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 17, 2014

Minutes

The April 17, 2014 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, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder, Chairman Struncius and Mr. Ferguson

Absent: Mr. Davis 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. Kelly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the March 20, 2014 minutes –
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Loder
Opposed: None


Memorialize Resolutions

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

#2014-08 – Michael/Kieran Schultz – 202 Seymour Ave. - Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader with conditions

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


#2014-11 – Dolores/Anthony Lombardo – 309 Arnold – Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito

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

#2014-03 – Araceli Ziemba – 115 Central – Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Loder with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Reilly
Opposed: None

#2013-65 – Offshore Inn (Boardwalk Buggy) 225 Ocean – Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reynolds with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Reilly
Opposed: None


Application #2014-10 – Frederick Gusciora/Sandi Fields – 24 Niblick – Block 123; Lot 7 – Applicant raised existing house to the new ABFE with two small additions; applicant added a new deck to the rear of the house. Additions were larger than shown and the new deck adds to overall building coverage.

Sandra Field applicant sworn, stated that her application is after the fact because her architect led her to believe that her home complied. It turned out that her home is over on building coverage because the architect did not include the garage and stairs in building coverage. Home also needed to be lifted higher than originally stated by the architect. They have also added square footage to the kitchen in the rear. The home has been in the family for 45 years. Lee Kelly mentioned that the plans were dated pre Sandy but the applicant stated that it is a mistake and they were drawn recently.

Mr. Ardito inquired if they would be able to utilize the large space under the home as a garage.

Ed Gusciora, applicant’s brother, sworn, stated that it is not possible to use the space underneath the house as a garage not only because of the columns, but because there is a large header going across the front which will not permit a car to fit under the house.



Deliberations

Loder – No comment

Spader – This is a tough deal. Not many of us like the idea of forgiveness. Looking at the photos -windows have been installed in the foundation which give it an aesthetic appeal. A condition could be added that if the garage comes down it will be rebuilt as a single car garage.

Mr. Kelly – Having a difficult time getting this organized. One of those deals where the professionals really screwed up. We should have had both plans to compare. Walked the property; the extra 3 or 4 feet is really cutting down on the setback in the rear.

Chairman Struncius - commented that the deck is up high and creates some intrusion, but not a major concern. Would like to see the siding come down three feet as an additional aesthetic benefit. The home is not overly built.

Mr. Reynolds – As a Board we look at these ask for forgiveness cases in a whole other light. Would like to see some decorative stone or something on the foundation. Leaning towards approval.

Mr. Ardito – Agrees with Chairman Struncius about the aesthetic nature of cement. If you had just lifted the home you would not be before us. You might think of it as an imposition but it is something that we as a board can do to add a positive. I also agree with in the event that the garage comes down it is rebuilt as a one car garage. I am sorry for the problems you have had with your professionals.

Mr. Dixon – Very familiar with this home. If the home owner knew in advance I am sure they would have removed the garage or something. I agree with the other Board members that the siding should be brought down.

Mr. Ferguson – Would be in favor with the condition that if the garage comes down it is rebuilt as a one car garage also.

Mr. Reilly - I think the home looks pretty good. You are asking for 36% coverage; that is a lot. I am willing to support this with the conditions noted.


Conditions

1. In the event the garage is ever replaced, it needs to be reduced in size to a one car garage to reduce the lot’s building coverage.

2. The siding is to be brought down to within three (3) feet of the ground on all four (4) sides of the building.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2014-10 of Fred Gusciora with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Reilly

Opposed: Loder
Applications approved with conditions


Application #2014-06 – Stephen Hyduke – 204 Randall Avenue – Block 129.01; Lot 23 – Applicant wishes to construct a deck in the rear yard. House was previously elevated in accordance with Assembly #3890.
Carried without notice
John Jackson attorney for applicant stated that the applicant has revised the plans to reduce impervious coverage. The applicant has removed 120 square feet of pavers and changed the materials of the deck to treks so the water passes through.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Loder – Appreciates that the applicant reduced impervious coverage. In favor
Spader – Applicant worked with us – in favor.
Kelly – I think it is commendable the changes that have been made. In favor
Reynolds - Based on the drawing I can see where you reduced the deck. Makes it more attractive. Good job
Ardito - Reducing the building coverage by reducing the deck. You presented your case; we gave you feedback and you listened. Happy to see the removal of pavers. In favor.
Dixon - You listened to our concerns and came back with changes. Will be in favor
Ferguson – Abstained
Reilly – Listened to what we said and made appropriate changes.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to approve application #2014-06 of Pat/Steve Hyduke with conditions

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

Application #2013-62 – Stephen Beer – 34 Central Avenue – Block 99 Lots – 16 – 18 – Applicant wishes to make modifications to five existing buildings as follows – Bldg A – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add a third story and deck; Bldg B – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add deck; Bldg C – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add deck; Bldg D – remove shed roof and construct a deck with covered stairs to second floor; Bldg E - remove shed roof and construct a deck on second story and modify first floor deck and stairs.
Carried from March 6, 2014 without notice
John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that Stephen Beer is requesting the following variances according to the application; an expansion of a nonconforming use variance to permit the existing registered guest houses at the site and to permit more than one (1) principal structure on the site.
Building A (Green Building): For 3 stories, whereas only 2 stories are permitted. Building A (Green Building): For a rear yard setback of 5.5 feet, whereas 30 feet is required.
Building B (Red Building): For 3 stories, whereas only 2 stories are permitted and a rear yard setback of 2.5 feet, whereas 5 feet 30 feet is required.
Building C (Blue Building): For a rear yard setback of 29.6 feet, whereas 30 feet is required.
Building D (Pink Building): For a front yard setback of 9 feet (to the stairs) and 14.3 feet (to the porch), whereas 25 feet is required.
Building E (Yellow Building): For a front yard setback of 10 feet (to the stairs) and 16.3 feet (to the porch), whereas 25 feet is required. Building E (Yellow Building): For a side yard setback of 2.8 feet, whereas 5 feet is required. For impervious coverage of 55%, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted.

John J. Jackson, Esquire, commented that the property has several homes that are rented out. The applicant currently has a boarding home/hotel type license. Some of the units were damaged as the result of Hurricane Sandy and are being raised to meet FEMA requirements. The applicant proposes to make the two (2) front houses into small units which will allow him to cater to families and bring in a better clientele. The existing garage has been converted into a unit which is used by the owner and will be only be used as an owner/operator unit.
Stephen Beer, applicant, sworn stated that there are two (2) single family houses on the property which face Central Avenue. The pink house (Building D) has a total of seven (7) bedrooms which has the potential for 14 people to rent the premises. The yellow house (Building E) has four (4) bedrooms. He proposes to reconfigure the interior of the pink house to make it three (3) separate units with a total of five (5) bedrooms. A back entrance would be added to the pink house (Building D) with an outside set of stairs going to the second story with a roof over the stairs. The yellow house (Building E) will be converted into two (2) units; having a 3 bedroom unit and a 1 bedroom unit. Upstairs each bedroom has its own bathroom.
Unit A - the garage unit (Green Building) is located behind the yellow house (Building E) and has been set up as livable space as far back as 1966. The applicant has used this unit until Hurricane Sandy at which point it was determined that it was not a legal living space. The applicant desires to continue to use this unit as an owner/occupied unit but will expand it to three-bedrooms in size.
Prior to Hurricane Sandy, the applicant would stay on the premises at least four (4) nights a week. He works in Manhattan and during the times he stays in Manhattan, he has friends that he relies on to manage the place in his absence. The site is located just a few houses from the Boardwalk and is predominantly surrounded by other properties that either are rentals, or at least portions of the houses are rented.
Unit C – (Blue Building) is a two (2) bedroom unit and is situated off to the side and a little forward than the other units. The centerpiece of the property is the pool which is located in the middle of the property.
The red unit (Building B) in the back is a two-bedroom townhouse unit. The first floor has a great room and the two bedrooms and a bathroom is located upstairs. The red unit (Building B) will be elevated to meet FEMA regulations.
Unit C – (Blue Building) is located to the left of the red unit (Building B) will also be elevated with a garage parking underneath the unit. The garage will have a carriage type garage installed.
The applicant proposes to construct decks on top of the existing concrete patios of the three rear structures that are going to be raised. The units are small and the decks will provide additional outdoor living space. The existing concrete ground level patios will be removed or will be replaced with a paver type patio.

David Hartdorn, AIA, sworn, stated that the two older buildings in the front of the property are the original buildings and front on Central Avenue. The buildings are not being raised at this time, but will be reconfigured inside.
Unit A (Green Building) is two-story and is 876 square feet in size.
Unit B (Red Building) is an existing two-story unit and is 855 square feet in size. It will be raised and will have a deck installed.
Unit C (Blue Building) is an existing one-story unit and is 667 square feet in size. It will be raised and will have a deck installed.

Unit D (Pink Building) will be converted to a triplex unit. Unit 1 will have one bedroom and will be 561 square feet in size. Unit 2 will have two bedrooms and will be 705 square feet in size. Unit 3 will have two bedrooms and will be 858 square feet in size.
The applicant will provide a stairwell outside to get to the upper level of Unit D (Pink Building). The stairwell and entrance needs to have a roof covering to serve as protection from the weather elements. The roof will be a standing seam metal roof. The deck will remain open and will not have a roof on top.
Unit E (Yellow Building) will be converted into a duplex. Unit 1 will be 1,022 square feet in size and Unit 2 will be 461 square feet in size.
The garage unit – Unit A (Green Building) will be raised, will have a second story added, and will have a deck installed and be owner occupied.
The electrical wiring of the garage unit – Unit A (Green Building) will be brought up to code. New electrical boxes and underground electrical wiring has been installed in Unit B (Red Building), Unit C (Blue Building), and Unit D (Pink Building). Any new siding installed on the units will be brought down to 3 feet of the ground level.
The pool is in the open area in the center of the property. The pool is located 10 feet from the decks. The decks are 10 feet off of the first floor level.
Jeffrey J. Carr, P.E., P.P., sworn, stated that the existing impervious coverage of 59% will be reduced to 55% by removing some of the existing concrete. The buildings will remain in the same location, however, some of them will be raised and second stories added which will require a d (2) variance for the expansion of a nonconforming use. There will not be a change in the operation of the business. This use is in a desirable location, being just a half block from the Boardwalk. The proposed changes will be appealing and an aesthetic improvement to this neighborhood and this use is consistent with the surrounding properties.
Stephen Beer agreed to reduce the size of the proposed decks on Units A (Green Building) and Unit B (Red Building). The air-conditioner condenser units for Units A (Green Building), Unit B (Red Building) and Unit C (Blue Building) will be elevated to meet FEMA regulations and will be placed in conforming locations. The Ordinance requires 8 parking spaces for this site. There are presently 9 parking spaces and there will be additional parking spaces added for a total of 15 parking spaces. The applicant agreed to record a Deed consolidation for these properties. The pool will be open from 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and the wood shed in the back corner of the property will be removed.
No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Loder – Well-presented case. Walked the property and was impressed by the current status. Upgrades will be a positive change for Point Pleasant Beach. Will be in favor.
Spader – Being a long time resident of Point Pleasant Beach in the past I had trouble with the rental properties but this is well thought out and will be in favor.
Kelly – Thinks this is one of the areas that Sandy caused some renovations to be done. This property is a jewel. Five building s will be elevated; planning that went into the decks will alleviate the stacked look.
Reilly – Usually I struggle with these applications but the business strategy presented made it much easier for me and most of the variances were existing. I believe this will improve the property. In favor
Reynolds – Agree with Mr. Reilly on the business strategy; it is a good model for the area. The way it is explained and the adjustments made will be in favor.
Ardito – This was a well presented case for this unique property. You certainly have a vision for working with this property. It fits quite nicely into the area. Likes the buildings different colors; like to see it whimsical. There are positives – 3 out of 5 buildings will be elevated; hopes the buildings on Central might be upgraded for safety reasons. Positives outweigh the negatives and likely to support this application.
Dixon – Excellent presentation. You have been here for quite a while and it looks like you will continue to be here. Hope you consider lifting the remaining two.
Ferguson – Agrees with fellow Board members. It is a good plan and asset to the Point Pleasant Beach business community and wishes the applicant good luck.
Struncius – Thinks this is definitely a situation where you can say the benefits outweigh the detriments. Becoming fully code compliant and with the efficiency will get more families as renters. Believes it is a well-run business; well-presented business model and have faith in what we see. Owner occupied unit being upgraded might get you her more often.
Conditions
1. Unit A (Green Building) is only to be used as an owner occupied unit. This Deed Restriction is to be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Board Attorney is to review and approve this Deed Restriction prior to recording.
2. The plan is to be revised to show a standing seam metal roof on Unit D (Pink Building).
3. The plan is to be revised to show the impervious coverage has been reduced to 55%.
4. The plan is to be revised to make changes to indicate the reduction of the size of decks on Unit A (Green Building) and Unit B (Red Building) on marked up Exhibit A-9.
5. The plan is to be revised to show the location of the air-conditioner condenser units which are to be reviewed and approved by the Board at the time of memorialization.
6. The wood shed is to be removed from the property.
7. All required revisions are to be shown to the Board at the time of memorialization for the Board’s review and approval.
8. On all of the buildings being elevated, the siding is to be brought down to within 3 feet above the ground.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2013-62 of Stephen Beer with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 10:50pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published May16, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1876


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