 ½ stories, whereas only 1 story is permitted

The property owners since 1976 are Tom and Mary Surowicz, parents of the applicant Kim Surowicz. Kim Surowicz has been renting the property from her parents for the past three years and has resided in the home as her principal residence.
Audience comments
Cynthia Caufman, who lives directly next door to the applicant went over the plans with the applicant and has no opposition to the proposal.
Steve Pardes disagrees with John Janoski that there will be a negative impact on his house regarding light. John Janoski has 12 windows in the front of his house, has a deck on the back which has a sliding door to the master bedroom, and there are 3 skylights in the house.
Steven Pardes gave his summation.
Dennis Galvin pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the testimony and the architectural. Discussion ensued and it was determined that the calculations were based on the interior wall.

The Board found that the house will not have a front yard setback and will be right on the sidewalk. The Board did not feel that this would be an improvement to the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. The Board determined that the 2-story house will create too much massing and the lot cannot accommodate the proposed house. The proposed house is too large and too tall for the lot. The Board determined that a two-story house in this location will have a negative impact on the neighbors. There are substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the second story addition will impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal do not outweigh its detriments.
Dennis Galvin pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the testimony and the architectural (2nd floor). Mr. Kelly inquired if there is a balcony. (No)

Loder - After listening to testimony I do not see this having negative impact and will be in favor.
Spader – I have said it many times about Sandy and the green light and to go crazy with building plans. Our job is to consider the ordinances. There are dozens of homes that are complying with the ordinances. Building 8 inches off the property line is not helping the housing stock of Point Pleasant Beach. You made no attempt to bring this piece of property into some kind of conformance. Does not prove hardship in my opinion; will not be in favor.
Kelly – Is concerned about a Camp Osborne in the bungalow community; if one building is on fire and the next one catches on and the next. Down the street on Ocean Avenue are two beautiful renovated homes. They are going to raise their homes and not add to them. Will have to wait on this one and see.
Reilly – I would to see Miss Surowicz have a nice new safe home. However that is not the issue. Not concerned about John Jonoski’s view; however there are some issues with safety and proximity to the next door home. The allowed height is 20 feet and we are 5 times above that the limit where this becomes a use variance. The main reason is to have a second floor; will have a tough time with this.
Reynolds – Tough case for sure; main concern is the two stories and added height on the sidewalk. Still up in the air on this one..
Ardito – You can see where this is challenging. The fact that you are in a zone where 20 feet is allowed and you are asking for 30 feet. Your neighbor does not have any concerns over fire safety. John Jonoski was not totally against the improvements; hard thing for me now is the height.
Struncius – I think this area is one that we need to be reacting to. It is an 11 foot flood elevation requirement with a 20 foot height restriction. It does not mean the one story limitation with an attic is wrong. We do not want these very skinny tall structures with fire safety issues. At 24 or 25 feet I might be OK, but this is pushing the limits.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to deny application #2012-12 of Kim Surowicz
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Struncius
Opposed: Loder and Ardito

Application denied
Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published June15, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1618

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