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


November 6, 2014

Minutes

The November 6, 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. Dixon, Mr. Kelly, Vice-Chair Reilly, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito
Alternates: Mr. Renner

Absent: Chairman Struncius, Mr. Renner and Mr. Loder

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

Minutes

Motion by Vice-Chair Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve the October 2, 2014 minutes – Spader, Dixon, Kelly, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder and Vice Chair Reilly

Opposed: None


Resolutions –

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-41 of Craig Alsdorf, 312 St. Louis with conditions.

In favor: Spader, Dixon, Reynolds, Ardito, Loder, Davis and Vice-Chair Reilly
Opposed: None


Application #2014-28 – Richard/Vania Cardinale – 111 Atlantic Avenue – Block 63; Lot 6 – Applicant is seeking a variance for additional deck coverage and relocation of in-ground pool.

Carried without notice from September 18th, 2014

Stuart Narofsky, architect for the applicant, sworn, credentials accepted stated that the pool has been moved to a conforming location and eliminated that variance and reduced the size of the porch and building coverage is now 32.1%.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations
Loder – looked at property and revised plans. Getting a newer, safer home. In favor
Spader – Went over this one pretty carefully on the initial presentation. In favor with proposed changes.
Kelly – At this point I have no problem with this proposal.
Vice – chair Reilly – I initially had concerns but the applicant has addressed them; with the reduction from 4% to 2% - will be in favor.
Reynolds – Had concerns over the pool and that has been moved. Looking favorable at the application.
Ardito – The balance of the overage is open decking and the steps being caused by the FEMA requirements; glad the pool was taken out of the variance situation. Will be in favor.
Dixon – It appears the applicant did a lot of work to reduce the variances; have no problem with this application.
Davis – Cannot say anything that hasn’t been paid – in favor.
Ferguson – Agree – did your homework
Chairman Struncius – Impervious coverage is well below allowed amount – overage is open decking and stairs – also in favor.
Motion by Vice-Chair Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2014-28 of Richard/Vania Cardinale, 111 Atlantic Avenue with conditions

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

Conditions
1. Decking not to be enclosed

Application #2014-39 – John Zaza/Connie Coppola – 1431 Oceanfront – Block – 17.01/ Block 56 - Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant is looking to build their dream home on an ocean front lot that they just purchased.
John Amelchenko, Professional architect, credentials accepted, sworn gave an overview of the application. Home is located between a town owned right of way, Elizabeth Avenue and the beach. Exhibits A-3 entered – Photos and aerial. Home is not being built on existing foot print. New home requires a piling system. Design methodology is to elevate house and park underneath. A-4 – Drainage plan from Mr. Lindstrom. Slight expansion is allowed under the CAFRA guideline. Chose to slide new home to the north. VE zone – elevation 16 – this home will be set at elevation 21 so the applicant will be able to park underneath. Home has three (3) frontages; reality is that the actual home is less than 35 feet even though home measures 41 from top of curb. Finished floor to peak of home is thirty (30) feet.
John C. Amelchenko stated the following -
A. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 70 year old 2-story, 2,000 square foot house which was severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy and construct a new 3,400 square foot 2 ˝ story house on the property.
B. The existing house had structural damage to the east side of the house and sustained water damage throughout. Given the extent of damage, the house was not a candidate for being repaired and raised.
C. The property is located at the northern side of the end of Elizabeth Avenue.
D. The property is unique because the entire property consists of two lots separated by the Boardwalk right of way. It is a corner lot with three front yards.
E. The lot is 5,250 square feet in size.
F. The west is bounded by a 16-foot right of way – Ocean Front Lane. The lane is unpaved and is more like a driveway type of arrangement that serves the 2 ˝ story new single family home immediately to the north.
G. The beach/ocean is located to the east of the property.
H. There is a 40-foot wide right of way, a dune, and the other lot that goes down to the water.
I. To the south of the property is Elizabeth Avenue.
J. The paved portion of Elizabeth Avenue terminates approximately 10 to 12 feet from the corner of the property.
K. An attractive feature of the lot is the natural dune.

L. The required front yard setback in this Zone is 25 feet. Since the property has three front yards (Ocean Front Lane, Elizabeth Avenue, and the Boardwalk right of way) it makes it challenging to position the proposed house on the property without variance relief.
M. On the northwest corner of the property, there was a 400 square foot 2-car garage that was located 4 inches off of Ocean Front Lane and 16 inches off of the northern neighbor’s property line. This garage was damaged by Hurricane Sandy and was removed.

N. The proposed plan is to elevate the new house and create parking underneath. The damaged detached garage structure will not be replaced.

O. The applicant proposes to create a setback larger than what previously existed.

P. The damaged house is just 8 feet off of Elizabeth Avenue. Under current CAFRA guidelines, the applicant is not permitted to move the proposed house further east of the existing house.

Q. CAFRA does permit the applicant to expand 200 feet to the side and 750 square feet in the shadow of the building.

R. The applicant proposes to increase the proposed width of the house from 22 feet to 28 feet.

S. The applicant proposes to move the house to the north by 2 feet and still maintain a 5-foot setback. The main body of the house will be 16 feet off of Elizabeth Avenue.

T. The applicant will add an 8-foot open porch with a roof to the main entrance of the house.

U. The body of the house will be slid back which will create an open feeling from the Elizabeth Avenue corridor.

V. The top of the dune is at elevation 19. The dune tends to mitigate the impact of the height of the building.

W. The proposed building coverage is 44.86%. The house will comprise of 30% building coverage, the covered porch will add 10% to the building coverage, and the stairs will add another 4.8%. The maximum permitted building coverage in the Zone is 30%.

X. Because the house has to be raised to comply with FEMA regulations, the deck structures need to be elevated like the house.

Y. The unique topography and unique characteristics of the property have an impact on the required variances. In the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, the decks, steps, and landings must be included in the building coverage amount.

Z. The base flood elevation is 17. With 2 feet added to the floor board, 19 feet is the minimum height to set the floor. The applicant is adding 2 feet extra and will go to elevation 21. The extra feet will permit the applicant to use the underneath part of the house for parking, will provide an area for storage, and will provide a greater protection from storms.
AA. The total height of the house will be 40.90 feet; however, the height from finished floor to the peak is 30 feet. The applicant is seeking a height variance.
BB. The proposed house will be 3,400 square feet in size, will have 4-bedrooms, and will have 2 ˝ stories.
CC. The proposed house will be like the other houses in the area and will not be out of character. The decks are an important element on ocean front properties.
DD. Mr. Amelchenko opined that there will be little impact of the building height or the building coverage because there are no neighbors to the east, to the south is the paper street, and from Elizabeth Avenue there is the dune at elevation 19.
EE. The height of the proposed house is consistent with the other nearby houses as 41 feet seems to be a fairly common height in the area.
FF. There will be three (3) parking spaces on this property. Two will be inside the garage and one at the southeast corner of the house which will be a gravel parking space.

GG. Access to the garage will be placed on Ocean Front Lane.

HH. The total length of the house is 60 feet and the width will be 28 feet at its widest.

II. The deck is about 8 feet deep on Elizabeth Avenue. The building coverage comprises 14.8% of deck.

JJ. The house will be 16 feet and the front porch will be 7.9 feet from Elizabeth Avenue.

KK. The house to the north is 3 feet off of the property line. The applicant’s house will be 5.2 feet off the property line.

LL. The driveway will be 180 square feet of pavers; therefore 90 square feet will be considered impervious coverage. The maximum amount of impervious coverage will comply with the Ordinance at 49%.

Michael Rubino, Jr., Esquire, the objector’s attorney stated the following:

A. The Objector, John Cali, understands that because of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy that the proposed house will have to be elevated to meet FEMA regulations. However, the existing house was a 1 ˝ story house not more than 28 feet in height and was approximately 25 feet off of the rear (or alley way).
B. Since the proposed house will be 40 feet in height and will be situated 15 feet closer to the property line, Mr. Cali feels that he will be severely impacted by the location of the house.

C. The distance of the current house is 23.8 feet to Ocean Front Lane. The applicant is proposing to reposition the proposed house 10.5 feet to the west. That difference will be approximately 13 feet closer to Mr. Cali’s house plus it will be 10 feet higher than the existing house.
D. Mr. Amelchenko indicated that the proposed house will be in line with the neighbor to the north. He indicated that by moving the bulk of the house away from Elizabeth Avenue will actually enhance the Cali’s view not decrease it.

Applicant’s Engineer, Charles Lindstrom, P.E., stated that the proposed house is compatible with the development pattern in this area of the Borough. The 41 feet in height is typical for a 2 ˝ story house with a peaked roof and that it would be difficult to construct a house with less height because of the flood zone requirements and with providing parking underneath the house. He stated that the open space of the ocean helps to mitigate any massing and the setbacks are driven by the unique topography. The CAFRA plan is ready to be submitted. Mr. Lindstrom explained that because the property has a dune, the applicant would be limited to the eastern face of the building and that they would not be permitted to move the house further east because of the existing dune. Mr. Lindstrom stated that although the proposed house will be closer to the Objector’s property, other nonconforming setbacks will be resolved. There will be more of a setback provided to the right-of-way and to the south and that this application will be more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and will provide a safer house with improved flood protection.
Audience questions/comments
John Cali, 101 Elizabeth Avenue, sworn, stated that he bought the property in 2004 and demolished the existing house and built a new ADA accessible house to accommodate his handicapped son. He is concerned that his views of the ocean will be obstructed because of the applicant’s proposed house.
The Board understands that the applicant will have to get approval from CAFRA to move the footprint of the house toward the east. The Board was informed that CAFRA could take several months to render their decision so this project will not be able to move forward until then. In the event CAFRA will not permit the applicant to move the house toward the east, the application is hereby permitted to revert back to the original plan that was presented at this meeting. The Board determined that the proposed height of the house is consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding houses all of which have been raised in order to meet FEMA requirements and that the lot can accommodate the additional height.
Chairman Struncius clarified that the plan needs to be changed to remove the paved driveway.
Deliberations
Loder - Very conscious of objectors and how it affects their situation. Ok with the height but concerned with overage.
Spader – 46% is just way over for me. Mr. Amelchenko designs a beautiful home; I understand what council is saying; there is a home in close proximity that designed a beautiful home and kept close to 30%. No effort was made to do that. We need to send a message that you need to adhere to the ordinances. We have seen some very unusual applications; cannot support it the way it is now.
Kelly – This is an example of why our Master plan needs to be reviewed and changed in reference to corner lots. They are asking for three setbacks. There is no representation from the neighbor to the north which I am surprised because he is the one that is impacted the most. The only other variance is the building coverage which is now 36%. Has no problem with this based on the ordinance.
Reilly – Mr. Amelchenko did a wonderful job; I am not concerned with the height but I do want the home moved two feet to the south. I agree with Mr. Spader – 30% is too little on the other hand do we really need 45% building coverage. It is a very close call.
Reynolds – When I first saw 45% I thought that was a lot. I do think that it is a little bit much. I would like to see it moved off ocean front lane. Am also waiting to hear other deliberations.
Ardito – Beautiful design – you have a way of designing a home that they fit in aesthetically quite nicely. You also give us the 41 foot height with giving us the attributes of the home. You presented more the views on either side of the home because you knew that there would be objections and this is making it tough for us. I am not sold that CAFRA will not take a look at your plans. I do not think there will be a problem. To make us think there will be a problem is not right because you have not tried yet. The home is not a box but to have it moved fifteen feet towards the west will impact that neighbor. I would not approve the home as proposed today.
Dixon – I don’t see how the present homeowner should be penalized for the home north of his only being three feet off the line. As far as the neighbor down the block having his view obstructed; it is not guaranteed that he would have a view. It is not his right to have a view; he is not ocean front. This 30% is too small for what we build now a days. Everyone wants bigger houses; houses are going to be bigger. Still on the fence with this one; in favor of moving the home to the east.
Davis – Is clear that this is his favorite Amelchenko design; does not like having the board being put between a rock and a hard spot by being told what CAFRA will allow. Mr. Spader is correct that the house could shrink to comply. The cutoff is that you get a little less house. Not on the fence; not in favor of this application as is. Do not believe tht the positive and negative criteria has been met.
Ferguson – Not on the fence either. It is a beautiful house; not a McMansion – decks do add to the square footage but you use them to get around the home. The planet is speaking from experience; I believe he knows what CAFRA will say. I will be in favor. I think it is well done and they have agreed to move it two feet to the south. In favor
Chairman Struncius – Design is beautiful; in cases like this I weigh the openness of the beach front and consider the ocean front lot. So with the house being at 30% I look at the openness of Elizabeth Avenue and understand why they can be built bigger; struggling with the positioning on the lot and how it affects the surrounding neighbors. It is getting dropped into a neighborhood. Agree more with Mr. Ardito and without an answer from CAFRA about moving eastward. In order for me to approve this it would have to be moved eastward; Feels there should revisions to this it the move eastward is not approved by CAFRA. Do not want to see it presented as a fallback - with the height and it being so close to a property line.
The board is clear that they want the home 15 feet off the property line (Oceanfront Lane) on the west side. If CAFRA says no to the home moving eastward the applicant will have to make the home smaller to comply with the fifteen foot setback.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2014-39 of John Zaza and Connie Coppola with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: Spader
Application approved with conditions


Conditions
1. The lot is not to exceed the impervious coverage requirement. A revised plan is to be submitted to the Board Engineer for his review and approval. The plan is to show the extent of paved and paver driveway.
2. The building line along the north edge of the property shall be shifted toward the south by two (2) feet.
3. The plan shall be revised to shift the proposed building and decks to the east. Should the CAFRA permit not be granted on the sole ground of moving the property to the east, then the applicant shall have approval for the plan presented at the hearing. The applicant shall provide the Board with the copy of the CAFRA permit before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.




Application #2014-33 – Debbie Seaberg – 124 Randall Avenue – Block 149/lot 39 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new flood compliant single family dwelling on the existing footprint.

Applicant requested to be moved to a future date.



Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
Meeting adjourned at 10:45pm


Published December05, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1998


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