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

April 3. 2014


The April 3, 2014 Special 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, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis and Mr. Ferguson

Absent: Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Renner

Also present: Dennis Galvin, Board Attorney, Ray Savacool, Board Engineer and Karen L. Mills, Clerk

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the March 6, 2014 minutes –
In favor: LK, BR, PS, SA, JD and TD
Opposed: None

Memorialize Resolutions

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-09 of Siyan Motel d/b/a the Dunes Motel with conditions

In favor: Reilly, Ardito, Dixon, Davis and Strunicus
Opposed: None

Application #2014- 11 – Dolores/Anthony Lombardo – 309 Arnold Avenue – Block 96; Lot 5 – Applicant seeks determination that the property is a valid pre-existing non-conforming use.

Dolores A. Lombardo and Anthony Lombardo requested a Certificate of Non-Conforming Use pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 confirming that the property was conforming at the time it was constructed and because the use of the property began as a permitted use, the use today constitutes a valid pre-existing nonconforming.
Chris Healey attorney for applicant. Dolores Lombardo, sworn testified that the property has been continually used as a three-family residential property since prior to 1970 and she is requesting the continuation of three (3) residential units, consisting of a main structure and two units in another structure in the rear of the lot.
The applicants have a valid rental Certificate of Occupancy for the two residential units located in the structure at the rear of the property and the front house is owner occupied.
Exhibits entered:
A-3 – September 22, Zoning Ordinance
A-4 – March 28, 1940 Zoning Ordnance
A-5 – Ordinance B-18
A-6 – 1971 Ordinance
A-7 – Property record card from 1971
A-8 – Property record card from 1971
A-9 – Architects letter to Construction Official
A-10 – Construction permit
A-11 – Construction permit
A-12 – Water/sewer bill
A-13 – Rental CO

The neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Sobiesky, were represented by Ronald A. Gasiorowski, Esquire.
Mr. Gasiorowski questioned the notice but Dennis Galvin the Board’s attorney found the notice to be adequate.
Chris Healey, attorney’s applicant stated that the property has had two structures on it since 1925 and has been used as a three-family property. The property is located in the SF-5 zone which prohibits all multi-family uses. The first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1922 and did not prohibit multi-family dwellings in Zone B, in which the initial structure was located.
In 1940, the Borough amended its zoning ordinance and allowed multi-family dwellings as a conforming use. The zoning ordinance was again amended in 1948 but did not affect the area in question. As such, multi-family dwellings continued to be permitted uses in the area in which the multi-family dwellings were located. The zoning ordinance was amended in August of 1971 and, for the first time; multi-family dwellings were prohibited in the zone in which the property is located. The zoning ordinance in 1971 allowed pre-existing uses to continue indefinitely absent destruction or abandonment. The applicants possess no documents from the 1980s regarding the usage of the properties. It is unknown whether any previous owners had possessed certificates of non-conforming use.
Dolores Lombardo, applicant stated that they purchased the property in November, 1992. Lombardo obtained two tax records for the three residential units from the previous owner dated April 23, 1971. When the applicant purchased the property, it was being used as three multi-family units and believed the property had been used as such earlier than 1992. Dolores Lombardo needed to obtain a firebreak between the two floors of the rear building because it was being used as two (2) separate residential units. The front building was constructed in 1920. The rear building was constructed in 1925. The applicants received building and construction permits from the Borough for the rear building. The applicants receives a split water, gas, and electric bills for the two residential units in the rear building, and separate water, gas, and electric bills for the residential unit on the front building. The units have been continuously owner occupied or offered for rental occupancy by the applicants since 1992. The applicants has certificates of occupancy for the units dating from 1993.
No audience questions/comments


Loder – Commended Chris Healey on the information gathered. Based on the documentation presented is leaning in favor of approval.
Spader – Has trouble usually supporting multiple uses on property; but with the evidence given and no evidence supporting evidence of abandonment. So aside from personal thoughts on multiple uses will have to be in support of application.
Kelly – Commend the attorney with coming up with the historical data that he did. Well received and believes that the current owners are making every effort to get this resolved as an issue.
Reilly – Also believes that the data has been supplied to show that the town does consider this a three unit residential property prior to the ordinance. I have seen nothing to the contrary. I am leaning in favor of approving this.
Ardito - Also must say that we have seen many of these and they have had half of the documentation given to us. We have clearly dated tax cards describing the property. Believes that the building was built back in the 1920’s. Believes that the home was purchased as a three unit rental. Will be in support of this application.
Dixon – Tax cards and no evidence that this was anything but a three family property.
Davis – With all the documentary evidence that we have and comments not much more to add. The use has been there.
Ferguson - No doubt that it is non-conforming by today’s standards but do not believe that is was constructed as a non-conforming use.
Struncius – One of the points of objection was that there are two structures on the property; but the facts are not going to change. There are many properties in Point Pleasant Beach that have this setup. I think the fact that we see the tax record stating the three family use and it predated the zone change.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application 2014-11 of Dolores/Anthony Lombardo confirming that the property is a pre-existing non-conforming use.

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

Application approved

Application #2014- 08 – Michael/Kieran Schultz - 202 Seymour Avenue – Block 133; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on partial existing footprint.
Michael/Kieran Schultz applicants sworn, stated that they are requesting a front yard setback of 19.9 feet (to covered porch), whereas 25 feet is required; an existing and proposed side yard setback of 4.3 feet, whereas 5 feet is required; a rear yard setback of 29.1 feet (to the deck), whereas 30 feet is required.

The applicants stated that the property is located in the SF-5 zone, which permits single-family residential dwellings. The home was damaged by flood waters during Super Storm Sandy, necessitating the demolition of the interior of the property, the shed, and portions of the deck. They seek to elevate the first floor in order to avoid future flood damage and reduce flood insurance premiums.
A second floor and front floor porch will be added to the building. The garage and left rear room are to be demolished, reducing impervious coverage from 2,630 square feet to 2,190 square feet. The left side yard setback will increase from 5.8 to 18.2 feet and the front porch will not extend beyond original front yard setback. Landscaping will be provided in front of the porch and on the right side of the property. The applicants stated that they use the property as a weekend/summer house and have not rented the property.
The applicant’s Architect, Ronald A. Meeks, AIA, stated that the building was constructed in 1952 and meets the old requirements for lot area, minimum lot width, minimum frontage, minimum lot depth, and minimum combined side yard. The impervious area is being reduced from 2,630 square feet, which is nonconforming, to 2,190 square feet. The sideyard setback of 4 feet 3 ˝ inches where five feet is required is to remain unchanged and the existing front yard setback is 19.9 feet where 25 feet is required. The open front porch consists of lattice and railings and aligns with the existing front wall of the garage. The home will be constructed on the existing foundation and no new foundation walls are to be added. The construction official noted in a letter that the property suffered substantial damage.
The new deck and stairs in the rear are to be reduced in size to meet or exceed the minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet, bringing the structure into required maximum building coverage requirements. First floor elevation is 10 feet plus one foot of freeboard above the ABFE elevation and 6 feet above the finished grade. The overall height will not exceed 35 feet from the top of the curb. The existing crawlspace will be filled in below the finished grade and there will be landscaping to screen the front side yard. The house will be sided with hardy board planking and the attic will be used for storage and will house the building’s mechanicals.

Loder – Based on the testimony of the applicant I see this variance as being diminimus and will be voting in favor.
Spader – Feels the same way. Certainly getting it up above the flood plane will improve the housing stock of Point Pleasant Beach and increase the safety.
Kelly – In favor
Reilly – Basically want to say ditto.
Ardito - You are one of the few coming before us who is reducing some variances. You are getting a home that is going to be sustainable and we are getting a code compliant home.
Dixon – You guys are improving the home – will be in favor.
Davis – For all the reasons articulated will be in favor.
Ferguson – Also in favor
Struncius – Will close deliberations
1. The landscaping plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s engineer.
2. The crawlspace is to be filled in and flood compliant.
3. The building is to be constructed as shown and described before the Board at its meeting of April 3, 2014.
4. The attic’s habitable space is to comply with the ordinance.
5. The building is to be sided with hardy board planking.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve Application #2014- 08 of Michael/Kieran Schultz - 202 Seymour Avenue – Block 133; Lot 8 with conditions

In favor – Loder, Kelly, Reilly, Ardito, Reynolds, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2014-07 – Michael Murphy – 209 Central Avenue – Block 108; Lot 4 & 5 – Applicant would like to demolish one of four single family dwellings and construct a new single family dwelling to the base flood elevation.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant has owned his home for the last 42 years and it has been his year round residence for the last 17 years. He also stated that the condo association has had much discussion and finally approved his proposed plan. Height will be 25 feet 8 inches. It requires a rear yard setback. Mike Milliman, licensed architect, credentials accepted gave an overview of the design. The Board has concern with the rear yard setback. The applicant did agree to move the a/c from the rear of the home to the front. The board is requesting that the applicant reconsider his plan and relocate the home more south off the rear property line. Ray Savacool commented that the home will be increased to 24 feet wide and increased to 960 square feet. Mr. Spader commented that the other owners of condominiums might also want to increase their homes but might have a problem with their request. Mr. Davis inquired why the home cannot be moved further off the property line. John Jackson replied that this is where the owners agreed to place the homes. Tom Davis commented that one of the charms of this site is that they were all similar in appearance. Are they still going to be similar? Michel W. Robertson, the Foulks builder commented on the condo negotiations and said that they will agree on a color pallet.
Audience questions of architect
Sal Caprione – Would like to know what kind of rules are in place for concrete foundation not that homes are elevated.
Albert Varosi, neighbor inquired why the applicants are not being heard together. – They are individual applications. Also questioned why the home cannot be moved off the rear property line. Requesting the board to view the entire site plan.
Michael J. Murphy, applicant, sworn stated that he has a discussions with the other neighbors and agreed the one neighbor could push back and they could be aligned. He is asking just to get back in his home.
Craig Alsdorf, builder, commented on building materials.
The board concluded that the applicant needs to make some changes to the plan and would like to hear the two association applicant’s together. Chairman Struncius would like to see it further off the rear property line. Dennis Galvin told John Jackson to have the driveway plan submitted prior to the next hearing for engineer review.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2014-07 –of Michael Murphy – 209 Central Avenue – Block 108; Lot 4 & 5 – to May 1, 2014 without notice

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

Meeting adjourned at 11:10pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills
Certified Planning/Zoning Secretary

Published May06, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1868

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