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


June 5, 2014

Minutes

The June 5, 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, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis and Mr. Ferguson

Absent: Mr. Loder and Mr. Renner

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

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet



Memorialize resolutions


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-13 of Stephen/Deborah Korzeniowski – 2 Delaware with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize application #2014-09 of Foulks Co., LLC – 207 -209 Central Avenue with conditions

In favor: Reilly, Ardito, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None



Application #2014-18 – Marjorie Warga – 420 Woodland Road – Block 202; Lot 14 – Applicant wishes to construct a rear deck in the rear yard; continue front porch wrap around and install a six (6) foot fence on south side property line.

Marjorie Warga, applicant sworn stated that she wants to make some improvements to her home. She wants to add a wraparound porch to the right facing of the home. The 6 foot fence is not hers but it is rotted and falling down on the north side and the neighbor will not remove it so she would like to put up a six (6) foot fence to hide it. Concrete pads have already been removed from yard. Pictures packets entered as A-3 and A-4. Ray Savacool stated that the porch does not require a variance. Mr. Reilly inquired why the neighbor to the north did not remove the dilapidated fence and Marjorie Warga said she had been asked to not touch their property.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Davis – The issue with the fence – the applicant has made attempts to speak to the neighbor – In favor

Spader – The location of the home and the neighbor was commercial and is now residential – given the circumstances it is fine.

Kelly – That is why they make board on board fences so you can share the good side with both sides. Can appreciate your position – In favor

Reilly – normally would have a problem – when you look at the property and what is behind it and what is going on there it does not create a problem for me at all. The fence is perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. As Mr. Reynolds said, only as far as it is currently as a six foot fence.

Reynolds – Pretty much agree with what everyone has said. Given the irregular shape of the lot, will be in favor.

Ardito – Nothing else to add

Dixon – Echo his statement – have no problem with this application.

Ferguson – Supports the application
Chairman Struncius – Be careful when you put your fence up that the good side faces your neighbor in case he does tar his fence down.



Condition


1. The fence shall not extend westward of the neighbor’s existing fence.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2014-18 of Marjorie Warga, 420 Woodland, with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions

Application #2014-19 – Deidre D’Amore – 307 Broadway – Block 167; Lot 15 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.


The application stated that the applicant is seeking the following variances;

The construction of a nonconforming new dwelling which is not permitted in the Zone and requires a use variance; lot area of 6,000 square feet, whereas 10,000 square feet is required; existing lot frontage of 60 feet, whereas 100 feet is required; existing lot depth of 100 feet, whereas 125 feet is required; side yard setback of 7 feet, whereas 10 feet is required; front yard setback of 21 feet (to stairs), whereas 25 feet is required; height variance of 36.07 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted.

Deirdre D’Amore, applicant, sworn, stated that they have demolished their existing home that was severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy. They propose to construct a new single family modular home on the existing lot, where single family homes are not permitted in the Zone.

Brian Murphy, P.E., P.P., sworn, credentials accepted, stated that;

a. The proposed dwelling will consist of a raised modular constructed home on a pile foundation with a front and rear deck.

b. The lot is bordered by condominiums to the east, single family houses to the north, and the former Danielle’s Restaurant to the west.

c. The existing house was severely damaged as a result of Hurricane Sandy and was demolished.

d. The undersized lot is narrow in shape and is not viable for commercial use. It would be more of a detriment to put a commercial use on this lot given the residential uses surrounding the property.

e. The lot was previously used for residential and is consistent with the neighborhood. Other houses within 200 feet are single family homes.

f. The front yard has a setback of 21 feet to the front porch. The bulk of the house is 27 feet back from the property line.

g. The proposed house will be aesthetically more pleasing than the existing house. The addition of a front porch will be visually more pleasing from the streetscape.

h. The driveway will run along the west side of the property to the rear of the house.

i. The parking area is gravel and will not be paved.

j. The two-car garage will be located underneath the house in the rear.

k. The applicant will not use the garage area underneath the house as habitable living space.

l. The façade of the house will be brought down to within three feet of grade.

m. The first floor of the house will have a ceiling height of
8 ½ feet. The ceiling height of the second floor will be 8 feet. The height of the house will be 36.07 feet from the curb.

Mr. Reilly inquired the zone that the property is located in (MC2).

Thomas D’Amore applicant’s husband, sworn stated that they want to keep the home of the next door neighbor.

The Board determined that since this property had a house on it prior to Hurricane Sandy and since there are a number of residences surrounding the property that the lot is best suited for residential use rather than a commercial use. Raising the house will benefit the community as the proposed house will be code compliant and will be safer. The Board concluded that this property has no commercial value and the proposed house will blend in nicely with the surrounding area and will be an aesthetic improvement. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal and will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

Conditions

1. The façade of the house will be brought down to within 3 feet of the grade.

2. The rear parking area is not to be paved.

3. The garage area is only to be used for storage and there will be no habitation permitted.

Deliberations

Davis – Sorry for the loss of your home. I see the house as being a benefit to the neighborhood.

Spader – Here is a case where their home was destroyed and looking to replace it with a code compliant home which meets most of the criteria. Certainly very supportive of this application with the few conditions that we have.

Kelly – I think it will supplement and improve the area. I am 100% behind it.

Reilly – With regards to the zone issue- this lot is much better suited for a single family residence; I am going to be in favor of this application.

Reynolds – This is an undersized commercial lot; I cannot see for the life of me what you would put on this lot commercially; absolutely suited for single family residence. I have no issues and will be in favor.

Ardito – Likewise has no issues with it being a residential lot. As a community we will be getting a code compliant up to date home and flood proofed.

Dixon – This is an unusual property with the restaurant next door. The lots undersized and does not have any commercial value. Will be in favor of you getting back into your home.

Ferguson – Also in favor of you getting back into your home and like that you made it blend with the adjacent condos.
Chairman Struncius – A home stood there for so long. The benefit of height gives a little more safety to the home. That is a reason to support it.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2014-19 of Deidre D’Amore – 307 Broadway – Block 167; Lot 15 with conditions

In Favor – Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Struncius.
Opposed: None

Application #2014-20 – William/Patricia Mollema – Applicant lifted existing two-family dwelling to allow for garage and storage under. Applicant would like windows throughout foundation area. Applicant has appealed the Zoning Officers ruling.

Ray Savacool explained that the home had been lifted and windows were added in the foundation. The Zoning Officer feels that makes the foundation habitable space and the applicant would like to appeal that ruling. It is added for aesthetic reasons and for ventilation.
Mr. Spader went over and saw that the crawl space area and said there must be 10 to 12 piers in that space that would make it very difficult to be habitable space. He believes that the windows give it aesthetic appeal. If the board rules in favor of the applicant the Zoning Officer would be able to approve windows in the foundation in the future. If the board supports the Zoning Officer then the applicant can proceed to obtain the variance for the home. Then every application will need to be heard if they want windows in their foundation in the future.

Mr. Reilly inquired if they can allow the windows in this application due to the piers in the foundation. (No) Ray Savacool commented that the piers are not relevant to the decision. Steve Ardito commented on 19.7-1 – structures in flood zone area in reference to windows.

The board came to the conclusion that it should not render an interpretation and proceed with the variance in this application.

Craig Alsdorf, applicant’s builder, sworn stated that the home will be aesthetically pleasing and will have decorative stone on the sides of the home facing the street.

Bill Reilly felt it was important the foundation has ventilation. Steve Ardito is pleased with what is being approved for this application.

Chairman Struncius stated that the information should be brought to Mayor and Council and it should be changed by ordinance if they want windows in the foundation. Mr. Ardito commented that you need the windows for ventilation.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2014-20

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

Application approved



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

Carried from May 1, 2014 meeting without notice

Mr. Kelly has stepped down from this application.

Mr. Spader has listened to the prior hearing of May 1, 2014 and signed a certification so he is able to vote in this matter.

Tim Lurie, applicant’s Engineer and Professional Planner reviewed the changes to the plans and addressed the Boards’ Engineers review letter.
Home was reduced by approximately 2.25% from previously submitted plans and has been shortened in length to improve the light on the neighbor’s yard.


Audience questions/comments –

Michael Sirchio, 163 Baltimore Avenue – has no problem with it, they have been very considerate. I think it is a nice plan. They are good people – the first house did not fit on the lot.

Conditions

1. Landscape home as presented to the Board on Exhibit A -3.
2. Siding is to come down to 3 feet from the ground.
3. Height is not to exceed 36.4 feet
4. Ground floor is not to be used for habitation or any other purpose except for storage and a garage.
5. A/c is to be in conforming location.
6. Area under deck is not to be enclosed.
7. Driveway it to be pavers or any other impervious stone.



Deliberations


Spader – Changes certainly on the positive side; not happy with the 35% building coverage. No one asked for this to happen; can accept the changes that were made from the first meeting and will supportive of this application with conditions.

Reilly – I was very pleased that the applicant heard what we said and the changes in the plans reflected that. The neighbor is satisfied with it and that is very important. I also would not want to go up and down stairs every time I barbeque. Will be in favor.

Reynolds – I wasn’t completely against it the last time you presented it. I applaud the changes that you made; you worked with the neighbor and improved his light and air. Based on the changes I will be in favor.

Ardito – You guys have come forward with something that is very different from what was originally presented. It is now acceptable to most of us. At the same time you are still getting everything that you were hoping for. Believes it will fit into the community. Will be in favor.

Dixon – Like that they have reduced the size of the home. Also there is a lot more open space in the rear; likes what they did and believes that the deck is necessary.

Ferguson – I agree with the rest of the board. Will be in favor of application.

Struncius – Anytime these homes are coming in new into the mix it is going to look bigger. But it is 13 feet to the first floor. It is these changes that bring the homes into compliance that is making them so high. Like the changes you have made with the reduction of coverage and you have freed up light and air for the neighbor’s property.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ferguson to approve application #2014-12 of H. Laurence and Christine Kyse with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 9:20pm


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published July24, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1920


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