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


December 5, 2013

Minutes

The December 5, 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, Spader, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito Alternates: Loder and Davis
Absent: Wolfersberger, Renner and Shamy

Memorialization of Minutes – September 19, 2013 – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the September 19, 2013 minutes

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

Memorialization of Resolutions

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorialize the action and vote denying application #2013-54 – Matthew and Keri Donofrio – 5 Franklin Way/Denial - Motion by Mr.
Reynolds to memorialize, second by Mr. Spader
In favor – Spader and Reynolds
Opposed: None


Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-52of Vincent/Wendy Favorito – 7 Beachcomber
Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed: None


Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-42 of Marian Talian – 100 Niblick Street – Dennis Galvin informed the Board of the changes the applicant’s attorney is requesting.

Mr. Reilly made a motion to approve with proposed amendments and conditions, second by Mr. Reynolds

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



Application #2013-58 – E/O Margaret Holmes by her executor Thomas Tatlow – 336 Curtis Avenue – Block – 112 ; Lot 32 - Seeking certification of two pre-existing residential properties on lot pre-dating the zoning ordinance.

Chairman Struncius has stepped down from the following application.

Dennis Cantolli, attorney for applicant, credentials accepted stated that the rear dwelling unit was built approximately 80 years ago, and the front dwelling was constructed approximately 60 years ago; and
the homes have been continuously used as residences since being constructed and are part of this neighborhood; and the applicant has a valid rental Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling at the rear of the property and the front house is owner occupied.

Susan Tatlow, applicant, sworn stated that she grew up in the home and it has always had a rental property.

The Board determined that this property has had two (2) single-family homes since 1956; and
the Board accepts the applicant’s representations that the homes were at all times used as two (2) single-family dwellings; and the Board finds that this use was not prohibited until sometime after that date but definitely in 1971.

Deliberations

Spader – Do not have a problem with this application; the information here is convincing.

Kelly – I know it is difficult to prove the existence; I am satisfied with the documentation.

Reynolds –Echo, I feel the proofs have been met.

Ardito – The proofs have been satisfied.

Reilly – Does not see any problem with the information provided; have visited the site and it looks like a reasonable set up for the conditions there.

Loder – No comment

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2013-58 E/O Margaret Holmes

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

Application #2013-53 – Ernst Gehlert – 219 Randall Avenue – Block 130; Lot 5 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing two family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE.


Daniel S. Popovitch, Esquire, attorney for applicant, credentials accepted, stated that the applicant proposes to build a new three-story single family house on the property. The proposed house will be built higher to meet the required flood elevation but will still be within the 35 feet height limitation and will be three stories to accommodate a garage which will be located underneath the house.
The applicant agreed to add landscaping in front of the steps and down to where the driveway splits to prevent parking cars in front of the house. The new curb cut will be 12 feet wide which will be moved to the center of the lot. The old curb cut was 17 feet wide and off to the side of the property. The applicant will obtain permission from the governing body to relocate the curb cut. The new configuration of the curb cut will still allow for two (2) cars to be parked on the street in the front of the property.

Ernst Gehlert, applicant, sworn, stated that he purchased the property in March of 2013.
When the property was purchased, there was a dwelling with an apartment unit upstairs and a detached 2-car garage on the site. The structures were demolished. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family three-story house with a three-car garage underneath.

The new proposed curb cut will be located in the center of the property. There will be one (1) curb cut but the driveway will branch out to the garage to accommodate the 3 garage parking spaces.
The proposal will eliminate a non-conforming two-family house and will not compromise off street parking; both of which are a benefit to the Borough. The garages are to be used for storage and to house cars and they are never to be used for habitation. The height of the house is 32 feet from grade and will not exceed the permitted height requirement of 35 feet. The house will not be rented, but will be used by the applicant.

Robert Martin, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated that the height of the house will not exceed 35 feet as permitted in the Ordinance and the impervious coverage is 41%, which is permitted.

The Board finds that the applicant is constructing a beautiful home and that the house will be a wonderful addition to the area. The home 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 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 and as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The garage walls will be block enclosed with required flood vents in accordance with applicable building code requirements for that portion of the structure.

3. The first floor is never to be used for habitation, but may be used for parking cars and storage.

4. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval. The plan must show the landscape plantings.

5. The building is not to exceed 35 feet in height as measured from the top of the curb.

6. The applicant needs to obtain permission of the governing body to modify the location of the curb cut. The applicant agreed to install the cut width at 12 feet.

7. The applicant agreed that no more than two (2) cars are to be parked in the driveway at any given time.

8. The front and sides of the house are to have decorative stone as shown on the plans and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

Deliberations

Spader – It is nice to hear that the one parking spot will be salvaged on the west side of the property and that parking will be limited to two cars in the driveway.

Kelly – This is going to supplement the area and be attractive and is a lot better than what was there before. I was concerned about the parking but we have resolved the problem here and the neighbors will be pleased.

Reilly – I think the town will have to face up to the fact that there will be three story homes. The 35 feet is going to be very reasonable and glad that Tom brought up the parking on the property and that it will be limited to the two cars. Will be in favor of this application.

Reynolds – Also agrees with the fact that we will have 3 stories in the future with parking underneath. Didn’t have a problem with the parking proposal. Think this is a good application.

Ardito – It a positive being able to put cars in the garage and preserve on street parking. If we can contain the cars to the driveway we should be fine. I think there are more positives than negatives to this application and will be in favor.

Loder – Thinks it is a good application and the effects on the area will be di minimus and will be in favor of this application.

Davis - Appreciate the applicant’s indulgence in my comment in reference to parking and his willing to work with us. This is a very favorable application the positives outweigh the negatives. I think we will be seeing more of these split driveways; it solves problems in terms of how to use space. Will be in favor of this application.


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2013-53 of Ernst Gehlert with conditions

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


Applicant #2013-55 – Eric N. Johnstone & Brian Johnstone – 155 Ocean Avenue – Block 129.02; Lot 2 -Applicant wishes to remove existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling elevated to be FEMA compliant.

Mr. Reilly has stepped down from the following application

John J. Jackson, Esquire, applicant’s attorney, credentials accepted stated that;

A. The applicant demolished the existing house and will replace it with a modular home.

B. The proposed house will be raised to meet the base flood elevation requirements and will be on pilings.

C. The proposed house will be reduced in size by one (1) foot to create enough room to add windows on the side of the house in order to comply with fire code regulations.

Michael J. Millemann, AIA, sworn, credentials accepted stated that the lot is narrow and is only 25 feet in width. The exterior walls will be fire rated and there will be stairs projecting the front landing.
The rear deck will have stairs going down to the back yard. The house will have Cedar impression shingles on the front façade. The balance of the house will have vinyl siding. The proposed house will be 924 square feet in size, which is slightly smaller than the original house. There will be 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. One bathroom will be a full size bathroom and the other two bathrooms will only have a commode and sink in one and a sink and shower in the other. Splitting the bathroom into two separate areas is necessary because of the size of the house. The air-conditioner condenser unit will be located on the deck in the northwest corner. The applicant moved the proposed house further back from the front property line. The proposed house will be 6 feet off the front yard property line and the steps will be 2 feet off the property line. All of which will be an improvement from the original position of the house, but will still be consistent with the other bungalow houses in the area. The house was previously used as a rental house and will continue to be rented. The rear and sides of the house will be enclosed with lattice underneath the house. The space underneath the house will be limited to storage only and will not be used for habitation or for parking cars.

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 now be compliant with the base flood elevation and the house will be brought up to all codes which improves 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 home is to be constructed as shown on the plans and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The front façade is to be constructed as shown on Exhibit A-3 which uses Cedar impression shingles. The sides and rear of the home on the first floor are to be enclosed with lattice and vinyl siding on the second floor.

3. There is not to be any habitation or parking within the first floor; however, the first floor may be used for storage.

4. The home is not to exceed 20 feet 6 inches in height.


Deliberations



Spader – Improved safety with the new home; willingness to drop siding down and cedar impression siding will be in favor.

Kelly – Happy to see an application that is modest and reasonable. In favor of this application

Reynolds – We are replacing what was there; commend applicant for a reasonable application and not looking for the sky.

Ardito – Agree with Reynolds/Kelly. Positives are new code compliant structure; cedar impressions and presented application well and addressed the down sides. This is a much better safer structure. In favor

Davis – With all the improved safety aspects will be in favor of this application.

Loder – Like the design of the house; de minimus request. In favor

Struncius – Nothing else needs to be said.

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-55 of Eric N. Johnstone & Brian Johnstone – 155 Ocean Avenue – Block 129.02; Lot 2 with conditions

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





Applicant #2013-59 – Scott Maselli – 213 Forman Avenue – 213 Forman Avenue – Block 81; Lot 31 – Applicant is requesting to build a new single family dwelling to the ABFE with a deck surrounding an above ground pool.

Scott Masselli, applicant sworn. Paul Mueller, applicant’s builder, sworn stated that they are seeking the following variances -building height of 37 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted; front yard setback of 19 feet to the stairs, whereas 25 feet is required; rear yard setback of 22 feet, whereas 30 feet is required; building coverage of 35.2%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted. (Building coverage and setback variance were not granted by the board)

Scott Maselli, applicant stated that

A. Front stairs encroachment on the front yard setback, for exceeding the maximum permitted height of the house, for a rear yard setback for a pool and decking, and building coverage for the proposed decking around the pool.

B. Scott Masselli acknowledged that the house was originally designed by him to be built at 10 feet above flood elevation; however, he later was informed that the base flood elevation requirement was 12 feet. The additional two (2) feet resulted in the need for a height and the front yard setback variances.

C. The proposed pool will have a fence around the pool and the deck railing will be gated and kept locked.

D. The applicant proposes to use vinyl railings, Trex decking, vinyl siding on the house, Anderson windows, and the balconies will be constructed from fiberglass.

E. In order to eliminate the front yard setback, he would have to move the house back further on the property to accommodate the front stairs. The extra height of the home is the reason the stairs are extended further in the front yard setback.

F. The proposed pool is oval shaped 12’ x 16’ in size with a Trex deck around the pool which will permit water recharge.

G. The house structure consists of 25.5% building coverage. The addition of the decking around the pool will increase the building coverage to 35%.

H. The attic will be used for storage only and will be attainable by pull down stairs.

I. Construction on the house was started but has now come to a stop in order for the applicant to obtain the necessary variances.

2. Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Professional Engineer, Richard Butryn, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. Mr. Butryn explained that an error was made when the house was staked out.

B. The front steps will be perpendicular to the street which Mr. Butryn stated will be more attractive than turning the stairs to the side. The bottom step will be 20 feet from the right-of-way line.

Audience questions/comments

Michael Cipoliletti, of 127 Trenton Avenue - sympathetic to the situation but is concerned that the 4-foot pool with a 3-foot railing on top will obstruct his back yard view of the lake. All the homes have a 30 foot setback. This will be the only home that does not have a thirty foot setback.

Mitch Winter – Concerned about the third floor. His bedroom will be across from it. (Pull down stairs / will not be habitable)

The Board noted that there are two separate portions to this application. The roof height and front yard setback being one part, and the pool and deck which creates the need for a rear yard setback and building coverage variances are the second point. The upper portion of the rear yard deck can be constructed within the setback. The applicant agreed to submit its deck plan to the Board at the time of memorialization. The variances for the front yard setback and the height are caused by the applicant having to meet the base flood elevation regulation height of 12 feet to be necessary and reasonable. The variances for the rear yard setback and the additional building coverage was not necessary.

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 now be compliant with the base flood elevation and the house will be brought up to code both of which improve public safety.

The Board found that the pool and decking would block light, air and the views of the lake and that the applicant offered no special reasons to justify the pool and deck. The Board finds the pool and deck would have a substantial negative impact and that the front stair encroachment and the height were necessitated by the existing conditions and the new FEMA regulations and that the negative impacts of that were manageable. The benefits of this height and front yard encroachment outweigh its detriments, where the pool and deck did not.

Conditions

1. The applicant has one (1) year from the date of this Resolution to obtain a building permit.

2. The attic is not to be used for habitation and the storage in the attic shall only be accessed by means of pull down stairs.

3. The applicant is to submit a landscape plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval which will include foundation plantings.

4. The applicant is to submit a plan for the proposed rear deck to the Board for its review and approval at the time of memorialization. The deck plan is to be attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”.




Deliberations
Spader – Does not have a problem with the height of 36 feet 11 inches; as far as the front steps are concerned they can be turned sideways. What you need opposed to what you want is out of control. The 12 foot deck on the back of the home is very nice. I think there is an alternative with the rear site line (deck area and pool)
Clarification – Eliminate pool and pool decking? (Yes)
Kelly – As far as the house is concerned I have no problem with the two (2) feet in height. I have issues with the rear setback. This is a matter with want and need.
Reilly – I think I understand what happened with the height; it would of helped to have the architect here to explain. The whole issue is the building coverage – the pool and the deck and then add the concerns of the neighbor’s. I see a lot of want versus need; I have some very serious concerns. Would support Mr. Ardito’s proposal. That makes the most sense.
Reynolds – I have no problem with the height; the property is on the lake, I have gone over this and the neighbor who voiced his concerns is across the street. The applicant could fence his yard in if he wanted to all the way to the lake. If we were to approve this with the pool does not have a problem with the deck.
Ardito – Would like to recommend approving the height and front setback variance, but do not grant relief for the rear setback and building coverage at this time– you have a house that is already started and things in place. I think granting the height variance is de minimus. Would be comfortable with the front setback and height variance. Not comfortable with the rear setback.
Loder – no comment at this time
Davis - For many of the reasons already articulated I would like to stand with Mr. Ardito’s recommendation.
Struncius – Still struggling with the height. Building a home at 35 feet high is very doable. I believe there could have been some confusion about the elevation. It is up against the lake; have the decking around the pool is probably better than no deck. Not comfortable how any of this happened. If I was looking at this fresh you would probably have an 8 foot ceiling.


In favor to approve the front yard and height variances:
Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder, Struncius
Opposed: None

In favor to deny the rear yard setback and the building coverage variances:
Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder, Struncius
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 11:15 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published February11, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1782


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