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


May 1, 2014

Minutes

The May 1, 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder, Chairman Struncius and Mr. Ferguson

Absent: Mr. Spader, 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. Reilly, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the minutes of April 3, 2014
In favor - Loder, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Ardito, Dixon and Ferguson
Opposed: None

Application #2014-13 – Stephen /Deborah Korzeniowski – 2 Delaware – Block 2; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to add a new ½ story to the 2 story existing single family dwelling.

Stephen Korzeniowski, applicant, sworn, stated that he proposes to add a half story to the existing 2-story dwelling and the following variances are being requested:

A. Front yard setback of 12 feet (to East Avenue), whereas 25 feet is required.

B. Front yard setback of 3.8 feet (to Delaware Avenue), whereas 25 feet is required.

C. Building coverage of 42.7%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted.

D. For proposed building height of 38.5 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted.

E. For an existing side yard setback of 3 feet for accessory building, whereas 5 feet is required.

F. For an existing rear yard setback of 3 feet for accessory building, whereas 5 feet is required.


Thomas Petersen, RA, P.P, sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the property is at the very southern end of town and it is an existing developed lot. The existing house is a 2-story house and the applicant plans on putting an additional half story above the second story. There are several pre-existing non-conformities, none of which are being expanded. The half story complies with the Ordinance for half stories in the area, but the applicant will need a height variance. The property is somewhat unusual because it has two frontages. The property is accessed on Delaware Avenue; however, there is a paper road (East Avenue) which is located between the property and the beach and ocean and the height is calculated from the curb at the lowest part. The height of the curb at the lowest part is 9 feet on Delaware Avenue. The height of the house with the half story addition is calculated at 38 feet 5 inches, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted. There is a 10 foot dune off of East Avenue. If the height was taken off of that, there would be no need to obtain a height variance. The front yard setback is consistent with the other houses along East Avenue. From the ocean looking west towards the house, the dunes are above the first floor level of the house. The half story addition is set back from the eastern most portion of the house and is set back from the second floor. He believes that there would not be any negative impacts as the height will not affect any ones light or air. An existing deck and retaining walls encroach on Borough property. The applicant agreed to obtain permission from the Borough to permit the encroachment of the applicant’s deck and retaining walls to remain. The existing impervious coverage is approximately 65.2% where 50% is the maximum permitted. The existing driveway is concrete. Chairman Struncius commented that the impervious coverage will need to have an exact percentage. The applicant stated that he will replace the concrete driveway with pavers which will further reduce the impervious coverage to approximately 58%. Mr. Reynolds inquired what the decking materials are made of (fiberglass)

Board members had concerns because the deck and the retaining walls encroach onto the Borough’s property. The applicant agreed to obtain permission from the Borough for this encroachment and understands that if permission is not granted, the applicant will have to remove the encroachments. If permission is granted, it will be the applicant’s responsibility at its cost and expense to remove or move the deck in the event it becomes necessary for the Borough to do work on the dunes.


Conditions

1. The addition must match the rest of the home as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

2. The applicant is to obtain permission from the Borough to permit the encroachment of the applicant’s deck and retaining wall in the Borough right-of-way. The Board recommends a Right-of-Way Easement and requires that such document be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

3. The driveway is to be replaced with pavers in order to ensure that the impervious coverage will not exceed 60.5%. The Board will approve this percentage at the time of memorialization.

Deliberations

Loder – Home still exceeds the height ordinance. We are seeing many applications with increased height request. On the fence with this

Kelly – Main concern was the deck; relatively a new fence which intrudes onto the easement. Does not want to get into recommending a right-of-way. It looks like it is on some else’s property. Concerned if work needs to be done. As long as we are not recommending anything.

Reilly – Same concerns as Mr. Loder in regards to applicant’s wanting more and more height; on the other hand I do not see too much damage given the location. I very much like the fact that the applicant is willing to work with us by reducing impervious coverage. I will be in favor of this application

Reynolds – I believe that this lot is already overflowing its boundaries with non-conformities; not seeing the need to exceed the height variance. Not that comfortable with this right now. I will see what everyone has to say.

Mr. Ardito - Was pleased that the impervious coverage percentage was being reduced to 58% on this property; the proposal is attractive and it will fit in nicely with the neighborhood. Does not have an issue with the height; it all depends on where the home is located, the home is starting with a curb height of six (6) feet.

Mr. Dixon – Does not have a problem with the height; it will fit nicely in the neighborhood.

Mr. Ferguson – I think the height issue is a non-issue: you are still lower than your neighbor. You have agreed to decrease impervious coverage and go to the town about the encroachment of the deck. Will be in favor.

Chairman Struncius – We have a unique ocean front property which has a first floor elevation of 16 feet; I think that is safe. I think the new peaks and roof lines add an aesthetic element. You agreed to all of the requests will be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2014-13 of Stephen/Deborah Korzeniowski with conditions

In favor: Loder, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Struncius

Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2014-12 – Laurence/Christine Kyse – 165 Baltimore – Block 141; Lot 4 -Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

Applicants H. Lawrence Kyse applicant, sworn and Christine Kyse sworn. Their professional Tim Lurie, Engineer sworn, credentials accepted will be present their case.
Joel Schwartz, Professional architect, sworn, has been previously before Jackson and Princeton Township, credentials accepted. Stated that the home they are looking at is larger than the home they are now proposing. He tried to design a home with aesthetics and not just a box. Exhibit A-3 entered – Alternate site plan – revised home by squeezing walls parallel to Baltimore Avenue. Net result is 36.5 % bldg. coverage. Chairman Struncius inquired what percentage the deck is. (3.6%) A-4 Baltimore Ave elevation. Chairman Struncius stated that you are not matching the home that was there, you are matching the overall lot coverage. Ray Savacool inquired if now the home that they are presenting is 500 square feet smaller. (No) It is 300 square feet smaller. Chairman Struncius said then it is not 10% smaller. Tim Lurie stated that the home will now be under 38 feet. The Board was not happy with all the confusion and not having accurate calculations. Dennis Galvin said that the board needs to know the exact calculations.

Jay Reynolds questioned the need for six (6) bedrooms. The architect commented that the size comes from the kitchen, living room and master bedroom. They simply carried the space up to the second floor. H. Lawrence Kyse stated that he has 4 grandchildren and he would like them to have their own rooms.

Audience questions/comments

Michael Sirchio, Baltimore Ave – Wants his neighbor to have their dream home but is concerned that the new home is going to block the sunlight in his yard where he spends most of his summer time with his family. He needs sunlight, a seventy five foot home is long on a 100 foot lot.

During the presentation Mr. Reilly questioned why the application and calculations did not match what they were presenting. Due to the fact that the application does not match the home and variances requested it was determined that the application should be carried to a future date and that revisions to the plans and application should be re-submitted.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2014-12 of H. Laurence/Christine Kyse to June 5, 2014 without notice.

In favor: Loder, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon, Ferguson and Struncius
Opposed: None



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.

Application carried from April 3, 2014 without notice

No deliberations due to lengthy discussions about this application in conjunction with the Foulks application.



Conditions
1. The house is to be constructed as shown and described to the Board at the night of the hearing.

2. The building is to have Cedar impression shingles on the front façade.

3. The landscaping plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer. The plan must show adequate foundation plantings to cover the crawl space area.

4. The crawl space is to be covered with lattice under the front stoop and the balance of the building is to have siding brought down to within 3 feet of grade.

5. The air-conditioner unit is to be located on the east of the building and is to be screened. The screening is to be approved by the Board’s Engineer with the landscaping plan is approved.

6. The driveway plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.

7. The color of the house shall be mutually agreed upon with the condominium association.

8. The house is to be placed on the lot as shown on the Laurie Plan of April 8, 2014 introduced in the Foulks Hearing (application number 2014-09) which is a house located on the same lot and which was heard and approved by the Board on May 1, 2014.

Motion by Mr. Ferguson, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2014-07 of Michael Murphy with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions


Application #2014-09 – Foulks Co., LLC – 207 – 209 Central Avenue Unit #3 – Block 108; Lot 4 & 5 - Applicant wishes to demolish one of four existing single family dwellings and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling

The applications states the following variances being requested

a. For an expansion of a nonconforming use.

b. For a rear yard setback of 15.5 feet, whereas 30 feet is required.

c. For an existing and proposed side yard setback of 3 feet 6 inches, whereas 5 feet is required.

Bernard Reilly, Esquire, applicant’s attorney stated the following:

A. The property is unique and unconventional because it is a single parcel with four (4) units on it which are governed by the condominium form of ownership.

B. The structure (Unit 3) sustained damage from Hurricane Sandy and has been removed and a new structure will be built.

C. The new unit will be elevated to meet FEMA requirements.

D. The applicant is proposing to add a small loft area on the second floor which will contain 2 sleeping areas and a bath.

E. The proposed house will be 730 square feet in size.


Robert J. Scialla, AIA, applicant’s architect, sworn, stated that:

A. The proposed structure will be 14 feet in width, 36 feet 6 inches in depth, and the unit will be 28 feet in height to the peak of the roof.

B. The ground floor level will be raised on piers to meet FEMA requirements.

C. The ground floor will contain a kitchen, a bathroom, open space, and the stairs to the loft area.

D. The loft area is proposed to have 5 foot sidewalls that go up to 7 feet in the middle and back to 5 feet.

E. The ground level will have lattice around it and will only be used for storage.

F. There will only be one entrance to the unit.

G. The façade will be made from Hardy Plank clapboard.

H. The first floor will contain 511 square feet and the loft area will contain 219 square feet.

Audience questions

Albert Varosi asked how big the existing house was. He was informed that the existing house was approximately 12 feet wide. He asked what the elevation was going to be. He was informed that the first floor from grade to the underside of the first floor joist will be 8 feet

David Allen, 209 Central Avenue, was confused about the square footage calculation. He was informed that the first floor is 511 square feet; however, the second floor square footage is only calculated where the ceiling is at 7 feet.


Timothy P. Lurie, P.E., P.P., applicant’s Professional Engineer and Professional Planner stated that

A. Unit 3 is located in the northwestern corner of the property.

B. The existing structure is located 1 foot off of the side yard setback and is 9’.2” x 36’.5” in size.

C. The existing structure is 22.5 feet off of the rear yard setback and there is a 17 foot separation from Unit 4 to the east.

D. The applicant proposed relocating the location of the proposed structure to be 5 feet off of the setback to line up with Unit 4. Unit 4 will be moved over 2 feet to provide 11 feet separation.

E. The proposed setback would be 12 feet off the rear yard setback for Unit 4 and Unit 3 would then be 15.5 feet off the rear yard setback.

F. The proposed size of the new structure will be 14’ x 36’5” in size.

G. The finished floor elevation will be 13.6 feet and FEMA requires 9 feet.

H. The entire property consists of 15,000 square feet of lot area. This proposal will take up 3.4% of the lot area.

Audience questions

David Allen, 209 Central Avenue, asked what the square footage of Michael Murphy’s proposed house will be. He was informed that the proposed square footage of his house will be 960 square feet.

Albert Varosi asked about the location of the tree on the property and asked if the tree will affect the layout of the two houses and noted that it is closer to Unit 2 than what is shown on the plan. He was informed that Unit 2 can be moved forward. He stated his concern that the rear yard setback will be decreased by 7 or 8 feet.

James McNierney, Esquire, the condominiums attorney stated that:

A. The applicant made a presentation to the Condominium Association for the 1 foot setback.

B. The applicant is proposing the same rear yard setback as Michael Murphy’s proposal.

C. Although there was some discussion of moving the house to be 5 feet off of the side line setback to eliminate one variance, he is desirous of the Board approving the plan as submitted, with only 1 foot off the side line setback. The Board determined that 1 foot off the side line setback will not be enough room for the applicant to make any repairs without going on the neighbor’s property. It was agreed that the house would be relocated in order to provide a setback of 3 feet 6 inches off the side yard.

Mrs. Foulks, one of the principals of the applicant, stated the following:

A. The property is used for rental.

B. The applicant did meet with the Condominium Association and went over the plans, which the Association approved.

C. The plans were changed and the applicant attempted to set up another meeting with the Condominium Association, but was told there was no need for another meeting.

Audience questions

Albert Varosi expressed concern about moving the building further eastward because it will cast shadows on his mother’s property at 307 Baltimore Avenue. The Board did not agree with this concern due to the nature of the conservation easement on the Varosi property.

Paul Varosi, 307 Baltimore Avenue, is located to the north of the applicant’s property. He is opposed to the 3 foot setback as it will decrease the available light to his property and will upset the aesthetics to the area. The Board does not believe that one-and-a-half feet will have a significant impact.

The Board determined that the side yard setback had to be at least 3 feet in order to provide a fireproof overhang, and therefore the Board set a 3 foot 6 inch side yard setback instead of the requested 1 foot side yard setback. The Board determined that the houses on this parcel of land will be safer by being raised above the base flood elevation and the slight increase in size will make the units more functional. The Board found the proposal will be attractive and found that the property will look nicer since all of the houses will be in a similar color palate which will fit in nicely with the rest of the neighborhood. There are negative impacts arising from this proposal but they will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners; and they are not substantial. This property has had four (4) distinct buildings for some time. Three of the four unit owners attended this meeting and they all agreed to this outcome.

No Deliberations due to extent of discussions



Conditions

1. The house is to be constructed as shown and described to the Board at the night of the hearing and will include Hardy Plank siding.

2. The landscaping plan is to be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

3. The bottom of the building is to be enclosed with lattice.

4. The ground floor is not habitable space and may only be used for storage.

5. The applicant’s house is to be set back 3 feet 6 inches from the west side line with a 12.5 foot separation from the Murphy’s property.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2014-09 of Foulks Co., LLC with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions



Meeting adjourned at 12:05am (May 2, 2014)

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Planning/Zoning Clerk


Published June23, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1901


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