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

November 7, 2013


The November 7, 2013 Regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach 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, Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito Alternates: Renner, Loder and Davis
Absent: Shamy

Memorialization of Minutes – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of September 11, 2013.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Approval of 2014 meeting dates

Memorialization of Resolutions
#2013-80 – Annual report resolution
#2013-27 – Rocco/Maria Pallone - Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-27 with conditions.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
#2013-47 Marie/Robert Kurtzke – 1011 Gowdy – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving resolution #2013-47 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
#2013-45 – Greg Gennaro/Garland Herron – 214 Curtis – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-50 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
#2013-50 – David/Barbara Russell – 153 Chicago Ave – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-50 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None
#2013-40(A) – Stephanie Gurgo – 1503 Oceanfront – Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the action and vote approving the amendment to resolution #2013-40(A)
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Ardito, Loder, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Letter from Denis LaPlante; requesting to amend a condition – Ray Savacool recommended not approving unless the easement letter is signed. Dennis Galvin has concerns that Ray Savacool is not present to voice his concerns and recommends that the Board hears Ray’s concerns. Denis LaPlante stated that he just wants to build the deck that he had before the storm. Dennis Galvin determined that the Board should hear Ray Savacool’s concerns.
#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.
Applicant carried without notice
Michael D. Schaller, Esquire stated the following

A. The applicant further revised the plans to reduce the building coverage below the 30% maximum permitted.

B. The applicant will move the location of the house back approximately 5.5 feet from Niblick Street so the steps will now be in line with the house next door. This will lessen the front yard setback on Niblick from 18.9 feet to 24.4 feet, whereas 25 feet is required.

The Board was pleased that the applicant’s proposal now complies with building coverage requirements and that the reduced height and the length of the home were necessary and as modified, will be more compatible with neighboring houses. The Board determined that the house as revised will be aesthetically pleasing and will improve the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. The Board found that the house will now be compliant with the base flood elevation and will meet all building codes both of which improve public safety. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

Loder – Very nice project. The applicant worked to adjust the height and setbacks; will be in favor
Wolfersberger –
Spader – I think the other issue was the foundation; the applicant agreed to bring the siding down with decorative stone. The ordinance is 30% lot coverage and the application has been amended which shows that it can be done and this is on the right track for Point Pleasant Beach.
Kelly – Thanks the applicant for altering the project three times which shows it can be done.
Reilly – This is the third session we have had on this. The applicants and their staff have heard us and I think they have lined things up that are agreeable to all of us. Will be in favor
Reynolds – It has been a long process; would like to thank the applicant for working with the board and reducing the height and length of the house. It definitely started out as a huge house on that property, I still think it is somewhat huge but manageable.
Ardito – Appreciate that you have been able to work with us and work on the placement of the home. We like to minimize the number of variances needed, it is a new home.
Davis – I think all the points have been hit; we will end up with a flood compliant new home which is closer to what we would like to be the standard in town.
Renner – Nothing further to add.
Struncius – We have a corner lot so certainly we have special circumstances for the setbacks. Obviously it is an aesthetic and safety improvement. I think it is a great addition. We were pushing the limits in the beginning and now we have a big beautiful more compliant home.

1. The first floor is only to be used for storage and the parking of cars.
2. The applicant has one (1) year from the date of this Resolution to obtain a building permit.
3. The home is limited to three (3) stories. There is to be no habitation in the attic.
4. The air-conditioning condenser unit is to be set on a shelf cut into the roof or shall be placed in a compliant location on the lot.

5. The application shall be revised and constructed as shown on Exhibit A-2.
6. The landscaping plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
7. The height of the building is not to exceed 35.52 feet in height.
8. The front stairs are not to be closer to Niblick Street than the adjacent home. The precise location of the steps and the front of the house be set in consultation with the Board’s Engineer.
9. The plans are to be revised to show the revised height and the revised set back off Niblick Street. Those plans are to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
10. No more than three (3) feet of concrete foundation will be exposed at any particular location. The siding and stonework shall be constructed as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2013-43 of Marion Talian with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2013-52 – Vincent /Wendy Favorito – 7 Beachcomber Lane – Block 121; Lot 7.07 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family home and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE.
Mr. Reilly stepped down from the following application
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is seeking the following variances: side yard setback of 1.70 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; building height of 25.88 feet, whereas 20 feet is the maximum permitted; 1 ½ story house whereas 1 story is the maximum permitted.
The house sustained a lot of damage due to Hurricane Sandy. The applicant proposes to remove the one story single family dwelling and construct a new 1 ½ story single family dwelling.
John Amelchenko, R.A., stated that:
A. This property is unique because it contains seven (7) structures in a condominium arrangement.
B. The property is over 12,000 square feet and runs east to west from Ocean Avenue to the Boardwalk.
C. To the west of the property is Ocean Avenue, to the north and east are developed properties.
D. To the south are lots that share an easement that provides access to the seven (7) dwellings as well as another condominium arrangement of six (6) properties.
E. The condo unit is approximately 60 years old and has a footprint of 900 square feet.

F. The applicant’s structure is one-story and has a flood elevation of 7.9 feet.
G. When Hurricane Sandy came through, there was substantial damage to the structure; including structural damage.

H. The type of foundation system the applicant is proposing requires demolition of the house.
I. The new house will occupy the exact 900 square footprint as the original structure except it will be built at a higher elevation.
J. The proposed house will have the finished floor at elevation 12.
K. The proposed new house will have a great room consisting of a kitchen/dining/living area, two (2) small bedrooms and a shared bathroom Access to the house will be from the east side.
L. There will be room for mechanicals and space for outdoor storage, will have an outdoor shower elevated to the base flood elevation as required by code, and will have a small space for a washer and dryer.
M. The applicant is proposing a habitable attic consisting of 293 square feet of ling space that is largely under the shake of the roof. There are two centrally located dormers that will give additional height to provide space for the bathroom, stair and walk-in closet.
N. A balcony will be placed off of the habitable attic living space since there is not a lot of outdoor space since the structure is up against the fire lane. The condominium units have a Master Deed that has language that suggests that each home will have its own specific plot even though this is on one large lot that is not subdivided.
O. The house will use white trim and shingles to give it a cottage look. The second floor is offset from the first floor to provide for a window.
P. The height variance is driven by need to lift the first floor by 4 feet to comply with the base flood elevation. The elevation is measured from the top of the curb on Ocean Avenue which is at elevation 5.1.
Q. The living space on the upper level is designed to treat it as a ½ story.
R. There will be one (1) bedroom in the habitable attic space.
S. The design of the house mitigates its massing.
T. The actual height of the home is 22 feet where 20 feet is the maximum permitted.
U. The house will be constructed on pilings and will contain an open under the floor system.
V. There will be lattice as the enclosure of the crawl space.
W. The façade will be faced with hardy plank or hardy vinyl shingles.
X. Vinyl wainscot will be utilized on the gable along with trim white columns.

Vincent Favorito, applicant, sworn, stated the following;
A. The house was built in the 1950’s.
B. The bedrooms were very small averaging about 8’ x 9’ in side. A bed would fit, but there were no closets.
C. The applicant wants to expand the size of the bedrooms to make them more functional, comfortable, and user friendly.
D. Although there is room for two (2) small cars, the By-Laws of the condominium association only permit one vehicle to use the parking area.
E. The property is rented during the summer months from late June to half way through August. The applicant’s family uses the house during the rest of time.
F. The By-Laws of the Condominium Association only permit the applicant to rent the house to families (no group rentals)and this is enforced by the condominium association.
E. The applicant has owned the property for 18 years and has never had a problem with its renters.
Maryjane Reilly – 9 Beachcomber Lane, sworn, spoke in favor of the new home.
The Board determined that the proposed house is well designed and in keeping with the bungalow district. 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 is being built in the same footprint and did not go overboard with the size. The Board finds that the applicant has maximized the use of the space and that the house will be more functional. The house will be safer since the hazards of fire and flood have been mitigated by raising the house to be flood compliant, using fire rated materials, and bringing the house up to current building code standards. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
Wolfersberger – If it wasn’t for the unfortunate loss I would be against this application; however, the house is going to be attractive and not over bearing in that little space; it doesn’t look down on anyone. Only question would be what the attic window looks down on. In favor
Spader – The big part is that the home is being built in the same footprint and that group rentals are prohibited. Mayor and Council says by ordinance to not make things worse. This plan is very clever; particularly like the little balcony area. Will be very supportive
Kelly – I like the idea of the balcony and secondly it might be a trend setter for the entire street and we might see more coming in the future.
Reynolds – You had me as soon as you put the pictures up. You didn’t go overboard with the height and agree with what Mr. Kelly said and hopefully it starts a trend.
Ardito – Sorry for your loss. Mr. Amelchenko you have done a nice design and maximized the ability for them to increase space. More importantly the home is now code compliant. Being a proponent of elevating the home; all around it is a plus.
Renner – Agree with Mr. Spader and will be in support
Loder – I have looked at this part of town as being challenging; sorry for your loss of property. Based on what you have done with the space, it is safe and up to code will be in favor.
Davis – This is what we would like to see in town; my concern about the fire personnel accessing the property is mitigated by the fact that it will be fire rated.
Struncius – I am in favor of this application but I want to remind the board that we are saying it is OK to build and live on a second floor. I am not necessarily in agreement with it; I think it is also the model of what should be down there but we should not lose site that we a granting a second floor. I think the point that the taste this is done in. This is very respectful.

Conditions –
1. The foundation of the building is to be enclosed with lattice.
2. The home is to be constructed as described by Mr. Amelchenko at the time of the hearing.
3. The siding on the house will be either hardy plank or hardy shingle.
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-52 of Vincent Favorito with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions
Application #2013-54 – Matthew/Kerri Donofrio – 5 Franklin Way – Block 121; Lot 17.05 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
The applicant is seeking the following variances: building height of 25.6 feet, whereas 20 feet is the maximum permitted and a 1 ½ story house whereas 1 story is the maximum permitted.
Steven A. Pardes, Esquire, stated that the building mechanicals were damaged during damage the storm surge from Hurricane Sandy entered the basement.
Exhibit A – 3 – Photo board of surrounding homes entered.
Keri Donofrio, applicant sworn, stated that;
A. The applicant has owned the property for the past 3 years and uses the property as a summer home.
B. The property is not rented.
C. The flood waters did not enter the first floor of living space but did do damage in the basement. The water came to within 8 to 10 inches of the first floor.
D. The house is very small, less than 700 square feet in size.
E. The house presently has two (2) bedrooms and they are asking for ((3) three
F. The house needs to be raised to comply with the base flood elevation requirement.
G. The applicant proposes to build a new stronger home and proposes adding a half story to provide an extra bedroom, bathroom and play area.
H. Without a height variance, the roof will have to be flat.
I. The parking area is 1/7th owned by the applicant which gives the applicant the right to use 2 parking spaces.
J. The existing patio was damaged. The applicant proposes to replace the patio with floor level decking that will permit aquifer recharge.
K. There are deeded parking spaces to each home in the one joint parking lot.

Jeffrey D. Cundey, R.A., sworn, credentials accepted stated that;
a. The applicant is requesting to add a half story in order to provide the necessary space to add the bedroom and bathroom.
b. Access to the house is through the living, dining and kitchen area.
c. The bathroom and stairs will separate the private areas in the back of the house consisting of the master bedroom, and additional bedroom, and the laundry/mechanical area.
d. A stair to the third floor will go to the new bedroom, bathroom, a play area and to a balcony out front.
e. The outside materials will comprise of cedar impression vinyl siding and an asphalt roof.
f. There will be a solid crawl space under the living room, stair and bath. The rest of the house will be on piles.
g. The proposed house will be code compliant and will be an improvement in safety with respect to flood concerns.
h. The shared parking lot with the neighbors has not been a problem in the past and the permission to use the lot is documented in their Deed.
i. The height of the house will be 25’ 6”.
j. The mechanicals will be located on the first floor.
k. The compressor will be located above base flood elevation.
l. The footprint of the house will be increased by 60% with the proposed addition. The Board expressed concerned that the increase will make the house too big for the lot. The Board also noted that adding a bedroom and a bathroom to the house is not a safety issue – it is just increasing living space.

Audience Questions/comments
Judith King, of 7 Franklin Way, sworn - was concerned that the position of the house by bringing it up to the front yard setback would place the house only 1 foot from the public sidewalk. Ms. King was concerned that the house would be too large and she would lose light which she feels would be a detriment to her.
Laura Messina, of 6 Pilgrim Halfway, sworn - indicated that the houses are very close together. Privacy is severely lacking at the present time and she feels that adding so much to the house will add to the lack of privacy, lack of light, and lack of air. The proposed house would block the sunlight to her house until very late in the day. She feels that this proposal will decrease the value of her property.
Phil Coffin, of 6 Pilgrim Halfway, sworn - stated that the height has to be taken in content with the enlarged footprint. The combination of the increased height and footprint makes a big difference which would compromise his ability to live comfortably. He indicated that his light and air will be compromised.
Helen Szentgyorgyi, of 3 Franklin Way, sworn - is concerned about the additional height proposed by the applicant. She too would lose a lot of sunlight, sea breeze, and privacy.
Lori Szentgyorgyi, of 3 Franklin Way, sworn - was concerned that because the house would be built to the maximum setbacks, it would leave very little room for emergency trucks to be able to get to the homes.
The Board finds that the applicant’s need for additional space is not driven by safety issues, in light of that, adding 60% additional living space will have a detrimental effect on the neighboring property owners. The Board recognizes the applicant’s right to build to the setback and building coverage limits but finds that allowing the applicant to build on the second floor in this zone will make for an imposing structure that will have a negative impact on the neighbors and the adjacent walkways.
The Board further finds that the second floor proposal will compromise other individuals’ light and air. The RR-1 Zone has a 50% building coverage limit and limited setbacks with the understanding that the homes in the bungalow district are only one story and on lots of 1,500 square feet. In Zones with greater height, the Borough sets a lower building coverage and greater set back standard to take into consideration the impact of increased height on adjacent property owners. The applicant’s proposal seeks the benefit of a second floor without any consideration on neighboring properties. The Board was advised that the applicant could build a completely conforming structure that would be one story but would have a flat roof. This home is set in the middle of the bungalow district and the Board finds that a flat roof will not be unattractive, but regardless, that the attractiveness of a pitch roof would not outweigh the detriment to the neighboring light and air. There are substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the house will impinge on the light, air, and privacy of the surrounding property owners. The detriments of this proposal outweigh its benefits.
Wolfersberger –
Loder – I understand the issues of the Donofrio’s; increasing the living space by 60%; not sure where he stands.
Ardito –
Spader – We talk about the charm of the charm of the bungalow section and through the years we have seen additional pressure to make things worse. I personally would not want to live it that area. It was an area for summer homes. Now we have testimony that we are going to be raising children there; building at the detriment of the neighbors. I don’t see how it is good for the bungalow district. Making the problems of the area worse.
Reilly – I do live in that district and I think what the applicants is doing is commendable. They have lowered the home to 25 feet in height. It is not a great big wall; I think it is reasonable for a family of (4) four. I think three bedrooms is a reasonable request. I am not crazy about these narrow little walkways but we have what we have. Unless I hear something different I will be in favor of this.
Kelly – Whoever laid the area out down there must have had a few drinks. There isn’t a home down there that is parallel with the setbacks. Do not see a problem with the layout. I do see the neighbor’s concerns but this particular unit is not looking for a two car garage; they are looking for another bedroom. A lot of the features here are within the twenty-five feet. Walked the area today and it is a very close area that needs some work.
Reynolds – listened to the testimony and we need to take in consideration of the neighbors and do think there will be some detriment to the neighbors light and air. It is a summer home and am having real trouble with this application. We have a number of neighbor here who are concerned with their summer breeze. This home will be a life style change for the neighbor’s. I want it on the record that I do not appreciate the threats of what you can build; go ahead a build it.
Ardito – Also struggling with this case. At the time when the neighbor’s home went in that affected someone’s light and air. We know that there is going to be change; but we want the least amount of impact. These plans are two dimensional and deceptive. Where it starts on the first floor and works its way up to the peak there is more light; it is not boxy. It is still a big house. I wish you guys would have agreed to the open porch in the front; it would have allowed for a breeze. The new home will be code compliant for flood and less hazardous for fire and other perils. Not sure exactly how he will vote.
Davis – Torn on this application; we are faced with an unusual situation. These people have every right to build their home by ordinance. Then the neighbors have their right to their concerns.
Renner – I am struck by our reaction to this application when we had another application in the same area this evening. You are going to have a bigger home; what I would like to see is a smaller home in exchange for the ability to go up.
Wolfersberger – It is obvious what I feel; I like the house but a 60% increase is outrageous. Without the concessions; I believe that you are coming out too far, I will be voting in opposition of the application.
Struncius – This is a conundrum – this house is a lot bigger than the last application. Two things that I heard was the concern of the house on the walkway; but the main part of the home sets back. It is not a gigantic wall; Mr. Ardito talked about the perspective view and understanding the nooks and cranny’s would have helped. I can understand what the area was but now it is what it is becoming. It is a place that needs improvement. The safety standard needs to be improved. There are advantages we get as the transformation happens. Feels this is respectful and still fits in the modest category. I do not believe there is much of a breeze in the existing six foot area walkway. That does not seem like a reality statement – there is already houses on top of houses. I believe the advantages outweigh the detriment. The neighbors have some outstanding points but the advantages outweigh the detriment. Did not take Mr. Pardes statement about building a home with a flat roof as a threat; I took it as a reality. That is what the applicant can build.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-54 of Matthew and Kerri Donofrio with conditions
In favor: Reilly, Kelly, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Spader and Reynolds
Application denied – 5 votes are needed for a “use” variance

Application #2013-09 – Siyan Motels d/b/a Dunes Motel – 1601 Ocean Avenue- Block 179.02; Lot 6 - Applicant increased the floor area of both the first and second floor by enclosing a second story deck and a first floor entry area and constructed a new canopy above the entrance door. Applicant also wishes to construct a 10’ 10” by 24 ‘storage room to the rear of the building and new balcony.

Applicant requesting to be carried to February 20, 2014

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2013-09 of the Siyan Motel to February 20, 2014 with notice.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve the 2014 BOA meeting dates
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 11:35pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published February11, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1780

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