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 19, 2014


The June 19, 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. Loder Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Renner, Mr. Davis and Mr. Ferguson

Absent: Mr. Spader and Mr. Ardito

Also present: Stephen Gleeson, Board Attorney, Ray Savacool, Board Engineer and Karen L. Mills, Clerk

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Memorialize minutes –

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of May 1, 2014 –

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the minutes of May 15, May 15, 2014 – In favor: GL, TS, LK, JR, JD, PR & TD
Opposed: None

Memorialize Resolutions

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-15 of Irene Synowiecki – 227 Boardwalk with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-17 of Bradley/Kimberly Snyder – 201 Baltimore with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-18 of Marjorie Warga – 420 Woodland with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-19 of Dierdre D’Amore – 307 Broadway with conditions

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

#2014-16 – Marcy E. Gendel – 225 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 11.05 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling. Existing dwelling is two stories from Limroth Drive and one story from Boardwalk.

Lou Rago, Esq, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is seeking the following variances -

A. For side yard setback of 3 feet to house (North) whereas 5 feet is required.

B. For side yard setback of 2 feet to roof overhang (North), whereas 5 feet is required.

C. For side yard setback of 2 feet 10 inches to house (South), whereas 5 feet is required.

D. For side yard setback of 1 foot 10 inches to roof overhang (South), whereas 5 feet is required.

E. For building height of 38.3 feet, whereas 20 feet is the maximum permitted.

F. For 3 stories from Limroth Lane and 2 stories from Boardwalk, whereas one story is only permitted.

G. For deck having a roof or overhang, whereas open decks shall have no roof or overhang and shall not have any structures located upon or beneath it, such as storage shed, shower, or any other structure, excluding required railings.

Louis Rago, Esquire, stated that the applicant’s house was severely damaged as a result of Super storm Sandy and that the house will be demolished and replace with a house that meets FEMA Regulations.
The home will have to be elevated and will be re-built on basically the same footprint.

Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., the applicant’s engineer stated that;

H. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 1-story single family house and construct a new 2-story single family house.

I. The house fronts on the Boardwalk with full views of the ocean.

J. The topography of the property is unique. The property has an elevation of 13 feet at the Boardwalk and slopes down to an elevation of 9 feet at Limroth Drive.

K. The house is accessed by easements into Limroth Drive which appears to be a public right-of-way, but is landlocked.

L. The existing house does not parallel the property lines. The proposed new house will be moved slightly to make it parallel to the side yard property lines.

M. The existing side yard setback is 3.1 to the immediate southwest and 2.1 feet to the northeast.

N. The proposed side yard setbacks will increase to 2.83 (from 2.1) on one side but will decrease to 3.04 (from 3.1) feet on the other side.

O. The applicant agreed to provide a revised survey confirming the setbacks, as one of the neighbors believes the existing survey is incorrect.

P. The lot is approximately 25 feet wide. Imposing the required 5 foot side yard setbacks would result in the house only being 15 feet wide. A 15 foot wide house would be detrimentally narrow.

Q. The new house will be 38.3 feet in height. A (d)(6) variance is required as 20 feet is the maximum height permitted in the Zone. Mr. Burdick opined that this location can accommodate this deviation from the height requirements.

R. The house will be rebuilt mostly in the pre-existing footprint; however, it will be shifted slightly in order to center it on the lot.

S. The 2-story house will have a garage underneath the first floor living area. There will be no habitation on the garage level.

T. The driveway in the rear of the property will be reconstructed. After Super storm Sandy, the driveway was covered with sand. The applicant will remove the sand and re-establish the driveway.

U. The impervious coverage will be increase to 64.5%; however, this amount is still conforming as 70% impervious coverage is permitted.

V. Access to the property will continue through easements off of Ocean Avenue to Limroth Drive to the Borough right-of-way.

W. The house will be raised to meet FEMA regulations.

X. The houses in this neighborhood are very close together in this area.

Y. The houses immediately adjacent to the north and south are 1-story houses. He opined that since both of these homes were damaged, they too will have to be raised.

Z. Continuing down the north and south side of the Boardwalk, the houses adjacent on both sides are 2-story houses. They are higher than what the applicant is proposing.

AA. The applicant is incorporating 8 foot ceilings on the first and second floor in order to keep the house as low as possible. They will also use shallow roof pitches as well.

BB. The proposed height is measured from the top of the curb of the adjacent roadway (Ocean Avenue). That elevation is 6.4 which will bring the first floor elevation to 18. Since the house is already 11 feet high, the structure would only be able to be an 8 ½ feet structure from the first floor to the peak. That would not work.

CC. The houses behind the proposed house to the west do not have ocean views now because the ground surface is about 3 to 4 feet lower than the Boardwalk and the houses are 1-story houses.

DD This is an ocean view property. Constructing a 2-story house maximizes that view but will not impact the adjacent homes due to their existing height.
The proposed house will be consistent with the other homes in the area. Of the other homes along the Boardwalk, 4 of the 6 closest houses are 2-story and are larger.

EE The driveway will be constructed with pavers.

Daryl R. Johnson, AIA, the applicant’s architect, sworn, stated that the removal of the existing house and rear deck enable the proposed house to be moved slightly to the west. The first and second floors will have 8-foot ceilings. There are 6 windows on the existing south side of the house. The proposed house initially had 3 windows on the south side. After some discussion, an additional window was added to the plans to provide an addition egress to the south side of the house. On the north side of the house there will only be 2 windows, one per each bedroom. The proposed roof overhang was originally going to be 8 inches. The plans will be amended to show that the overhang reduced to 4 inches. Due to how close the houses are, the Board was concerned that a fire could jump from one house to another.
The applicant is proposing to use durable materials that reduce required maintenance and are better able to withstand weather elements. The façade will be made from Hardy board siding, asphalt or fiberglass shingles, Azak or Timber Tech trim (tan in color with a white trim), white hand rails and white columns. The propose house will be constructed on pilings and will have break-away walls at the lower level. The break-away walls will be tethered.

Marcy E. Gendel, applicant, sworn, stated that until 2009, the applicant sometimes used the house and sometimes rented the house. The applicant intends to use the proposed house as her full-time residence.

Audience questions/comments

George Otlowski, Esquire, representing neighbors James Magee of 18 Brunswick Place and Irene Snyowiecki of 227 Boardwalk, had the following concerns:

A. Questioned whether the excess sand on the property would be removed. The applicant agreed to remove the excess sand and reconstruct the driveway.

B. Asked if there will be a chimney on the new house. The applicant explained it will not be adding a chimney on the new house.

C. Asked about the construction of the new driveway. The applicant explained that the new driveway will not be constructed from paving materials but will use paver instead.

D. Because the houses are so close Ms. Snyowiecki wanted some type of assurance that the applicant will be responsible for any damage to her property caused by the new construction. The builder provided testimony that his company would be responsible for any damage.

James Burke, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated that in this situation, we may have to cut across the corner of the neighbor’s property. Mr. Burke is fully insured and testified that if something is damaged, he will be responsible for repairing the damage. He agreed to notify the neighbors before any demolition begins so the neighbors can prepare their properties.

The Board recognized that the limitations of this property make this proposal very challenging.
Based upon the topographical conditions, the Board determined that the variance for the proposed height is largely due to the difference in elevation from the Boardwalk to Limroth Drive and the need to comply with FEMA’s base flood elevation requirements. The Board determined that because the houses are so close together, it makes construction very difficult. The Board is confident that the builder will take appropriate precautions when constructing the house with respect to the neighbor’s property and understands that the builder is responsible for any damage to the neighbor’s property during the construction process.

The Board finds the close proximity of the houses to be a fire hazard and was pleased that the applicant reduced the overhang by 4 inches to give more space between the houses.
The Board determined that the proposed house will be very attractive and will fit in nicely with the rest of the neighborhood. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


Loder – Limitations of the property make this project challenging. Based on the topographical conditions of the property and limited space will be in favor.

Kelly – Commends the architect and stated that this area is dangerous due to the proximity of the homes. What we can do with them is pretty limited and thanked the architect for the presentation. In favor.

Reynolds – It is a very tight area and now have a home that is coming up to code and will be safer. Understand how difficult it is to work down there.

Reilly – I like a lot of the aspects that Mr. Reynolds mentioned; hopefully it will be safer, do worry about the proximity. Would have preferred a little more cutouts; concerned about the overhangs. Not sure how he is going to vote. Would be much more amenable if the overhangs are reduced.

Renner – Home itself as proposed is modest and is in keeping with what was there before but would also like to see the overhangs reduced.

Dixon – Homeowner has been out of her home for over a year; sure that she wants to get in there as fast as she can. It is a pleasing home; hopefully you wait until September to start building.

Davis - With respect to the applicant I am sorry that your home was wrecked by the storm. As has been mentioned it is architecturally attractive; am very concerned that we are presented with a set of standards and those standards are for safety and am concerned about the roof lines meeting. Obviously the homes need to be lifted for safety concerns but are second stories something that we need to start allowing.

Ferguson – Commend the architect for keeping the home as short as you could. Regarding the overhang - as a weekend warrior builder, knocking that 8 inches down to 4 or 6 will ruin the look of the home. It is a good looking home and will be in favor of the project.

Struncius – This is one of those very tough ones. It is a safer structure and up to code; at the same time we are letting them build a second story and allowing them to make it into a better valued home. I believe the home could have been changed with some dimensionality. (Attorney stated that the overhangs will be reduced by half, (by 4 inches) and then the gutter). Probably leaning in favor.


1. The applicant is to comply with the Board Engineer’s letter of June 16, 2014.

2. The building is to have setbacks as described by Mr. Burdick at the time of the hearing of 2.87 feet on the south side and 3.04 feet on the north side off the property line.

3. The applicant is to submit a revised survey to the Board at the time of memorialization to confirm the applicant’s testimony as to all setbacks and to correct the view to reflect the actual conditions.

4. The use of the first floor will be limited to the parking of cars and storage. There is to be no habitation on the first floor/garage level.

5. The plan is to be revised to reflect that the driveway and parking area are to be constructed of pavers.

6. The home is to be constructed as described to the Board at the time of the hearing. The façade will be made from Hardy board siding, asphalt or fiberglass shingles, Azak or Timber Tech trim (tan in color with a white trim), white hand rails and white columns.

7. The break-away walls are to be tethered.

8. The stored sand must be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit.

9. The applicant agreed to provide the neighbor’s proof of insurance from its contractor prior to the commencement of construction.

10. The architectural plan is to be revised to show an addition of an egress window on the south side and the reduction of the overhang to no more than 4 inches. The overhang will have an additional 4 inches of gutter for a total of 8 inches.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to approve application #2014-16 of March Gendel, 225 Boardwalk with conditions

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

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 May 15, 2014.

Attorneys for the parties involved in this application settled the matter during the hearing and no decision of the board was required.

Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Planning/Zoning Secretary, LUA

Published August22, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1931

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