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

October 3, 2013


The October 3, 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. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Renner, Mr. Davis, Mr. Loder and acting Chair Mr. Wolfersberger

Absent – Struncius, Reilly, Kelly, Spader and Shamy

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to nominate Mr. Wolfersberger as acting chairman for the evening

In favor: Reynolds, Ardito, Wolfersberger, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

Memorialization of Minutes – August 21, 2013 – Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reynolds

In favor – Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Ardito and Davis
Opposed - None

Memorialization of Resolutions-

#2013-48 – Gail Connolly – 1507 Oceanfront – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize with conditions.
In favor: Ardito, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

#2013-51 – Christian/Mary Pirl – 307 Laurel – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving with conditions.

In favor: Reynolds, Ardito, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

#2013-80 Annual Report for the years 2011-2012 – We have previously approved the letters but not the resolution – Discussion has been put on hold for time for Board members to review more thoroughly and make recommendations.

Application #2013-46 – Chester Barritta - 247 Boardwalk – Block 120- Lot 4.07 – Applicant wishes to reconstruct a four foot fence in the front yard.

The applicant is seeking the following variance: a replacement of a 4 foot fence in the front yard directly adjacent to the Boardwalk whereas 3 foot fences are the maximum permitted.

John Paul Doyle, Esquire, applicant’s attorney stated that the applicant has owned the house for 22 years and has always had a 4 foot fence.

The applicant proposes to replace the existing fence that was damaged during Hurricane Sandy with a 4 foot fence that matches the design of the second floor balcony fence.

The Board made the following findings of fact:

A. When the applicant built the house 22 years ago, the applicant installed a 4 foot wooden fence.

B. When the Boardwalk was in need of repair, the applicant was advised to remove the fence to permit the repair of the Boardwalk.

C. The applicant will remove the fence in the event the Borough is in need of repairing the Boardwalk in the future.

D. The neighbor to the south of the applicant’s property has a 5 foot fence. Other properties up and down the Boardwalk area have 4 foot fences. The proposed fence will be consistent with the other fences on the Boardwalk.

E. The applicant has an existing fence on the balcony which the applicant proposes to match.

F. The purpose of the fence is to provide privacy and security.

G. The applicant provided a letter from Jenkinson’s Pavilion, Inc., who owns a 3-foot section of the property that the fence will be placed, permitting the applicant to install the fence.

H. A survey was also provided to the Board to indicate where the fence will be placed.

The Board determined that matching the fence on the balcony with the proposed fence will add architectural character and will be aesthetically pleasing and that the height of the fence will be consistent with the height of other fences along the Boardwalk. 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.


Reynolds – with the condition that the fence will be removed for needed boardwalk repair and replaced by owner I would be in favor.

Ardito - Pretty much the same, for security reasons and you have the owner’s consent. In favor

Renner – House is lovely and there is nothing that causes me concern…… in favor…

Loder – I think the issues are de minimus and will be in favor of this application

Davis – I think making the fence consistent with the balcony will add to the architectural appeal.

Wolfersberger – No objections either and it will be consistent with the style of the home.

Motion made by Mr. Reynolds and seconded by Mr. Renner that the application of Chester Barritta is granted, subject to the following terms and conditions:


1. The applicant, or any future owner, shall remove the fence upon the request of the Borough if necessitated by any repair, maintenance, or replacement of the Boardwalk. The applicant or any future owner shall be responsible for the repair and replacement of any improvements adjacent to the Boardwalk that may be disturbed during maintenance activities of the Boardwalk. This condition shall be recorded as a Deed Restriction and is subject to review by the Board’s Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permit.

2. The fence shall not have any decorative finials extending past the four foot boundaries of the fence and postings

In favor: Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Wolfersberger

Opposed: None

Application #2013- 27 - Rocco and Maria Pallone – 114 Forman Avenue – Block 63; Lot 13 – Applicant wishes to raise one of two dwellings located on property.

Carried without notice from June 26, 2013

Steven A. Pardes, Esquire, applicant’s attorney stated that the applicant amended the plans and made improvements to the proposal. The initial proposal showed the stairs coming out the front of the house straight down to the ground level resulting in a setback of 11 feet. The applicant turned the stairs to the side and was able to lessen the variance requested to 19.46 feet for the stairs and 22 feet for the porch. The repositioning of the stairs also is more aesthetically pleasing from the streetscape. The applicant has eliminated the garage. By the elimination of the garage, the height of the structure was reduced to 26.5’ which is conforming since 35 feet is permissible. The foundation at the front of the house will be a stucco finish brought down to 2 feet 6 inches above grade and will be attractive. The other three sides of the house will be siding. The building coverage and the impervious coverage are conforming and the structure in the back will remain and will be used as a rental unit.

Maria Pallone, applicant stated that the rear dwelling, which is used as an apartment, will not be raised or renovated. The applicant did not receive a letter from the Borough that it was necessary to bring the structure into compliance as it was not substantially damaged from the storm. The front dwelling is used by the applicant’s and the applicant does not rent out that structure. The rear dwelling is rented out as a year-round rental. It is not rented out as a summer rental.

Margaret Semenuk, of 133A Randall Avenue asked if the applicant was permitted to rent out both structures at the same time. She was informed that both units could not be rented at the same time. It did not matter which unit was rented, but one structure was only permitted to be rented at a time.

The Board asked that the applicant file a Deed Restriction to prevent renting both structures at the same time. The applicant suggested to the Board that if a Deed Restriction with that condition was filed, it may de-value her property and prevent her from selling it in the future. The Board disagreed.

The Board believes that there would be a big market for this property since the main house will be in compliance with the base flood elevation and have the affordability of flood insurance. The Board feels that having a rental structure on the property will add to the salability. The Board determined it would not be in the best interest of the community to permit both structures being rented out at the same time. The Board found that because the houses will be in full compliance with the building codes, it will be an asset to the community. 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.


Reynolds – You have made some nice changes in lieu of the restriction I would not vote in favor.

Ardito – I understand what you believe the short comings are with one rental. It is your opinion that the value would be affected with one rental. I do not see how it is hurtful when you bring a building into compliance. There are plenty of people who would be interested in the property. If I were you I would listen to your counsel.

Renner – This is something that we have heard a number of times in the last 6 months. We have in the past restricted rentals.

Loder – Based on the fact the applicant would not designate one rental I would not be in favor.

Davis – I feel a great deal of sympathy for the applicant. We have an obligation to push forward with the agenda of the town. We see what happens when there is a dual rental; would be in favor with condition.

Wolfersberger - Would vote against application without the condition.


1. The applicant shall record a Deed Restriction prohibiting the rental of both units at the same time and with the un-rented unit owner occupied. The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Application #2013-38 – Margaret Semenuk/Margaret and Mario Natale – 133A & 133 B Randall Avenue – Block 136; Lot 5.04 and 5.05 – Applicant wishes to elevate one building consisting of an existing two-family dwelling in a condominium group of three buildings with a total of five units and add a second level.

Dan Popovitch, attorney for applicant, stated that this is a condo association with five (5) structures which is a pre-existing non-conformity which requires a “use” variance. Letter submitted signed by Mr. Cheasty, President of the condo association stating that they support this application, marked Exhibit A- 3. In 2003 Mr. Cheasty received variance approval for his unit. Colored photographs entered as A- 4 of home prior to Super Storm Sandy.

Mario Natale, applicant, sworn, owner of 133 B. Proposal is to raise property above flood elevation and add second story to add additional living space. Engineer letter was reviewed.

Pat Jeffries, acting Board Engineer questioned the front stairs and how the garage will be accessed. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired how the garage is accessed now and is not in favor of losing on street parking with new curb cuts. Mario Natale stated that there is a whole parking lot there now. Dan Popovitch stated that front yard and side setback are pre-existing. The cantilever would add about 1%, building coverage and will be over the neighbor’s home. Building height is 35.7 feet needing a variance. Mr. Renner stated that he wants accurate numbers when the applicant returns. Mr.
No audience questions/comments
The Board determined that it had too many questions and that the architecturals and calculations were not correct. The applicant stated that they will make the adjustments for accuracy and submit them prior to the next meeting. Mr. Ardito suggested to come back with one plan and one curb cut.

Motion by Mr. Renner. Second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2013-38 of Margaret Semenuk and Mario Natale to January 16, 2014 without notice.
Dan Popovitch waived the time for the application to be heard.
In favor; Reynolds, Ardito, Wolfersberger, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 9:42pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published January17, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1764

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