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 17, 2013

Minutes

The October 17, 2013 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Struncius, Spader, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito Alternates: Loder and Davis

Absent: Wolfersberger, Renner and Shamy


Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes from the September 5, 2013 meeting.

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

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #201-39 of Jake’s Crab House, LLC with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-46 with conditions

In favor: Reynolds, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

#2013-47 – Marie/Robert Kurtzke – 1011 Gowdy Avenue – Block 37.02; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to construct an open porch to the rear of the existing single family dwelling.

Marie and Robert Kurtzke, applicant’s sworn. Marie Kurtzke stated that they are seeking a front yard setback from Rosewood Avenue of 18.49 feet, (existing 21 feet to front porch on Gowdy Avenue) whereas 25 feet is required and an existing rear yard setback for the accessory structure (garage) of 2.70 feet, whereas 5 feet is required. The applicant proposes to construct a deck with a porch that runs along the entire length of the house. The roof of the house will extend over the deck and will be the new roof shingles will match the existing roof shingles.
The garage has been on the property for a long time and it is impractical to move the garage to correct the existing rear yard setback. They might enclose it in the future to make a three season porch.

Richard A. Hughes, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated the following:

A. The house is approximately 100 years old.

B. The roof has a reverse gable in the back. The gable will continue down and will look symmetrical.

C. The materials that will be used for the porch and the roof will match the existing materials on the house.

D. The porch will be 8 feet deep.

E. The porch will be an open porch, with the intent of possibly screening it to use for 3-seasons.

F. The porch will not be used for habitation.

G. The porch will have posts coming down and railings across.

H. The look will now mirror the look of the front of the house which will make the house look nicer.

The Board determined that the proposed porch will add attractiveness to the back of the house which is now stark. 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.
There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal that will impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners and that the benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Spader – I think it will be a wonderful addition to the home.

Kelly – Considering the condition of the home and commends the applicant on the renovations. I think it is a real added attraction in the back.

Reilly – It is very typical of issues we have with corner lots in town and will be in favor of this.

Reynolds – Have no problem with this. From what I have heard I do not think that we have an issue.

Loder – I go by this house all the time and I think the improvements will add to its value.

Davis – likewise, I believe that this will be a lovely addition. It will add to the symmetry of the home.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-47 - Marie/Robert Kurtzke – 1011 Gowdy Avenue – Block 37.02; Lot 1 with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

#2013-45 – Gregory Gennaro/Garland Herron – 214 Curtis Avenue – Block 118/Lot 6.01 – Applicant wishes to construct a new family dwelling at the ABFE.

Gregory M. Gennaro, Esquire, applicant sworn, stated that he is requesting the following variances; building height of 36 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum height permitted: and for the number of stories of 3, whereas 2 stories is the maximum number of stories permitted.

The applicant stated the following:

A. The lot size is 65 feet wide and 175 feet deep.

B. The applicant is seeking a variance for a 3 story house.

C. The house will be a two story house but will have a parking garage underneath which is counted as a story.

D. The second story will be built into the roofline so it will not appear massive.

E. The applicant is also requesting a height variance as the structure will be elevated to meet the base flood elevation. Because the water level was high in this area after Hurricane Sandy, the applicant is requesting to add an additional 4 extra feet as a safety precaution. The additional height variance will be for 36 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum height permitted in the Zone.

F. The front yard setback is met. The applicant proposes to build the house at the same line as the neighbor’s house in order to provide a consistent look with the rest of the neighborhood.

G. The applicant proposes to keep as many trees as possible and will only remove trees that are diseased or dying.

Dean Daley, R.A., the applicant’s architect, stated the following -

A. The proposed house is less than 35 feet in height. The applicant wants to minimize any grading on the site. Since the curb height is at 6.0 feet, and the property slopes upward, this will require the applicant to seek a height variance.

B. The proposed size of the house is modest: the house is 2,870 square feet in total size.

C. The house will have front and back porches which add to the look of the house.

D. By adding the garage underneath the house, the lot coverage will be reduced. It is not a bulky home.

E. The mechanicals will be located in the attic.

F. There will be an elevator that will go from the ground floor up to the second floor living area. A power pack will be installed to operate the elevator in the event of a power outage.

G. The ground floor will not be habitable.

H. The front porch will have 13 steps to the door and will be 7 feet wide.

I. There will be crushed stone underneath the stairway area and the steps will be closed off.

J. The applicant proposes to use Cedar impression shingles on the façade.

K. The front porch will have wooden rails.


The Board determined that the house will be aesthetically pleasing and by matching the front line of the applicant’s house with the neighbor’s house, it will be consistent with the neighborhood scheme and that the house will be compliant with the base flood elevation and as the house is being brought up to code it will advance public safety. The Board determined that the lot is large and that it can accommodate the additional one foot of height. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal that will impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

No audience/questions


Deliberations

Spader – This basically is a two-story home with a garage. Home will not be crowding anyone and is very attractive and is appropriate for the neighborhood and with the conditions in place will be in favor.

Kelly – Thinks design of home with gabled roofs will not emphasize the extra foot. Quite frankly I think it is a nice looking home and an improvement to the neighborhood.
Reilly – I could argue if this should be 14 or 15 feet but I like so many things about it - the design, the way it sets in the lot and maintains trees that I am in favor of this.

Reynolds – It is a modest home on a nice sized lot; it certainly is going to fit in with the neighborhood. Have no problem with this application

Ardito – When I opened my board package and pulled out the drawings I said “Wow, this looks like something from South Carolina something I have been looking to buy”. You do not have an attic, the roof line is broken up. The massing isn’t there so the additional foot is not noticeable whatsoever. The additional 4 feet will be a good thing. All in all I think it is a very good attractive home that fits in the neighborhood.

Loder – I like the design the home as well. Will be in favor

Davis – Very attractive flood compliant home. The elevation is lost in the woods.

Struncius – Nothing more needs to be said – close for deliberations

Conditions

1. The home is to be constructed as shown to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The elevator is to have back-up power for emergencies.

3. The ground floor is limited to parking and storage and is never to be used for habitation, even if it is determined that the ground floor is above the regulatory flood elevation. This restriction is to be imposed on this lot by means of a Deed Restriction. The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to recording and it must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. The revised plans are to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2013-45 of Gregory Gennaro/Garland Herron – 214 Curtis Avenue – Block 118/Lot 6.01 – with conditions

In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions



#2013-50 – David/Barbara Russell – 153 Chicago Avenue – Block 99/Lot 15 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single family dwelling and add one story addition to the rear.



John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is seeking the following variances - front yard setback of 16.68 feet to the front stairs, whereas 25 feet is required and for building coverage of 33.37%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted. The applicant is seeking to lift and slightly increase the size of their home. The applicant proposes to upgrade the house and make it more livable. The house is a single story house purchased in August of 2011. The applicant proposes to enclose the deck in the back and make an enhancement to the front porch which will add an aesthetic curb appeal. The building coverage variance is mainly due to the stairs and the covered porch.

John C. Amelchenko R.A., stated that the property is on the north side of Chicago Avenue and is 50 feet by 125 feet in size; the lot is conforming in size; the property has an access lane that is shared with a number of other residences. There will be one principal structure and one accessory structure on this site and that the house is a Cape Cod style home and is 1,800 square feet in size. The house sits off of Chicago Avenue 30 feet. To the rear of the property is a two-car garage 450 square feet in size which is accessed by a vehicular lane. In addition to the principal and accessory structure, the applicant has an existing portico, a small covered porch with a couple of steps and a wood deck that is located to the east of the first story extension. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing floor plan. A one-story addition currently exists. It is an enclosed 3-season room which is one step down from the main floor.
The applicant proposes to remove the addition and build a new addition that will be level with the main floor. The applicant proposes to elevate the house by 30 inches. The finished floor elevation will be at elevation 12; 3 feet above the base flood elevation and 1 foot above the current base flood elevation of eleven (11) feet. The front portico will have a new set of stairs due to the higher elevation.

a. Although the applicant proposes to raise the home by 30 inches, it will still be well under the 35 foot height limit.

b. The addition will comprise just 220 square feet.

c. There will not be any additions to the second story.

d. The proposed 220 square foot addition consists of a small dining room space, a new landing down to the backyard, and an enclosed vestibule for their dogs.

e. The addition is tucked away behind the garage, is a single story addition and is not an imposition to the neighbors as it will not impact their light or air.

f. The additional building coverage of 3.37% is mitigated by the fact that building is so small and modest.

g. The existing garage comprises of approximately 7% of the building coverage.

h. The garage is one story and the applicant will not be raising the garage.

i. The garage is a fully functioning 2-car garage and has some storage.

j. Elevating the house will provide an added safety factor with respect to future storms. The water from Hurricane Sandy did not enter the main part of the house. It did enter the sunroom which was 1 foot lower.

k. The crawl space is now below grade and will be filled in.

l. The applicant will add flood vents.

m. The mechanicals will be kept out of harm’s way.

n. The paver patio will remain.

o. The front walkway is constructed from concrete. The applicant will replace the concrete walkway with a paver walkway.

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. The Board found that the house will be compliant with the base flood elevation and as the house is being brought up to code, which will improve public safety. The Board found this proposal unique because the expansion fit in this location and because the expansion was all contained to the first floor. The Board also found the Amelchenko design attractive. However, the Board had serious concerns that had this building been increased on the second floor, that the massing would be too great for this neighborhood. In light of their concerns, the Board conditioned approval requiring any change to the design or massing to be reviewed by the Board.
There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal that will impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Spader – Other than the concern about the 30inches the home is being lifted; it is modest and will improve safety.


Kelly – Sees no problems and the elevation is causing the setback problem.

Reilly – This is a modest home; a little concerned about the building coverage but will be in favor

Reynolds – Modest home – In favor

Ardito – Bringing home into flood compliance – In favor

Loder – Looking at the addition – Having no concerns with the building coverage.

Davis – Nice to see a flood compliant home; modest design – In favor

Struncius – a certain percentage of addition is causing the building coverage variance – it isn’t all stairs and accessory structure – I want a provision protecting us from the mass of the home building up in the event of a third story being added in the future. I like this home.


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-50 – David/Barbara Russell – 153 Chicago Avenue – Block 99/Lot 15 with conditions

In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None




#2013-43 – Marion Talian – 100 Niblick Street – Block 102/Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE.

Application carried without notice

Let the record reflect that both Chairman Struncius and Mr. Loder have listened to the audio from the September 11, 2013 meeting and have signed a certification and will be able to vote on this matter.


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

A. The height of the house has been reduced to 35.52 feet by changing the pitch of the roof based on the grade along Niblick Street.

B. The house was reduced 1 foot on each size and 2 feet from the back.

C. There will be no habitation within the first floor. The garage will only be used for storage and for the housing of automobiles.

D. Provisions for an elevator, which may be installed in the future, are also included in the garage area.

E. The applicant has changed the plans to add a stone veneer to the garage cement area to enhance its look.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Professional Engineer, Robert Woodcock, P.E., the Board made the following findings of fact:

A. The westerly and easterly walls were both brought in 1 foot and the back of the house was moved forward toward the front and 2 feet were taken off of the back.

B. The rear deck remained the same size, but the stair case and landings were reconfigured which reduced the coverage.

C. The house was a five bedroom house and will remain a five bedroom house.

D. The first floor is 1,626 square feet and the second floor comprises of 1,399 square feet in size.

Jane C. Presti, sworn, a niece of the applicant, stated the following;

A. The applicant has owned the house since 1968 and has been living in the house permanently since 1997.

B. The house has always been a family house. In the summer and holidays, the family gathers at the house.

C. There was a living room and a separate dining room which is now being converted to a great room consisting of the kitchen area and living area.

D. Although the deck is high off of the grade, it is important to keep because the applicant is elderly and would have a difficult time enjoying the outdoors if she had to tackle stairs to get down to the yard area.


There board at this point was still concerned with the massing and percentage of building coverage.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to carry application #2013-43 of Marion Talian – 100 Niblick Street – Block 102/Lot 20 to November 7, 2013 without notice

In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:33pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published January17, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1765


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