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 24,2013


The July 24, 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. Wolfersberger, Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Davis
Absent - Kelly, Renner, Loder and Shamy

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the minutes of June 12, 2013
In favor: Spader, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito and Davis

Memorialization of the following resolutions

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-26 of Michael Kostecki – 19 Niblick Street with conditions
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-31 of Lawrence J. Evans – 306 Lincoln Avenue with conditions
In favor – Spader, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions

Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-33 of Cyril and Erica Goddeeris – 1204 Ocean Avenue with conditions
In favor: Spader, Reynolds, Ardito, Reilly and Struncius
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2013-30 – Margaret Windrem and Alfred J. Gaburo - 133 Boardwalk – Block 121 Lot: 11.09 - Applicant erected fence in same location prior to hurricane Sandy. Fence on Boardwalk is 4 feet in height
Mr. Reilly has stepped down from this application.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Applicant is seeking the following variance: fence 4 feet in height, whereas 3 feet is the maximum height permitted.
John J. Jackson, Esquire, stated that the applicant’s property borders the Boardwalk and that the applicant intends to build a four (4) foot tall fence along the boardwalk for security, safety, and sanctuary. Local ordinances prohibits fences over three (3) feet tall in the front yard but several neighboring homes have four foot tall fences bordering the Boardwalk. The applicant’s previous fence was destroyed during Hurricane Sandy.
Margaret Windrem, applicant, sworn, stated that she uses the home as a summer house, and has owned the property for four (4) years. The front of the house faces the Boardwalk. During Hurricane Sandy, a loose bench toppled the previous standing fence and damaged the applicant’s patio. The applicant believes that the yard is a safety hazard without a fence. The layout of the fence is the same as the previous fence in relation to the house, with the south side being slightly modified to be closer to the house. The applicant has procured a License Agreement from Jenkinsons to install the fence along the Boardwalk. The prior 3 foot high fence was short enough to allow passerby to steal from the applicant’s yard. The lower previous fence also allowed passerby on the boardwalk to sit on the fence and stare into the applicant’s yard, violating the applicant’s privacy.

The Board determined that the applicant’s proposal was reasonable and would increase the security of the house and improve public safety in general. The Board has determined that the relief sought does not impair the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.


1. The fence is located on the property owned by Jenkinson’s and the applicant has shown the board a License Agreement authorizing the fence to be located on Jenkinson’s property. The Board grants the reconstruction of a fence at the increased height of 4 feet, as long as the License Agreement remains in full force in effect. Should the License Agreement lapse the owner or future owner will be obligated to move the fence. In addition, the owner agrees to be responsible to move the fence and adjacent patio if the municipality has a need to repair the Boardwalk or to allow for passage of equipment, the owner will remain fully responsible for the removal and replacement of the fence at their own cost and expense. The owner will continually maintain the fence and patio in good and safe condition.

2. The owner agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Borough from any action arising from the fence and patio as located on Jenkinsons property.

3. The Indemnification Agreement is to be submitted to the Board’s Attorney for his review and approval and shall be attached to the memorialized Resolution which is to be recorded prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Wolfersberger – Unfortunate that we put the cart before the horse and put the fence up but I would not have known the difference. The town is changing and considering the fact we are not sure which is the front or back and it is not obstructing anyone’s view; inclined to let the fence stay
Spader – With the provision of the condition that the Storino’s sign off on that I have no problem.
Reynolds – Had one concern with the patio being on Storino’s property but with the consent signed I am fine with it.
Ardito – Does not have much more to add. Satisfied with Mr. McGlynn’s signed document.
Davis – Echo previous comments
Struncius – When I listen to the reasons of why it is helpful I didn’t hear anything farfetched (people reaching over). In favor with license agreement in place

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2013-30 with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2013-30 of Margaret Windrem with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2013-36 – Frank Florio – 202 Baltimore – Block 125; Lot 19 -Applicant plans to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE
The applicant is seeking the following variances: height variance (in stories) for the construction of a 3-story house, whereas 2-stories is the maximum permitted; front yard setback of 17.58 feet to the stairs, whereas 25 feet is required.
John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant’s property was damaged during Hurricane Sandy. The applicant is currently seeking to build a new house to replace the damaged house. The applicant intends to raise the house high enough to allow a garage to be placed underneath of it. The front steps will be extended to compensate for the increased height of the house. The garage will be constructed with breakaway walls and will be a two-door garage with space for two cars.

Scott Hoffman, the applicant’s designer stated that the existing building is wider than the applicant’s proposed building. The proposed building will be set back 10 feet further than the existing building and the applicant will construct a two car enclosed garage underneath the house. The proposed building will have a southern style plantation house look. The second floor is intended as living space with a kitchen, dining room, family room, and storage area, with a deck in the back. The third floor will consist of three (3) bedrooms; two (2) small bedrooms and one (1) master bedroom. The overall area of the proposed house is 2,600 square feet. The garage will be located in the first floor basement and the house is elevated 14 feet from the ground, and 35 feet above the curb. There will be two (2) parking spaces in the garage and two (2) spaces on the driveway. The applicant will request a new curb cut to access the garage from Council. The tree on the lot is a street tree, and will not be removed.

Frank A. Florio, applicant, sworn, stated that the existing curb cut size is 13 feet in width. Flood vents will be incorporated into the garage doors. The applicant will encase the piles in order to make them appear to be columns, and will trim down the exterior plaster.
Audience comments/questions
Margaret Masterson, of 200 Baltimore Avenue, commented that the house’s southern style fits into the neighborhood and will add to the aesthetics of the property.
Christine Rierdon – 208 Baltimore Avenue – Knows how important it is to keep grass on the property; Frank and Nancy want to keep grass - I think that is a plus.

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. 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.

1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meeting of July 24, 2013.

2. Building coverage is not to exceed 30%.

3. The first floor basement is only to be used for storage and as a garage.

4. There is to be no habitation within the first floor/basement.

5. The building is to be constructed as shown and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

6. The applicant is to obtain county or municipal approval for two curb cuts. In the event the applicant’s request is rejected, then the garage on the south side of the house will not store any cars but will be available for storage purposes only.

7. The piles are to be encased to look like columns.

8. The applicant agreed to incorporate flood vents into the garage doors and first floor basement walls.

9. If two (2) curb cuts are approved the driveways will be designed to preserve the existing street tree and ensure that there is one (1) on street parking space in front of this dwelling.

10. The landscaping plan is to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

11. The front porches are not to be enclosed.

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

Wolfersberger – Loves the house; it is not a McMansion that some people try to develop. Eliminated some variances; only dealing now with the front yard setback. In favor
Spader – The initial concern was building coverage which has been recalculated. It is under 35 feet and I think it looks great.
Reilly – I like low country housing – it is very attractive. In favor of this
Reynolds – Concerned with front yard setback but it is a beautiful house; this home fits.
Ardito - Agreement with everything that has been said to this point; I think it is beautiful. As a community we gain when individuals do the right thing. You are going higher because you know the wave action exceeded what they said it would. The new structure will be safe. The community gains; it is good for the neighborhood.
Davis - There is not much more to be said. This home meets the criteria and it is a beautiful design, flood compliant and gives a little bit back.
Struncius – Does not want the front porches enclosed; then everything has been said.

Motion made by Mr. Spader and seconded by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application#2013-36 of Frank Florio with conditions

In favor: Mr. Spader, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Davis, Mr. Struncius

Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published September24, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1682

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