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


August 21, 2013

Minutes

The August 21, 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Davis
Absent – Struncius, Reynolds and Shamy

Memorialization of Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-30 –of Margaret Windrem 133 Broadway
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Ardito and Davis
Opposed - None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving #2013-36 of Frank Florio – 202 Baltimore
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Ardito, Davis and Reilly
Opposed - None

Application #2013-35 – Andrew Penrod – 817 Trenton Avenue – Block – 91.04; Lot 1.01 - Applicant wishes to demolish attached garage and construct one bedroom and one bathroom and construct a covered front porch to existing single family dwelling.
Andrew and Jennifer Penrod, applicants, sworn are seeking the following variances: a front yard setback of 23.3 feet (Trenton Avenue) and 15 feet (Trenton Court), whereas 25 feet is required and an existing side yard setback of 1 foot (to deck), whereas 5 feet is required. Andrew Penrod proposes to demolish existing attached garage and replace it with a master bedroom suite, including a bathroom and a laundry room and add a covered front porch. The addition will have access to the side yard and will match the rest of the house. The front porch has steps with a removable ramp. The ramp is too steep and difficult for the applicant’s mother, who is handicapped, to manage the ramp. The applicant proposes to improve the ramp so it is not as steep. The existing white Cedar siding will be replace with a vinyl siding and the brick paver patio in the front will be reduced in size. The applicant will remove the driveway which will add one on-street parking space. There is an open deck behind the house which will remain.

The Board finds that the house will be aesthetically pleasing, consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood, and will be an improvement to the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach and that the proposed building design was very attractive and will improve the utility of the home and will make it handicapped friendly.
Conditions
1. The home will be renovated as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The siding on the addition will match the rest of the home.

Deliberations
Spader - After reviewing and visiting the property I can see that this is an improvement and will be voting in favor.
Kelly – I see no problem with this one at all. In favor
Reilly – You have done a nice job with the home; I like the court yard in the back, very very nice. I am assuming this will look just as good when it is done. In favor of this.
Ardito - The addition of the master suite does not significantly change light or air. We are basically here for a front yard setback. In favor
Renner - I think that you have done a very nice job with the home you have now and this will be a nice addition.
Loder – no comments
Davis – My only comment would be to reflect what has been said.
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2013-35 of Andrew Penrod with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Renner, Loder, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions


Application #2013-42 – Carolyn Angioletti – 1323 Oceanfront – Block 17.01; Lot 15 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant suffered significant damage to the house as a result of Hurricane Sandy. The applicant is seeking variance relief to meet appropriate flood elevation requirements and that the property has a unique topography due to the slope of the property. The existing 2-story house will be demolished and the applicant will replace it with a 2 ½ story house. The applicant is seeking the following variances: a height variance of 41.1 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted and for lot frontage of 0 feet, whereas 50 feet is the minimum required.

John C. Amelchenko, AIA, sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the property is ocean front property that is accessed through Lot 38 which sits right on Ocean Avenue. Exhibits entered – A-3 – Series of five (5) photos A-4 – Colored rendering. The lot is approximately 6,500 square feet in size and the existing house is 1,800 square feet in size, it is a two-story house that was built in the late 1950’s. The mechanicals that were located on the first floor were impacted by the storm. Given the age of the home and its masonry wall construction, it was not a good candidate to raise the house to conform to FEMA requirements. The applicant chose to build a new home which will be 2,800 square feet in size and will be considered a 2 ½ story structure. The first floor will be constructed with break-away walls and will have a one (1) car garage underneath the house. The main living area will be located on the second level and the half story third level will consist of a bedroom and a sitting room. The house will have five (5) bedrooms and the new house will be oriented towards the ocean. The materials the applicant will use are consistent with the homes at the shore – cedar shingles, tapered columns, touches of brick façade on the exposed garage walls, and a copper roof on the front turret. CAFRA waterfront rules and regulations prevent the applicant from pushing the house substantially to the east; the applicant would like to center the house on the property, but cannot do so due to CAFRA. The applicant will be able to park one car underneath the house and is permitted to park on Lot 38 by means of an existing parking easement. The first floor elevation will be at 18.31 feet from grade level which necessitates a height variance in order to be FEMA compliant. The existing decks are to be restored to the original size, provided CAFRA approves and the proposed home is appropriate for the neighborhood and will be aesthetically pleasing.

Carolyn Angioletti, applicant, sworn stated that the house is a family house that is used in the summer and has never been rented out. The existing house does not have a garage; therefore, the garage will provide one parking space.
The Board acknowledges that the house is beautifully designed, 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 now be compliant with FEMA’s required code, which will improve public safety. This property is a unique location and it 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 and the benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
Conditions
1. The home is to be constructed as shown on the plans and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The application is approved subject to the applicant’s Attorney confirming with the Board’s Attorney and the Board’s Engineer that the property has adequate access.

3. The patio paver reconstruction, if approved by CAFRA, is to occur in accordance with the plan and is not to be expanded.

Deliberations

Wolfersberger – Beautiful design as usual. Biggest concern is cannot grasp the 41 feet in height even knowing it is measured from Ocean Avenue. We need dunes in Point Pleasant Beach, not sure how he will vote at this time.
Spader – Being a long time resident is part of the conflict in accepting what is going to be the new Point Pleasant Beach. We have seen this Board go 36 feet/37 feet. There is always something about being safer than sorry. A foot or two here or there is not excessive, maybe that will make the difference next time around. We cannot force them to make an easement decision.
Kelly – Happy to see the reversed living plan; this is an asset for homes on the beach. There is quite a change in elevation at the beach. I think the garage will help the parking area; likes the plan.
Ardito - Sorry for your loss and that is what brought you here tonight. Looking out for your best interest; we look to assure that it is built safe and we are after sustainability. I agree with a 2 ½ story home; do not see an issue. The only negative is the houses in front losing some view and light but they are not here this evening and I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
Renner – I am going to echo what I have heard about the safety; I am in favor of erring on the side of caution. The location is fairly unique; from the curb we won’t even see it.
Loder – No comments
Davis – Echo’s what we have heard already. Giving the first floor flood protection pushes the roof up; this home is a substantial improvement both from aesthetic and safety point of view. Believes the dune situation will
Reilly – Mr. Amelchenko has out done himself with a beautiful design. I think when we think of the height and look at the topography we understand.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-42 – Carolyn Angioletti – 1323 Oceanfront – Block 17.01; Lot 15 – with conditions
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Renner, Loder and Reilly
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions


Application #2013-40 – Stephanie Gurgo – 1503 Oceanfront – Block – 13.11; Lot – Applicant wishes to remove the east portion of the existing dwelling and reconstruct it to the ABFE in the same foot print. Additionally the applicant is going to raise the existing west portion of the structure that contains a mother/daughter apartment.


John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is requesting the following variances; a height variance (in stories) for the construction of a 3-story house, whereas 2-stories is the maximum permitted; a height variance (in feet) of 38.40 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted; lot width of 49.97 feet, whereas 50 feet is required; front yard setback of 2.3 feet (to alley), whereas 25 feet is required; side yard setback of 1.1 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; rear yard setback of 28.9 feet (to deck), whereas 30 feet is required and building coverage of 43.58%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted. John Jackson stated that the house was substantially damaged by Hurricane Sandy and that the home has been in the family since the 1950’s when the applicant’s parents bought the house.
The house was built in the 1920’s and has a right-of-way in the front. The right-of-way has always existed as the house was built to the midpoint of that right-of-way. The applicant is seeking to raise part of the front of the house and the rest will be demolished and rebuilt. There are two kitchens in the house which have been there since the applicant’s parents purchased the house in the 1950’s. The applicant would like to continue to keep the two separate kitchens. The house is a single family home and is not intended to be a 2-family home and is not looking for approval to change the house into a 2-family home.
Robert C. Burdick, Professional Planner, P.E., P.P., stated that the applicant proposes to reconstruct the eastern portion of the home and proposes to raise the western portion of the home and that there will not be any expansion to the footprint of the house. The applicant is proposing to construct a deck on the eastern side of the house which was a covered porch with a surface patio that had access to the house and because the house needs to be raised to meet FEMA base flood elevation, the applicant proposes to construct a deck to the first floor living area in order to provide access to the house. The house had an existing separate garage which existed in 1940. In 1947 the garage and the house were connected and the home was expanded and addition was built on top of the garage making it all one structure. A bedroom exists over the garage. The applicant’s mother purchased the home in 1956 at that time; it was in the same configuration as it is today. It had two kitchens and the attached garage addition. The house was never used as a two family home. The lowest level will have break away walls and will not be habitable. The deed for the property begins at the centerline of the 16 foot access way. Two other homes have access through the alley from Carter Avenue. The applicant and the adjacent property to the north are accessed by an alley from Elizabeth Avenue.
The applicant will amend their plans to reflect that the 2.3 foot variance is for a front yard setback. (The applicant’s Professional Engineer thought that the 2.3 foot variance was for a rear yard setback). The side yard setback of 1.1 foot is existing and is proposed on the southerly portion of the house. The Board inquired about the possibility of moving the house to eliminate this setback, but it was determined that moving the house would have a negative consequence on the other properties.
The building coverage existed at 36.73% but will be increased to 43.58%. The increase in building coverage is due to the rear deck and stairs that are needed in order to raise the house to comply with FEMA’s base flood elevation. The renovated and constructed house will be an aesthetic improvement and will improve safety by bringing the house up to code. The applicant will eliminate the additional utility meters that are on the house.
Stephanie Gurgo, applicant, sworn, stated that the applicant has a lot of history and memories associated with this house. She wants to build something stronger and safer while preserving parts of the house that retain memories. The applicant purchased the house in 1988 from her mother. The applicant informed that Board that moving the house to the north will make it difficult to get into the garage, as well as obstruct the view her neighbors have. She does not want to cause her neighbors to lose their view and play area. The proposed house will be 342 square feet larger than the old house, which will increase the size of the bedrooms slightly. The house has two entrances in the back which will remain.

Richard Standt, the applicant’s builder stated that the deck on the south side of the house will be duplicated as to position and square footage, it will only be elevated. The air-conditioner condenser unit will be placed in the attic and there will not be any windows in the attic and the space will not be used for habitation. He opined that moving the house to the north would interfere with the neighbors. The applicant will replace the façade with white cedar and will install new windows.

Susan Venanzi, neighbor is very concerned that in the event the house was to be moved it would obstruct her view.

Katherine LaPlante, 1429 Ocean Front, is very supportive of the application. She thinks it will be a great enhancement to the neighborhood.

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.
Conditions

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’s Attorney must confirm with the Board’s Attorney and Engineer that the property has adequate access and the right to be located in its current location, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3. A Deed Restriction is to be filed with the County Clerk, with the following legend: “While the Board has granted the applicant the right to have two (2) kitchens within the home, the home is never to be used as a two-family home.” The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to recording and must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. The extra utility meters are to be eliminated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. There is only to be one set of utility meters serving this home.
Deliberations
Spader – This one is interesting because of the history and sentimental value. I have been through this myself and wanting to preserve some of the past. I was concerned with the side yard setback but the neighbors are in favor of the application. With the circumstances how they are I will be in support of the application.
Kelly - It is a pleasure to deal with this kind of application. Fortunately our applicant has spent a lot of time at Antrim School. No problem with application and the neighbors are here to indicate there is no problem with the setback issues.
Ardito - Sorry you had to go through what you went through. Eye opening event for everybody. Applaud you for trying to save what you can and have the memories. We ask questions to make sure we are protecting you and the community. Not a very big home that you are proposing; deck is much of the building coverage. Glad we didn’t push the issue of moving the house. Thinks the positives outweigh the negative and will be in favor.
Renner - Really happy that you are trying to preserve some of the old Point Pleasant. Normally I would be upset with 43% building coverage but in this case I understand and will be in favor.
Loder - I think the things you are asking for are de minimis and will be voting in favor of this application
Davis – Echo all that has been said and am sorry for your loss and applaud you for trying to preserve what you can. The improvements in this structure far outweigh the negatives. Will be in favor
Chairman Reilly – I think all the variances requested on the surface are “oh my gosh” but the more we talk and understand the basis for them they are quite reasonable. I really applaud the applicant for trying to do it this way and I hope that it meets her highest dreams.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2013-40 of Stephanie Gurgo with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Renner, Loder, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Dennis Galvin read resolution of Open Public Meetings Act pertaining to litigation into the record and went into executive session to discuss.

Meeting adjourned at 10:39pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published October08, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1693


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