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 15, 2014

Minutes

The May 15, 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. Ardito, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis

Absent: Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Ferguson

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

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Spader to nominate Mr. Reynolds as acting Chairman

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


Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the minutes of April 17, 2014 –

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Dixon
Opposed: None

Memorialize Resolutions

Motion by Mr. /Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-62 of Stephen Beer – Central Ave with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and /Dixon
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Loder, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-06 of Stephen/Patricia Hyduke – 204 Randall – with conditions.

In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Dixon
Opposed


Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-10 of Frederick/Sandra Guciora Field 24 Niblick with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito and Dixon
Opposed: None


Application #2014-15 – Irene Synowiecki – 227 Boardwalk – Block 120; Lot 11.04 – Applicant wishes to install pavers.

George Otlowski, Jr., Esquire, stated that:

A. The applicant proposes to add a paving block parking area on the back of the property (not on the Boardwalk side) for ease and safety of parking.

B. The paving blocks that will be used in the construction of the driveway are porous type of block which allows water to recharge through them.

C. Block type parking stop curbs will be added to the north side only. The property as you face the Boardwalk already has parking stoppers already.

D. The driveway sustained damage due to Hurricane Sandy and it is necessary to repair so cars can drive down to the house without getting stuck in the sand.



Kevin Intrabartolo, applicant’s contractor, sworn, stated that the proposed driveway consists of permeable paving stones and that;

A. The driveway will be excavated 12” deep and will have porous stones underneath the permeable paving blocks. No fine stone type of material will be used to avoid it becoming compacted and less permeable.

B. The paving blocks will have a ¼ inch gap between them and after the blocks are laid in place, a 1/8” rye stone will be swept over the blocks which will permit the storm water to filter through.

C. The parking area will have a negative pitch to the house which will prevent any storm water entering the house or running into the street.

D. Currently, the condition of the driveway and parking area consists of sand. It is difficult to drive on the driveway without sinking into the sand and getting stuck.

E. The paving blocks are an excellent alternative to asphalt and concrete, as it permits 99% drainage.

F. Since the sand is beach sand, it is course enough so it will not cause a problem. If trees and leaves were present, it could clog the area but there is no organic matter there will not be problem.

G. To keep the paving blocks in place, there will be a 3” concrete edge that is 6” deep and will have rebar going around it.

Laurie Samuelson, applicant, sworn, stated that:

A. The size of the parking area will fit approximately 3 small cars or 1 truck and a small car. The existing garage is a 2-car garage.

B. The Borough owns Limroth Drive.

C. There is no room to plant any landscaping along the property line as it would make it difficult to maneuver cars.

Deliberations

Spader – Conditions are good. Very familiar with bungalow section; understand circumstances and the off street parking will be a plus in that area; will be in favor

Kelly – There this morning; very surprised of the condition of that roadway; this is tacky and admire your efforts to improve it.

Ardito – With efforts to mitigate impervious coverage and with conditions in place will be in favor.

Dixon – Very familiar with the area, I know there has been parking problems. This is a necessary item for the family to keep their property in good shape.


Renner – I appreciate the ownership finding this solution. This is a good application.

Reynolds – Something had to be done; I agree it is a great solution. You are the only house without some type of paver or driveway. In favor




Conditions

1. The parking bumpers will only be placed on the north side of the parking area.

2. The parking area surface shall be constructed with the porous paver system described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

3. The Board’s Engineer is to be present at the time of the construction of the sub-grade to insure the parking area is constructed as described.

4. The applicant is to submit proof to the Board Engineer’s satisfaction that the parking area when completed will maintain negative drainage.

5. The existing concrete patio must be removed.

Motion by Mr. Renner, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2014-15 of Irene Synowiecki with conditions

In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Dixon, Renner and Reynolds
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions


Application #2014-17 –Bradley/Kimberly Snyder – 201 Baltimore – Block 137; Lot 1.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

Kimberly Snyder, applicant, sworn, stated that their home was damaged as a result of Hurricane Sandy leaving them with 4 feet of water in the house. The existing house is a one-story ranch type house The existing house was demolished and the new house will be built to meet FEMA regulations and will be built in the same footprint, but will add a second story over the garage and a master bedroom over the proposed front porch.

Alan Paradis, R.A., the applicant’s architect, sworn, stated that the applicant was going to renovate and modify the existing house, but found that it would be better to demolish the house to meet FEMA standards.

The proposed house will be constructed with a garage that will be attached which will improve the setback condition. A second story will be added which will include a bedroom and a master bedroom and bathroom. Another bedroom will be added over the garage in the future. Square footage of the house will be increased to 1,990 square feet. The size of the master bedroom will be 183 square feet (14’ x 12’). The other bedroom is roughly 12’ x 12’ including the closet. The size of the bedroom which will be over the garage will be 12’ x 18’ in size. The front porch and stairs will not be covered and will be completely permeable. The foundation will be a stucco finish and the siding will be cedar impression shingles. The applicant will add foundation plantings and the siding will be brought down to within 3 feet of grade.

The applicant agreed to reduce the size of the garage and porch to bring down the lot coverage as follows:

a. The garage is to be reduced by a foot and a half.
b. The porch facing Princeton Avenue is to be reduced by a foot and a half and the stair will be reduced by two feet.
c. The stair in the rear of the home will be reduced to meet code.
d. The proposed revisions will result in a reduction of 2 and a half percent in building coverage from 36.72% to 34.22%.

The Board liked the design of the house and found the house to be aesthetically pleasing and well suited for the neighborhood and is pleased that the applicant was able to reduce the amount of building coverage without compromising the amount of living space since the house was very modest in size to begin with. The Board determined that the small size of the lot was quite challenging when designing the proposed house. The home is very attractive and has a beautiful front porch that will remain open and airy. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Loder – Likes the design of the home; based on conversation and adjustments will be leaning in favor.

Spader – Whoever said this is a tough one is correct; like the design of the home but have to wonder if it was known what the ordinance was before the design if we would be going through this. Have trouble with the last minute scrambling. Misunderstanding of the ordinance is not a reason to approve something. Later on Mr. Spader went on to say that he had been swayed by the board members deliberation and the aesthetics of the home and now will support the application.

Kelly – The lot is limited; somewhat of a hardship. Tremendous difference in the setbacks from the original home. Likes the look of the house; would not want to see them altered the plan too much – it could look crazy. Likes the whole package. Will be in favor of this.

Ardito – Spader, Loder and Kelly have made good points. I too am struggling with this because I understand where Mr. Spader is coming from; new construction we try to keep at 30%. Think the reason we have 30% is to keep away from massing. What you have done with the design with the second story with the roof pitch aesthetically it is very good. Beautiful front porch; you will have a lot of storage in the foundation. I think this house is well suited for the neighborhood. Will be in favor.

Dixon – Mr. Ardito covered most of what I was going to say. You have improved the setbacks; the rooms are not large and you have an open front porch. This is not overbearing and will have no problem with it.

Renner – Not much more to add; 37% is too much and am comfortable with the changes. Will vote in favor

Davis – I think that aesthetics are what we are getting. I really went and looked at the neighborhood and this home will be a wonderful addition. With the changes made I think it is architectural harmonious.

Reynolds – Personally would like to thank the applicant for working with the board. I believe the house fits very nicely in the neighborhood. Thinks 1900 square feet is relatively modest. Believes the applicant has done a good job.



Conditions

1. The porches are not to be enclosed.

2. The home is to be built as described to the Board at the time of the hearing, including the use of cedar impression shingles.

3. The siding is to be brought down to within 3 feet of grade.

4. The applicant is to submit their foundation planting plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

5. The building coverage is not to exceed 34.22% and the height of the house is not to exceed 35 feet in height.

6. The revised plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board at the time of memorialization.


Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2014-17 –Bradley/Kimberly Snyder – 201 Baltimore – Block 137; Lot 1.01 with conditions

In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Dixon, Renner and Reynolds
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions


Application #2014-20 – William/Patricia Mollema – 36 Central – Block 99; Lot 15 -Applicant lifted existing two-family dwelling to allow for garage and storage under. Applicant would like windows throughout the storage area. (Will not be heard due to deficient notice)

Application #2013-55 – Chester Barritta – 247 Boardwalk - Appealing what the applicant believes to be an error by the Zoning Officer in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and in the alternative, seeking and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to neighbors fence. The neighbors at 249 Boardwalk raised their deck and erected a new fence that is in excess of three feet high from the adjacent right of way.

Carried without notice from March 6, 2014. (Requesting to be carried to June 19th, 2014 without notice)

Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2013-55 of Chester Barritta to June 19, 2014 without notice. (Waiver of time of application to be heard is on file)

In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Ardito, Dixon, Renner and Reynolds
Opposed: None


Meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published June23, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1902


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