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

June 12, 2013


The June 12, 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. Reilly, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reynolds , Mr. Ardito, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis
Absent - Wolfersberger, Struncius, Renner and Shamy

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the minutes of April 18, 2013.
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving the following resolutions
Applicaton #2013-18 – of Jenkinson’s Pavilion, 55 Broadway with conditions –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None

Application#2013-11 of David Barra with conditions
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito
In favor: Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2013-17 of Susan and Robert Festa –
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2013-21- John P. Buza - 105 Parkway – Block 102; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the new ABFEJohn Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is seeking the following variances: side yard setback of 4 feet (to eaves), whereas 5 feet is required; building height of 37 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted. The applicant seeks to eliminate the existing house and replace it with a home which will meet FEMA regulations. The existing garage will remain but the façade will be updated to match the façade of the proposed house.

Professional Engineer and Professional Planner, Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., sworn, stated the following;

A. The proposed house will be 3,200 square feet in size and will mostly be built in the existing footprint.

B. The applicant proposes to remove the storm damaged 1 ½ story home and replace it with a 2 ½ story home.

C. The applicant proposes to continue to use the existing garage which has a pre-existing nonconforming side yard setback of 2.87 feet where a 5 foot setback is required.

D. The house was built in 1960 and the garage and driveway have been in the same location since at least 1963.

E. The applicant purchased the house in 1999.

F. Pavers will be used to construct the sidewalks.

G. The applicant proposes to install an underground water re-charge system for all roof leaders which will be a benefit as there are none at the present time.

H. The proposed height of the house will be 37 feet which is 2 feet over the maximum permitted in the zone.

I. The structure will be raised to elevation 12, which will be 8 feet above the curb height (4’.2”).

J. The applicant proposes using 9 foot ceilings on the first floor and 8 foot ceilings on the second floor.

K. The height of the home is adequate and will provide an attractive structure.

L. The style of the new home will be compatible with the surrounding area.

M. The building coverage will be reduced which will eliminate an existing variance.

N. The lot can accommodate the house.

Audience Questions

Glen Paisano, of 111 Parkway, asked what the height of the homes on either side of the applicant’s house was. He asked if there was a soil test done to determine if the recharge system would operate property. He was informed that a soil test was conducted.
Mike Coffee, of 107 Parkway, asked what the completed driveway would look like and asked if there would be any re-grading as there is a potential for flooding. He was informed that the driveway will be constructed at the same grade and the underground re-charge system on the other side of the lot will take care of any storm water run-off. Mr. Coffee was concerned that the storm water from the driveway will run onto his property. He was informed that the applicant is decreasing impervious coverage on his lot which will allow for more water to be absorbed into the ground.
Jeffrey Cundey, AIA, sworn, stated the following:

A. In order to make the house fit into the height of 35 feet, the applicant would have to make the first floor 8 feet rather than 9 feet and the roof pitch would have to be redesigned which the witness thought would take away from the aesthetics of the home.

B. The first floor will consist of a living/dining room combination to create a great room of 20’ x 30’ in size. Reducing the first floor to an 8 foot ceiling would make the room seem compressed and would not allow for a coffering ceiling.

C. Also on the first floor will be a study, kitchen, powder room, a full bathroom and a laundry room

D. The second floor will comprise of 4 bedrooms and a bath. One of the bedrooms is a master bedroom and bath.

E. The habitable attic will be a loft play area and will have a bedroom and a bathroom.

F. The design of the house is a typical seashore type of new construction going on in the area.

G. The applicant is keeping the existing garage which is used for housing a car and for storage. The façade of the garage will be made of the same materials as the proposed house.

H. The façade materials of the proposed house will be made of cedar impression siding, a stone façade around the entry porch, and the roof will be constructed from asphalt shingles.

I. The proposed house will be stepped back so the height of the proposed home will appear softened from the streetscape.

J. The house will be aesthetically pleasing and the applicant will add landscaping.

K. The applicant will put a veneer façade over the 6 foot concrete foundation in the front.

Hank Gordon, applicant’s builder stated that the applicant will remove some of the driveway and use some other type of material to reduce the impervious coverage from what was originally proposed to be approximately 52% to 50% which will then be conforming

John P. Buza, applicant, sworn stated that the house is presently used as a summer house and has never been rented out since the applicant has owned the house. When the applicant retires, the house will be his permanent residence.

A. The proposed house will significantly improve the area and will not have a negative impact on the neighbors.

B. The applicant will repair the roof of the existing garage and will use cedar impression shingles on the façade to match the proposed house.

C. The applicant is requesting the 9 foot ceiling on the first floor because it is critical to the look and feel of the proposed open area of the great room.

D. The area of the proposed house is smaller than the existing house allowing the applicant to move the house over by 2 feet which will provide a greater distance from the neighbors’ house which will be a benefit.

E. The damaged house had 2 feet of water due to Hurricane Sandy. Due to the damage caused by the storm, the house would have been too expensive to repair and raise to the new base flood elevation.

1. The applicant is to build the home as shown to the Board and as described at the time of the hearing.

2. The applicant is to substitute pavers for pavement in order to reduce the impervious coverage to 50%.

3. The applicant is to install an underground cistern system as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

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

5. The garage is to be finished with cedar impression shingles.

6. The plan is to be amended to show a decorative element to the front foundation.

7. The applicant agreed that no decks are to be added in the future. In granting the relief requested, the Board was concerned with massing and stormwater runoff and opposed decks being added to this property.


Spader – As most of you know I have been a strict believer in 35 feet and it is still 35 feet but things are still in flux. The fact that the applicant is reducing impervious to 50% means a lot.
Kelly - Week after week we see people coming in and taking advantage of the storm. The architect said he could build it at 35 feet so I question it; the fact where it is in an area where the homes are going to be higher. In favor
Reynolds – The benefit of having a new home to code is beneficial to the town. Out of the flood plane is beneficial and I would want the 9 foot ceilings and you are willing to work with us.
Ardito – Sorry for your experience with Sandy. You are doing what you need to do for recovery. There are many positives and a few negatives, but the positives outweigh the negatives. In favor
Loder – The architect said he could build this home to code; we have many people asking for more. I do like the project but having difficulty with the height.
Davis – We have now spent 2 hours on an application which gives you an idea how difficult it is. I am currently torn; we are having a lot of request to go higher. It is a lovely home but I am on the fence.
Reilly – What I like about the home is the design and appearance. I think it is a place that you can be proud of. I like that the building and impervious is coming down. I am not crazy about the 9 foot ceiling and the height. The 9 foot ceiling is more of a want. I think if you work with your neighbors you could improve the drainage issue. Likely to vote in favor.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-21 of John Buza with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: Loder
Application approved with conditions

Application #2013-29 – Robert Santanello – 208 Central Avenue – Block 97; Lot 16 -Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling above the ABFE
John J. Jackson, Esquire, stated that the applicant has demolished the 2-story storm damaged house and proposes to replace it with a 3 story dwelling. The original house that was demolished by the applicant was flooded in 1992 and again after Hurricane Sandy. The property is located in one of the lowest lying areas in the Borough and has always had flooding issues after every storm.
Robert Santanello, applicant, sworn stated that

A. The property is challenging because there is an existing swimming pool that the applicant had to work around to re-build the house on this lot.

B. The original house was constructed in 1943. In 1960 3 additions were added to the house. It was determined that the additions were poorly constructed and because of the damage from the hurricane, it was recommended to the applicant to demolish the house and replace it.

C. During the storm in 1992 the applicant had 2 ½ feet of water on the first floor and after Hurricane Sandy, the applicant had 5 ½ feet of water in their house.

D. The proposed house will have an open space on the first floor with a living dining room combination (great room). There will be a kitchen off to the side and a half bathroom. The first floor height will be 9 feet.

E. The second floor will consist of a master bedroom/master bathroom. There will also be three (3) other bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms on the second floor. The second floor height will be 8 feet.

F. The attic will be used as an office space for the applicant who works from home. The height of the attic will be 7 feet.

G. The railing on the front porch will be white with a darker stained wood trim.

H. The siding on the house will be Cedar Impressions, green in color.

I. The peak on the roof and the sides will match. They will be white with scallop trim.

J. The Anderson windows will have grids on the top sash and will have white trim.

K. There will be shutters on the windows.

L. On part of the ground floor will be a garage that will be able to house two (2) cars parked in tandem and the garage will be FEMA compliant with storm vents.

M. The house will be built on piles and the applicant will add white vinyl lattice to cover the piles. There will be a section of approximately 6 feet in the rear of the house that the applicant will not enclose with lattice which will be used for storage.

N. The applicant will plant tall ornamental grasses in front of the white vinyl lattice to soften the look.

O. There will not be any living space in the garage or underneath the house.

P. The front steps will protrude 29 feet off of the front line. They will come down to a landing then turn toward the driveway.

Q. The driveway will be pavers as will the walkway from the driveway to the front steps.

Professional Engineer, Albert Varosi, P.E., stated that due to the unique topography of the lot and the existing swimming pool, the property is particularly challenging to develop. The location of the house must be 10 feet from the swimming pool; therefore, the house was pushed forward 25 feet from the front property line (19 feet from the stairs). Because the building coverage is 24.52% and will not require a variance; that this mitigates the massing of the height of the home and will not cause any detriments to the neighbors
Audience Comments
Robert Morrow, adjacent property owner, has no objection to the proposal nor the shed located close to his property line and is fully supportive as he understands the flooding problem associated with this area.

Virginia Cronin, agreed that this particular area has a history of a lot of flooding during a storm and said that there was a lot of flood damage to the block from Hurricane Sandy. She said the house will be an asset to the neighborhood as it will be aesthetically pleasing.

Michael Murphy, of 209 Central Avenue, indicated that he is facing a similar situation. Due to the flooding, he feels it is important to build higher to protect their houses.

Upon motion by the Board, the meeting was carried to June 20, 2013.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis, Loder and Reilly
Opposed: None


Application #2013-24 – David and Elizabeth Nadle – 205 Trenton Avenue – Block 80; Lot 2 – Applicant wishes to completely remove the split level section of the existing single family dwelling and raise it to the ABFE and enclose the front porch, creating additional habitable space. Applicant also wishes to install a fence.
John J. Jackson, Esquire, stated that the lot is an irregular pie-shaped lot. The existing house is a split level type house and the applicant proposes to elevate the existing house and construct a second story over the main portion of the house. The applicant will add a 160 square foot deck to the back of the house because the house will have to be elevated 8 feet to meet the required base flood elevation for this building. The house was damaged due to Hurricane Sandy.
David Nadle, applicant, sworn, stated that the frame shed will be moved to a complying location in the rear yard. The house will be attractive and there will be no negative impact on the neighbors.The storm caused damage to the house as there was 5 ½ feet of water within the first level of the home and 2 ½ feet of water on the second level of the home. The house will be brought into base flood elevation compliance. The front foundation will be constructed of concrete block.
George Molyneaux, the applicants builder stated that the 8 foot front block foundation will be somewhat screened due to the grading. The part that will be exposed will be stucco and will have landscape plantings.
The Board determined that the corner lot presents a clear hardship for the applicant to comply with some of the required setbacks. The Board also recognized that many of the requested variances were either de minimis or pre-existing and that the house will be aesthetically pleasing and will be an improvement to the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. The Board found that the house will be compliant with the base flood elevation and the house will be brought up to code both of which improve public safety and there are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal and will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners.

1. The applicant is to build the home as shown to the Board and as described at the time of the hearing.

2. The shed is to be placed in the rear yard a minimum of 5 feet from any side yard.

3. The addition is to match the materials of the exterior of the existing home.

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

Spader – The lot shape is a hardship. The applicants are making minor/major changes for the good. In favor
Kelly – Has no objection at all.
Reynolds – We are here for existent variances, In favor.
Ardito - Sorry for your loss, and your recovery is different then what we have heard this evening. You have an irregular shaped lot. With the conditions in place will be in favor
Loder – Nothing to add
Davis – Likewise..a good application
Reilly – If was allowed to say de minimis on your application I would.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-24 of David and Elizabeth Nadle with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis, Loder and Reilly
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:50pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published July25, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1644

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