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 20, 2013

Minutes

The June 20, 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, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds , Mr. Ardito, Mr. Renner and Mr. Davis
Absent - Wolfersberger, Loder and Shamy

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

Carried without notice from June 12, 2013
John Jackson, Esquire, stated that the applicant provided a color rendering as well as a list of the products he proposes to use on the new house and that the house will be aesthetically pleasing and revitalize the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.
Robert Santanello, applicant, stated that he heard the boards concerns and has made some changes to the original submission. The applicant proposes to use high quality construction materials and said the home, when finished, will be aesthetically pleasing. The front peak will match the side peaks which will pull together the look of the house. All of the peaks will be white and will consist of scallop trim. The proposed house is not that much larger than the original house, but will be flood compliant and will be brought up to code and he was able to reduce the height of the house to 37.5 feet which will eliminate the need for the d(6) variance.
No audience questions/comments
The Board determined that the house will be aesthetically pleasing and will be an improvement to the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach and 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. The Board is aware of the flooding problems in this neighborhood and is sympathetic with the applicant’s desire to raise the proposed house which drives the need for the height variance and that the additional parking on the site will provide more off street parking which will be a benefit to the community. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the front porch will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners.
Deliberations
Spader – The changes from the last minute are to the benefit. I understand the parking underneath. I think the offsets of the building coverage make up for the height.
Kelly - I was concerned with the color and roof peak. I understand the flooding and will support this application.
Reilly - I had two concerns, the height and the appearance, I am comfortable with both now and will be in favor.
Reynolds - Thanked the applicant for coming back with a rendering and the 37 feet. I am in favor.
Ardito – Thank you for coming back- We have seen what we needed to see. You will be building a home that is flood compliant without a lot of coverage with off street parking. These are all positives.
Renner – Nothing more to add
Struncius – Reviewed conditions and materials to be utilized. The details tie it all together from top to bottom visually. The rendering really helps to show that it is aesthetically pleasing.
Davis – All the positives have been accentuated. Still struggling to see where the hardship is; I think overall the benefits outweigh the detriment. It is a very attractive house.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-29 of Robert Santanello with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: Davis
Application approved with the following conditions
Conditions
1. The exterior of the home is to build the home as shown to the Board and as described at the time of the hearing and the drawing provided to the Board at the June 20, 2013 hearing. The applicant will use the following materials:

a. The lattice will be constructed of vinyl and will be white in color.
b. The garage walls will be constructed from sheet rock and painted plywood and will be vented to code.
c. The garage door will be aluminum.
d. The steps, porch and deck will be made from DuraLife Siesta hardwood blend – with a composite of Brazilian Cherry Wood.
e. The front door will be a ThermaTru Sedona Fiber-Classic, Smooth Star, stained Mahogany.
f. The windows will be Anderson vinyl clad outside and wood inside, wrapped with 3-inch vinyl trim.
g. The shutters will be made from a composite and will be stained Mahogany.
h. The siding will be Revere Cedar Impressions, Harbor Pointe Single Select. The color will be Moonlit Moss traditional shake and Sandstone Scallop.
i. The roof will be a GAF Timberline Lifetime Shingles, natural wood shake, the color will be Barkwood.
j. The sliding glass doors – will be Anderson, vinyl outside, wood inside and wrapped with 3-inch vinyl trim.

2. The first floor shall only be used for parking and storage.

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

4. The height of the house is not to exceed 37 and half feet.



Application #2013-25 – Mary Pascale – 165 Ocean Avenue – Block 129.02; Lot 9 – Applicant wishes to raise existing structure and add front porch.
The applicant is seeking the following variances: front yard setback of 2.2 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; side yard setback of 0.4 feet to cantilever and 1.9 feet to building, whereas 5 feet is required; impervious coverage of 75%, whereas 70% is the maximum permitted; building height of 24.8 feet, whereas 20 feet is the maximum permitted.
John J. Jackson, stated that the applicant proposes to raise the house and to add a front porch. The house is a family homestead, used by family members as a weekend home. The applicant has owned the house for the past 10 years and only uses the house for themselves and never rent it out and that the house is located in the bungalow section of the Borough.
Anthony Busch, AIA, Professional Architect stated that -

A. The porch and stairs in the front of the house will dress up the house and will make it look nicer.

B. The applicant also will reconfigure the inside stairs as they are currently very steep and not code compliant. A landing will be added to make them safer.

C. The area underneath the house will be constructed from blocks and will be used for storage only.

D. There will be no parking underneath the house.

E. There will not be any mechanicals located underneath the house.

F. The applicant will raise the level of crawl space to be flush with grade. It will also have flood vents.

G. Other than the additional stairs, the existing footprint is not being expanded.

H. There will be lattice over the foundation around the house.

I. The front porch will not be enclosed but will remain open.

J. The applicant will replace the concrete driveway along the side of the house with pavers to reduce the amount of impervious coverage to 75% from 82% which was originally proposed. The rest of the driveway will remain concrete.

K. The garage is to remain and with the additional storage underneath the house, will be able to house a car. The siding and the roof of the garage will match the house.

L. The half story contains two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom. The roof line and dormers will not change, only the stairs to the second floor will be reconfigured.

M. The porch will add an aesthetic element to the house.

N. The height variance is driven by the necessity of raising the house to comply with the FEMA base flood elevation. The lot can accommodate the building height deviation from the Ordinance.

O. The front yard setback variance is driven by the stairs having to come out farther due to the front porch and the additional height of the house.



Audience questions/ comments
James J. Nazemetz, of 163 Ocean Avenue, lives next door to the north of the applicant and was concerned if there would be any impact to his property during the construction. He was informed that masons will need the space next to his property to do work. He was informed that no one will have to use his lot and the area will be kept clean and free from debris as much as possible.

The Board determined that the house will be aesthetically pleasing and will be an improvement to the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach and that the porch added an attractive element to the house even though it aggravates the front yard setback. 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 determined that the building can accommodate the increase in height. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the front porch will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


Conditions
1. The first floor is not to be used parking and is not to be used for any purpose other than storage.
2. The building is to have flood vents as described to the Board.

3. The façade of the first floor is to have lattice in front of the foundation wall.

4. The home is not to exceed 24 feet 8 inches in height.

5. The impervious coverage is not to exceed 75% which is to be met by the use of pavers.

6. The garage exterior and garage roof is to match the home.

7. The porch is not to be enclosed. The Board found this open porch to be an important element in its decision to approve this application.




Deliberations
Spader - Only concern was the height. We remember that the ordinance is 22 feet and 26 feet is requested. This one is a struggle.
Kelly – Since December we have seen many homes on Ocean Avenue and this one seems to be one of the better ones. It is attractive and quite frankly I think this is a nice plan.
Reilly – Ok with this - the height increase is from raising the house.
Reynolds - No problem with the height, problem is with the front yard setback. Concerned about pedestrians on the sidewalk but I am leaning towards this.
Ardito - Bottom line is that we are getting a new flood compliant structure in town. There are some negatives that come with it but the positives outweigh the negatives.
Renner – Thinks that you put a very nice plan together. Would like to mention that the porch will remain open. Leaning in favor.
Davis – Likewise the overall benefits outweigh the negatives. It is a little tight with the front porch.
Struncius – Just raising a house; the board is being cautious. Home will be safer and compliant and the porch gives it aesthetic value.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2013-25 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions.



Application #2013-20 – John and William Kane – 1905 East Avenue – Block 7; Lot 7 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single family dwelling to new ABFE.
The applicant is seeking the following variances for a lot frontage of 15 feet, whereas 50 feet is required and a front yard setback of 21 feet (to East Avenue – unimproved), whereas 25 feet is required. For building height of 39.85 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted and for a variance for abutting an unimproved street.
Raymond Bogan, Esquire, stated that the applicant proposes to raise the house six (6) feet to comply with FEMA regulations and the lot has an unusual condition as the Boardwalk easement separates this property and another vacant property to the east next to the ocean.
William Kane, applicant, sworn stated that the house was impacted by Hurricane Sandy with water coming up to the window level and there was 3 feet of sand in the first floor. The unimproved paper street is between the house and the ocean and is known as East Avenue. In front of the house was a dune which is no longer there, but which will be rebuilt by the Army Corps. The applicant consented to the rebuilding of this dune. Access to the lot is from Beacon Lane by virtue of an easement which has been in existence since the applicant built the house in 1993. The easement provides adequate access to the house and benefits Lot 6 as well. The house prior to the storm was on piles. The house will be raised and will remain on piles. The house will not be built on a foundation; there will be no walls as it will remain open underneath the house and will be high enough to park a car and the house will be 39.85 feet in height which will require a d(6) variance. The structure must be raised 14 feet with a 1 foot floor board. The house will then be FEMA compliant. The first floor of the house will be raised to 19 ½ feet although only 15 feet is required. The reason the applicant is requesting the additional 4 ½ feet is to be on the safe side since there was water and sand that came into the house during Hurricane Sandy. In addition to the water and sand damage to the house the stairs were ripped off and the air-conditioner and heating system were damaged. The applicant owns the house next door which is also on piles and is close to the same height and the new home will be consistent in look and is appropriate for this area.
The Board determined that since the next door house is on piles, is not any higher, that the proposed home is consistent with the look of the neighboring home and appropriate for this location and that the property can accommodate the increase in height due to the setback of this property and the need to secure this home in future flood events. 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 the new home attractive and an improvement to the Point Pleasant Beach housing stock. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the front porch will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
Condition
1. The applicant represented that it granted the Army Corps of Engineering an easement to rebuild the Oceanside dune.

Deliberations

Spader - They have the house next door on pilings and it looks very nice. They have a vested interest in town; I will be supportive of the application.
Kelly - Has no problem with it.
Reilly – I notice there a no neighbors here to object night. I could nitpick about a foot or two but I do not think it is the time. I will be in favor of this.
Reynolds – Taking a home that exists and taking it out of the danger zone; has no problem with application.
Ardito - Sorry that you had to go through the ordeal. Starting five feet in the hole; main thing is getting it elevated so it is compliant and you have a safety facor with the additional height. In favor
Renner – Normally would have a problem with height but seeing that you own the home next door I have no problem with this application.
Davis - Likewise for all the reason articulated and applauded them for signing the dune easement agreement.
Struncius - Think the open pilings makes sense; answered why the extra 4 ½ feet, it does make sense.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-20 of John and William Kane with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2012-23 – Robert Rosen and Carol Alesso – 115 Philadelphia Avenue - Block 30; Lot 8 -Applicant wishes to raise existing two family dwelling to ABFE with garage under home.
The applicant is seeking the following variances: an expansion of a non-conforming use for adding the ground floor garages and for a front yard setback of 13.5 feet (to stairs), 24.4 feet (to house), whereas 25 feet is the minimum required; an existing side yard setback of 4.9 feet (east) and 4.5 feet (west), whereas 5 feet is required; building height in stories of three (3), whereas two (2) stories is the maximum permitted; building coverage of 32.2%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted.
Robert Rosen, applicant, sworn stated that the applicant owned the house for seven (7) years and purchased the house as a single-family home but it had the apartment and they have received a CO prior to this application. The applicant presented a License and Certificate of Occupancy showing the structure has been used continually as a two family. The tenant resides on the second floor and the applicant wants to continue that rental space. The second floor apartment has its own entrance separate from the applicant’s home. The home was impacted in the past in the flood of 1992 which was disclosed to the applicant at the time of purchase. Hurricane Sandy caused the entire first floor to be destroyed. The applicant proposes to raise the house to be compliant with the new base flood elevation; however there will not be any expansion of living space in either home. The applicant will use the area underneath the house to add two one-car garages to be located on each side of the stairs. The area under the house will not be used as habitable space and other than the cars, will only be used for storage. The addition of the two garages will lessen the impact of street parking. The garage doors will be standard garage doors with windows. The foundation of the house will be constructed from cinder block and will have veneer stone to cover the front to make it look more attractive and the existing pavers in the front of the house will remain. The “Northern Catalpa” tree in the rear yard will remain.
The Board determined that although a d (2) variance is required due to the expansion of this nonconforming use because of the addition of the garages, that the actual living space will not be increased in either of the two homes. 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 the applicant agreed to limit its ability to rent, insuring the property will be partially owner/occupied which reduces the negative impact arising from this property as a two-family. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the conditions will mitigate any negative impacts and the additional height will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
Deliberations
Spader - Growing up on the next block I am very familiar with the home. Still within the 35 feet which is rare for many of the applications coming before us. The deed restriction will keep it from becoming a double rental. In favor with conditions in place.
Kelly - Does not believe that the applicant has shown the preexistent condition of the rental unit. Not happy with the garage situation in the front of the home but will vote in favor.
Reilly – Believes what they are asking for is quite reasonable; I ask that they not park the cars sideway in the front yard. For reasons cited I will be in favor of this.
Reynolds - I like the fact we are getting the home up out of the flood zone. With the conditions in place I will be in favor.
Ardito - There are some very good positives here especially the elevation of the home. I am not too thrilled with the two garages on either side of the home. Staying within the building height and it is a flood compliant home – I will be in favor of this.
Renner – I am not too thrilled with the two garages either, but having a tenant I can see wy you need the parking.
Davis – I think this is a unique home and I am happy to see the character remain. I think this is a very interesting favorable application.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to approve application #2012-23 of Carol Alesso and Robert Rosen with conditions.
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with the following conditions

Conditions
1. The first floor is not to be used for any purpose other than parking and storage.

2. The home is to be raised and the garages constructed as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

3. The existing garage in the rear yard is to be removed.

4. The “Northern Catalpa” tree is to be preserved.

5. The building coverage is to be properly calculated prior to memorialization. The building coverage is not to exceed 32.2%.

6. The applicant agreed to impose a condition by Deed Restriction that the property is limited to an owner-occupied two-family structure; meaning that only one (1) unit may be rented at a time. This Deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney prior to recording and it must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

7. The first floor is to be enclosed and will provide adequate flood venting.

8. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan showing foundation plantings and fencing to screen the foundation in the front and on the sides of the home to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

9. The connecting pavement or pavers leading to the western garage is not to be used for parking.

10. The rear deck rails are to have large slats to improve sound attenuation.


Meeting adjourned at 10:40pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published August19, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1658


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