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

July 18, 2013


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

Application #2013-22 – Lawrence/Marjorie Zalk – 208 Washington Avenue – Block 94; Lot 19 - Applicant wishes to demolish existing home and construct a new single family dwelling at the new ABFE.

Mr. Spader will be stepping down from the following application.

Steven A. Pardes, Esquire, stated that the applicant is submitting a proposal to construct a new house. The applicant is demolishing the existing house in order to construct the proposed house. The applicant’s former home was substantially damaged during Hurricane Sandy, and cannot be salvaged.

Verity Frizzell, R.A., sworn, stated that the applicant’s proposed home was designed for an AE11 Zone, despite the fact that the lot has recently been reclassified as an A10 Zone. Under the circumstances, the applicant would prefer to meet the higher standard. The applicant intends to use pilings due to the soft soil on the lot. The house will be elevated, and cars will be parked underneath the house. The applicant intends to install an elevator that runs from the ground level to the top of the house.

A. There will not be any habitable space on the first floor.

B. The house will be constructed with vinyl shake siding with white corner boards and double hung windows.

C. The second floor will have two bedrooms with a bathroom, along with a powder room, living room, dining room, kitchen, and an open deck.

D. The third floor will have the master suite and a final bedroom with a bathroom, for a total of four bedrooms.

E. The applicant’s plans include 13 foot ceilings in the two front rooms.

F. The foundation will consist of concrete forms with a stucco finish, and the applicant can extend the siding down.

G. The lot coverage has been decreased from the coverage of the former home.

H. The neighboring houses are similar in size to the applicant’s proposal.

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 Board 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. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as it will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

No audience questions/comments


Kelly - Thinks this is very nice plan. Looks like Washington Avenue is going to change considerably, this is about the third application.

Reynolds – I would like to commend everyone for coming in with a reasonably sized house; not overpowering the property. This is nice I think it will look good over there.

Ardito – Is sorry for the applicant’s loss. Complimented Miss Frizzell on her plans’. Particularly likes that we are not talking about more height. Appreciates this particular project being modest. Good to have flood compliance, good for the community. All in all fits well in the neighborhood.

Renner – Very nice plan and great for the neighborhood

Loder – Also thinks it is a very nice plan. Effect on neighborhood will be di minimus..also in favor

Reilly - Echo’s Mr. Arditos’ comments – very happy to see the applicant come in with a reasonable height request and yet getting what they needed. Will be in favor of this


1. The first floor is only to be used for parking cars, entry to the upper floors, and storage.

2. There is to be no habitation on the first floor.

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

4. The plan is to show adequate foundation plantings to screen the foundation.

5. The siding is to be brought down to 3 feet above grade to reduce the exposure of the foundation.

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

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-22 of Lawrence and Marjorie Zalk with conditions

In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner, Loder and Chairman Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2013-28 – The DGV Children Family Trust c/o Dominic Vizzoni – Block 121; Lot 14.04 – Applicant wishes to repair existing deck that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Deck stairs were built into the setback. Existing home is two-stories and was constructed pre-ordinance and with variance 1983-10.

John J. Jackson, Esquire, stated that: the applicant has lived in the house for many years, and constructed a deck a few years ago. The applicant’s house was damaged during Hurricane Sandy.

The Building Department inspected the house after Hurricane Sandy, and discovered that the deck and stairs were slightly larger than in the original plan.

Anthony Vizzoni, applicant sworn, stated the following;

A. The deck is in good condition, but the fiberglass cover has been compromised.

B. Six (6) posts support this deck, but three (3) of them were displaced by Hurricane Sandy.

C. The retaining wall on the first floor was pushed away from the house.

D. The applicant wishes to replace the displaced retaining wall with a block wall and to replace the damaged posts.

E. The applicant’s lot contains a 3 foot wide footpath easement, which serves the neighboring lot.

F. The easement provides access to the neighboring yard.

G. The applicant is only seeking to ratify and rebuild the existing structure.
Audience questions

Joan Clune, of 123 Boardwalk, asked about how far the retaining wall would extend from the house. She was concerned that the retaining wall might infringe upon the setback and thus block access to her house. The applicant stated that the wall will end at the house, and the wall will not extend beyond the end of the house.

The Board concluded that while the steps were built wider than originally proposed; that they increased accessibility to the home and have not had a negative impact on the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Board is willing to ratify the steps as existed prior to Hurricane Sandy although not conforming to the original approval.

The Board carefully considered the potential impact on the easement. This approval is granted based upon the applicant’s representation that the steps, the wall, and the footing for the wall will not impair access to 123 Boardwalk. The parties agreed to amend the easement to show the encroachment of the building into the easement, on this basis. 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. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


1. The parties are to amend the easement to allow for the encroachment into the existing access easement. This amended easement is to be submitted to the Board’s attorney for his review and approval. The amended easement is to be recorded within 30 days from the issuance of the memorialized resolution.

2. The footing for the wall must remain within the property boundary line. The wall itself will not be installed south of the house.


Spader – What started as an undefined situation has been worked out. In favor

Kelly - I also so the foundation and thought it would be further out. I have no problem.

Reynolds - Testimony is that we are not going to do anything more than what we had before the hurricane. I am fine with that.

Ardito - No comment

Renner – I am fine with it

Loder – No comments

Chairman Reilly – Requested to hear the conditions. With all conditions satisfied I will be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to approve application #2013-28 of the DVG Children’s Family Trust with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Renner, Ardito, Loder and Chairman Reilly
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2013-32 – Peter/Donna Spector – 209 Ocean Avenue – Block 129.01; Lot 5 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single family dwelling to the new ABFE
The applicant is seeking the following variances: height variance of 31.57 feet, whereas 20 feet is the maximum permitted. For side yard setback of 3.01 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; a side yard setback of 3.75 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; front yard setback of 1.9 feet (to stairs), whereas 5 feet is required; building coverage of 35.7%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted.

John J. Jackson, Esquire, applicant’s attorney stated the following;

A. The property is located on Ocean Avenue, in close proximity to a nearby restaurant.

B. The applicant proposes to raise his house above the base flood elevation and create a garage underneath the house. The house will be raised 22.37 feet above the curb.

C. By raising the house, the applicant will create two parking spaces underneath the building.

D. The applicant intends to improve the aesthetics of the property by adding either stone or a stucco façade to the raised structure.

E. The applicant’s proposal will result in a curb cut and the removal of one of the two parking spaces in front of the property.

F. The applicant will remove all of the concrete in the back of the property, eliminating the need for an impervious coverage variance

Robert Burdick, P.E., the applicant’s professional Engineer stated that the applicant’s proposal is to lift and reconstruct a single family home damaged by Hurricane Sandy. There are existing bulk variances and conditions attached to the site. The property is located on the west side of Ocean Avenue, adjacent to other single family homes. The applicant’s proposal creates parking and storage underneath the house. The house was constructed in 1947 and the garage will be on the north side of the house and will face east. The applicant will construct new stairs at the front of the house. These steps will extend 4.5 feet from the house. The front yard setback of 1.9 feet is a necessity due to having to raise the home and extend the stairs. The applicant wishes to construct a deck in the rear of the house, which will be 3.01 feet from the property line. The proposed deck lines up well with the house and is not a significant detriment.
Audience Questions/Comments
Chuck Venedam – 1 Brunswick Place – Has lived here for 29 years and is always dealing with parking. He is in favor of the home improvements but not of the curb cut and losing a parking space.


Spader - Bungalow section is an interesting section. People buy there knowing there is no curb cut and property line. Everyone wants more. They are raising a little bungalow to meet flood; would like to have parking underneath and take two cars off the street (council’s decision). You buy in that area that is what you get. I am seeing here with the conditions the house is not being increased and it is still a little bungalow. Being it is modest I am inclined to go along with the application. In favor
Kelly – I see a lot of plusses here – if the concrete is removed in the yard and the planter is improved, home up to code and improved safety. If we do not allow this it will be the same; it is not going to three stories and minimal. In favor
Reynolds – If this was a side street without traffic it would be different; garage door 7 feet off the property line. Believes it is a safety issue – It is a nice house, nice design could have nice home. Believes the garage would be dangerous.
Ardito – Disagrees with Jay about the safety of the garage, but you would have to be very very careful. Required to bring home into compliance – needed is flood compliance; want is garage. Home will not be overly large, will be done in a way that it will look good with the applied conditions. The one real negative is the loss of on street parking which is a concern of your neighbor. If you are bringing two cars down and you can park them on your property and not compete on the road but you are competing for one less space. We cannot resolve the parking situation we can just limit the impact of new development. Did a good job and the positives outweigh the negatives.
Renner – I like the idea that you are not asking for a lot; I understand the parking issue. I come down where Steve does.
Loder – I agree that the applicant and Mr. Jackson presented a good application. Main concern is the parking. On the fence right now
Reilly – Very interesting case – like the design and it makes a lot of sense. What happens if four houses in a row do this? We take one case at a time and I do not know if the council would approve 4 homes. I know what it is like down there, I live there. I am also concerned about the safety of backing out. Wasn’t the applicant offering to back up the home? (Mr. Jackson said that they can move back 10 feet) With that I will be in favor of this application.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2013-32 of Peter /Donna Spector with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner, Loder and Reilly
Opposed: None


1. The applicant will remove concrete to reduce the impervious coverage to 70% which will now be in compliance.

2. The front façade is to have faux stone to conceal the foundation on the other three sides of the home; the siding will be brought down to 3 feet above grade.

3. There is to be no shed.

4. The home is to be constructed as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

5. This approval is subject to the applicant obtaining the appropriate governing body’s permission for a curb cut which will result in the loss of one on street parking space. In the event the appropriate governing body declines approval, there is to be no parking on this lot, and the garage, if built, will only be permitted to be used for storage. In the event the appropriate governing body grants a curb cut, the home is to be moved back 10 feet from its current location on the lot.
Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published September11, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1672

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