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


January 16, 2014

Minutes

The January 16, 2014 Re-organizational and 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. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Alternates: Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis


Memorialization of Minutes - Oct. 3, 2013 – Motion by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of October 3, 2013 –
In favor: Reynolds, Ardito, Davis and Loder
Opposed: None

October 17, 2013 – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of October 17, 2013 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

Memorialization of Resolutions –

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving the following applications with conditions

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize #2013-53 Ernst Gehlert –
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize #2013-59 of Scott Maselli –
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving #2013-55 of Eric/Brian Johnstone –
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis, Loder and Struncius
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action an vote approving application #2013-58 of Margaret Holmes –

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

Reorganization Meeting 2014

Appointment of Board Chairman – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to nominate Paul Struncius for Chairman for 2014.
In favor – Spader, Loder, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Appointment of Board Vice –Chair – Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to nominate Mr. Reilly for the position of Vice Chair for 2014.

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

Appointment of Board Secretary – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Loder to nominate Mr. Reynolds for the position of secretary for 2014.

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

Appoint of Board Clerk – Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to appoint Karen L. Mills to the position of Board Clerk for 2014.

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

Appointment of Board Attorney – Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to appoint Dennis Galvin of the Galvin Law Firm as Board attorney for 2014.

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

Appointment of Board Engineer – Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to appoint Raymond Savacool, from the Engineering firm of T & M Associates as Board Engineer

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

Regular Meeting -


Application #2013-57– William/Maryjane Reilly – 9 Beachcomber Lane - Block 121; Lot 6.01 – Applicant requesting for resolution to be amended to eliminate deed restriction prohibiting rental of home. According to the application, the applicant is seeking to amend Resolution 2001-53 to exscind condition number 4.

Allen Weiss, applicant’s attorney, credentials accepted, stated that the Deed Restriction was recorded on April 19, 2002 which prohibits rental of any kind on this property. This portion of town has changed in the past 10 (ten) years and there are many other rental properties in the neighborhood. Allan Weiss commented that there were Seventy-Eight (78) notices mailed within 200 feet and that there were no objectors.

Maryjane Reilly, applicant, sworn stated that she does not have immediate plans to rent the house or any part of at this time but would like to have the option in the future.
The neighborhood is a mixture of rental properties and properties where people either live full time or use for their own purposes.

The Board approved this matter ten (10) years ago. At that time, certain changes had occurred in the RR-1 Zone that caused the Board to exercise extra caution and resulted in the Deed Restriction on renting the property.
The Board acknowledged at the time of approval, the Reilly property was triple the size of other lots in the Zone. In subsequent years, other homes have been constructed of a similar nature to the Reilly’s house but were not required to have a restriction on rental. The house due south which was recently approved and is similar in height and size was not so restricted.

The Board having considered the nature of this dwelling and the character surrounding the neighborhood finds that the restriction on rental on this structure was excessive but understandable in its context. The Board sees no reason to continue this restriction under the circumstances. As a result, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to grant the applicant the right to remove this restriction from its title. The Board determined that this area of the Borough is an area of rental properties and it would be an unfair to continue to impose this restriction on the applicant.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Spader - It is 10 or 12 years later and the trials and tribulations. He said he would not have put the deed restriction on today and he would not have supported that. Feels it was an unfair restriction period.

Loder – No comment

Kelly – Feels the same way as Mr. Spader. Believes that area is a rental area; would be unfair not to remove the restriction.

Reynolds – Feels the same way and believes that it is an undue restriction. In favor of removing the deed restriction.

Ardito – As you look at the makeup of that area it is a rental area. A neighboring property was not restricted and believes their ability to rent their property should not be restricted.

Davis – Does not have anything to add.

Struncius – Deed restriction was put on a “bulk and not a “use”. We have restricted rentals in two-families to limit one rental. This was an odd situation. This is an owner occupied dwelling but they should have the right to rent it in the future. Never been a big proponent that you cannot rent your home.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2013-57, rescinding the rental restriction.

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



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.
Carried without notice from previous meeting – October 3, 2013


Daniel Popovitch, Esquire, applicant’s attorney, credentials accepted stated that the applicant made changes to the plans which show the garage entrance has been moved to the side. That will eliminate the need for an additional curb cut and now no on-street parking will be lost. The deck to the rear of the structure was reduced by 8 feet in depth and the stairs from the north side have been eliminated. The height variance was eliminated because the house will not exceed the maximum permitted height of 35 feet and the house will utilize the same footprint.

Mario Natale, applicant, sworn, stated that the front yard setback to the house is a pre-existing condition. The variance to the steps is a new variance but is needed due to the house being raised. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms and the air-conditioner condenser units will be mounted on an inset on the roof. There will be access from the attic to service the units.

Margaret Natale, applicant, sworn stated that she has owned the property for the past 9 years and that there are (2) parking spaces for each unit. The ground floor is not habitable and is only to be used as a garage and for storage. The deck will be constructed with Trex and the houses have front and rear exits. There will be a wall between the balconies for privacy. The wall will be constructed out of similar material as the house. The outer wall of the balcony will only be a half wall to let in light and air. The front foundation façade will have a stone finish; and the siding will be brought down to meet the stone finish.
The Board found that the revised plan brought the house into greater conformity with the Ordinance and was pleased that the applicant addressed the parking concerns by moving the garage entrance to the side, which will eliminate the need for another curb cut.
The Board found also that the house will now be compliant with the base flood elevation and the house will be brought up to the building and fire codes, all of which improves public safety and that the house will be attractive and an improvement from what previously existed.
The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations

Spader – After listening to the tape twice and reviewing the plans there are a number of positive things; updating the property and elevating the structure but the problem is that it is located in a sensitive area. There are five rental units with no ownership on the property and will not support the application.
Loder – I see this as a nice upgrade to the property and find the affect di minimus and looking in favor of this application.
Kelly – Listened to tape and was concerned about the parking. It seems to be amiable for everyone. In the future there might be some changes if you get a new owner he might not be as friendly. I recommend that you delineate the parking so people are not parking on lawns. As far as I am concerned you have the 5 units now and I understand Mr. Spader’s concerns but that will not keep me from voting on favor.
Reilly – I spent about an hour and a half listening painfully to the CD. After getting through the whole thing I was not sure what was going on. Tonight that was all cleared up. I believe what you are proposing is very reasonable. I live in a very similar situation. I believe the pros outweigh the negatives. I will be in favor.
Reynolds – Thank you for hearing our concerns at the last meeting. With the improvements to the garage doors and the street side issues addressed and the porch shortened up. You took our suggestions and came back with something; with your patience and the collaboration between the Board and the applicant, am happy with what I see and will be definitely voting for this.
Ardito – Mr. Reynolds is right on with what he just mentioned. From the first presentation of your case there were certain things that we pointed out to you that we did not feel comfortable with; I think you addressed the parking issue well. Aesthetics are very nice and you have been very cooperative and came in at 35 feet in height. Will be in favor
Davis – I don’t think there is much more that I can add. Thank you for considering our comments. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this application.
Struncius – One of the things I am concerned with are the aesthetics of the foundation. Ones where I see aesthetic values of windows and things and their siding coming down really soften things up and make a big difference. Also I hear what Mr. Spader is saying but there is an increase in the building; do not believe the intensity is going to change. Certainly feel the positives outweigh the negatives and will support this application.


Conditions

1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meetings of October 3, 2013 and January 16, 2014.
2. The home shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
3. The applicant is to submit a grading and drainage plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval prior to the issuance of a construction permit.
4. The house is to be constructed as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.
5. The air-conditioner condenser units will be place on the roof.
6. The first floor is only to be used as a garage and for storage; and, there is to be no habitation on the first floor.
7. The plan is to be revised to limit the balcony dividing wall as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.
8. The foundation on the north side of the house is to have a finished façade with either siding, or at the applicant’s option, the matching stone finish to be used on the front of the house.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-39 of Margaret Semenuk/Margaret and Mario Natale – 133A & 133 B Randall Avenue – Block 136; Lot 5.04 and 5.05 with conditions
In favor: Loder, Kelly; Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Struncius
Opposed: Spader
Application approved with conditions

The Board reviewed the final report for 2013


Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published February21, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1785


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