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


January 15, 2015

Minutes

The January 15, 2015Reorganization and Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Loder, Mr. Kelly, Vice-chair Reilly, Mr. Spader, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Renner, Mr. Davis and Mr. Ferguson

Absent – Mr. Ardito


Reorganization –

Chairman

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to nominate Paul Struncius for Chairman

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

Secretary

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to nominate Mr. Reilly as Vice-chair

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

Board Secretary

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Jay Reynolds as Board Secretary

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


Board Clerk

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to nominate Karen Mills as Board Clerk

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

Board Attorney

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Renner to nominate Dennis Galvin Esq. of the Galvin Law Firm

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

Board Engineer

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to nominate Ray Savacool of T & M engineering for Board Engineer

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

Conflict Attorney

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to nominate Ben Montenegro of Montenegro, Montenegro and Thompson as Conflict Attorney

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Struncius, Reynolds, Dixon and Renner
Opposed: None
Conflict Engineer

Motion by Mr. Renner, second by Mr. Reilly to nominate WJH Engineering, Remington and Vernick Engineering and Suburban Consulting Engineering, Inc. as conflict firms.

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


That concludes the reorganization

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the minutes of December 4, 2014.

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

Memorialization

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2014-41 of Mitch/Janine Winter at 208 Forman Avenue with conditions

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


Oath of office was administered to Mr. Renner, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Davis




Application #2014-38 – Rosemary Porzio – 107 Arnold Avenue – Block 98; Lot 4 – Applicant is raising single family dwelling and wishes to add small addition in the front and in the rear; applicant would also like to add a new deck. Existing 10 foot by 18 foot cabana will be converted to a storage shed.

Rosemary Porzio, applicant sworn stated that she needs the requested variances to construct and enlarge the non-habitable space under the sun room. Robert Ferrara, applicant’s brother and builder sworn, stated that they are extending that area so it can be utilized as a two car garage.

The Board has concern with the impervious coverage and the applicant has agreed to removal of some concrete.

After much discussion the applicant decided to revise the plan and move the access to the garage and make some changes. The revised plans must be submitted to the boards engineer for review prior to memorialization.

Conditions

1. Removal of concrete from existing driveway and replace it with pavers.
2. The applicant shall bring the siding down within three feet of the ground or otherwise comply with the ordinance with stone veneer.
3. The applicant may not convert the ground floor into habitable living space.
4. The attic may not be converted into habitable living space.
5. Eliminate proposed driveway and provide side entry door.


MR. LODER: Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was down there looking at the property today and realized some of the challenges based on what you guys are trying to accomplish with your new plans. It is a very challenged part of the town, very damaged area. A lot of water up there from the storm. So, I see the value of the some of the improvements to make, to make it a safer and abettor location for you. I'm okay with the challenges with the height. I don't have a big issue with that. I appreciate you kind of working with us a little bit with us with the impervious coverage to get that down to a more reasonable amount. And, you know, at this point in time I
really don't have any negative issues with this application.

MR. STRUNCIUS: Can I just, before you go, Mr. Loder, I want to say, we don't have any real final numbers that we're going with here; do we?

MR. SAVACOOL: No. So, the concrete driveway, if that's, in its existing configuration, if it changed to pavers that reduces the impervious coverage, like, 7.25 percent. The driveway in the front with 3.5 and change, so that’s a little bit over 10 percent of reduction, now there’ll be a little added on to connect to the side of the house.

MR. STRUNCIUS: Right. So, we’re in the tenish reduction area?

MR. SAVACOOL: Somewhere in the 10percent range, yes.

MR. LODER: We're going with 19.3 of overage to about 10 percent of overage; right?

MR. SAVACOOL: Yeah

MR. STRUNCIUS: So, typically we’re pretty strict on knowing those numbers, but, again, as you revise, there's a little bit of play here that we're letting you go later with revised plans, but I'm sensing some comfort in things. We'll hear how the board deliberates. But, again, don't be way off with what you just heard, because Mr. Savacool has got those noted and when he reviews the plan he’s going to have an expectation of being in that range, all right, of what we removed and the tradeoffs. And before you leave, real quickly, if you need to hear those again, you can.

MR. SPADER: Ray, on the previous, original plan that was submitted showing the driveway in the front, he was actually talking about concrete. So, if that's not going to be concrete, that should also reduce the impervious coverage somewhat.

MR. STRUNCIUS: He took off, like, 3.8.

MR. SAVACOOL: I had assumed it was, I had assumed it was concrete or paved when I originally did the calculation.

MR. SPADER: Then the applicant was talking about possibly making that before, I guess, the understanding of the side entrance, was to use pavers and stuff. So, that's completely out the door?

MR. STRUNCIUS: Correct.

MR. SPADER: So, it will be grass or stone.

MR. FERRARA: Leaving the landscape the way it was. Again, putting it back the way it was.

MR. SPADER: Okay. Certainly a tough deal with the flood and so forth and, you know, existing house and the pool and cabanas and a variety of other things, trying to make the best you can out of it. I think that the changing the entrance to the garage certainly eliminates a big issue, in my mind, and I'm sure with some of the others. And, you know, under the circumstances, as far as the height and so forth, I would support it, again, with the revised plan and the approval of the engineer.

MR. KELLY: I was concerned in the beginning about the additional concrete, concrete here, concrete there in the back, even where nobody goes. There's concrete back there.


MR. KELLY: And this, this suggestion we've made here tonight, I hope you adopt it with putting the garage on the side. It will save the front yard. It will save the -- you won’t get any problem with people walking up the sidewalk. Your house will be, I know it's going to be a beautiful looking at home, because I've saw, I looked at the picture up before you came down here tonight and I noticed that garden in the front and you have a very, very busy area right in that area. You also have a very, very low area. It's probably the lowest area in Point Pleasant Beach. And if Silver Lake doesn't get resolved across the street, you may get even higher, because each time, I was over there today and the masons were working, they’re going to fill that area in where you actually had water going into your basement and soaking in and going into the rooms, but those days are gone forever. All that water that was in your basement over the years is going to be out in your yard, because all of those areas are flattened out now and filled with concrete. So, everything will be built up to grade. And so I'm concerned about the impervious coverage on a lot of these homes, because you're going to have more water than they had before, because it's not going into the crawlspaces. This change that I see today, I think I approve that with the, with our restrictions and soon. I'll be happy with voting yes for it.

MR. REILLY: Just sitting and looking coldly at the numbers, I would say, oh, no, never would I approve. But, this is the real world right now and when I simplify the whole thing for myself, I say, you're not really changing very much from what you had previously and you’re raising it, that condition. I think you've worked with us on the driveway issue and that was another big issue. So, I'm going to be in favor of this.

MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate what we’ve done here this evening and I'm happy seeing neighbors work with neighbors to make something safer and it will work out for everybody here. I really appreciate you working with us on this driveway. The front garage was not going to fly with me at all. It didn't feel good. I feel for you. I feel for the storm. You know, everybody up here has got a story. I want you to get back into your home as soon as possible and I think we did a good job here.

MR. DIXON: I don't think I need to add anything more. Most of the board members covered everything. I like the fact that you worked with us and good luck with it.


MR. DAVIS: Yes, I concur. I think the hardship variance criteria has been met satisfactorily. I will say I'm very sorry for the loss of your home and I think you're going to end up, and I appreciate you working with us, and I think you're going to end up with a beautiful Retirement home and welcome to Point Pleasant Beach as a full-time resident.

MR. FERGUSON: I don't think there’s anything else I can say. Again, you've done a good job. You've worked with the board as far as that goes. I'm sure it's going to be great when you’re done.

MR. STRUNCIUS: I'm going to echo something Mr. Reilly had said, I think when you look
at numbers strictly and if one we saw that we’re allowing a building coverage of 41 percent, that would be upsetting to some, but, then again, here we have 18 percent of coverage is in decking that water does pass through. So, that's a very high percentage. It exists. So, there was some pretty strong existing, preexisting conditions here that are allowing me to view it that way and I think some of the elimination of the impervious has been stated. And then the other thing is, again, I don’t think anything with the height was done out of context here. You're in one of the lowest spots in the town and then you gave yourself that extra foot and a half or so, which will help reduce rates and things with coverages and that's been a small practice as we see. If we can get a little above it, especially a block away from the ocean. So, all the other safety things that were mentioned and that’s it.

Motion by Vice-chair Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2014-38 with conditions

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



Application #2014-29 – Gary/Arlene Sciarrino – 74 Inlet Drove – Block 176/Lot 8.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, meeting has been carried with notice. Mr. Jackson stated there will be a driveway back plate installed and the curb removed so the easement can be accessed on the applicant’s property. There will now be a two car garage with two parking spaces in front. The applicant has agreed to restrict the room in the rear to storage and the space outside the room will be limited to the parking of a motorcycle.
Mr. Gasiorowski, attorney representing the neighbor – Marie Lauletta, stated that his concern is that people will be parking in the easement during the construction of the home, John Jackson stated that the contractors will just pull in to drop off supplies and then park somewhere else. With regards to the conditions he wants to ensure that his client has enforceable rights.

Verity Frizzell, architect, previously sworn presented exhibits A-5, A-6 stated that A-6 is the revised plan depicting the garage and entry right in front. It is two stories above the garage; the garage being in a flood zone, so it's not habitable space. A great room and a kitchen, living room, dining room and a bedroom on the first floor. Powder room, washer, dryer. On the second floor, three bedrooms, yes, three bedrooms and another bath. A single bathroom. There’s also a deck on the front of the house, which is partially above the garage and the rest of it is open in the yard. The foundation will have a cultured stone finish.

Jason Marciano, professional engineer and professional planner. I'm with the firm of East Coast Engineering in Toms River, New Jersey. Recently appeared before Berkeley, Toms River, Harvey Cedars, Barnegat Light, Long Beach Township boards.

Mr. Marciano stated that we're in a Marine Commercial zone and we have a residential structure. The residential structure that was existing was damaged by the storm. We're proposing a single-family residence. We're in block 176. Block 176 is surrounded by Inlet Drive with a one way road all the way around. I've looked at the block. This center block was created by subdivision in 1938 where a majority of the lots were 35 foot frontage and, again, that's in 1938. In 1938 this lot had the same frontage, 35 feet, again, as most lots did in that block. Between 1938 and 1952, based on my research, I didn't do a full title search, but I found a deed from '52 that then had the lot in the configuration the way it is today. So that lot, this lot's been of this geometry, this square footage, 2,168, since 1952. I don't know when the house was built, but that's when the lot and geometry got to where it is. And, again, you can look at aerial photos and very easily see that this is a residential block, despite its current zoning. I looked at, and from two perspectives, just looking physically at what structures were there and I looked at a current Google aerial is September of 2013. So, there’s been some changes since that aerial. If outlook at that aerial you've got 43 tax lots in that block. Of that 43 tax lots, 34 of those lots are being used as residential lots with a total of 39residential buildings on those 34 lots. I'm not counting, you know, the end lots have five condos. I’m counting that as one residential structure. So, the vast percentage of this block is residential and the vast percentage of this lot, this block is 35 foot lots. Some of them like ours are pie-shaped or irregularly shaped. There's very, very few lots in this block that have the same geometry in area. It's the full gamut of sizes, obviously with the Coast Guard station being the biggest lot. So, we have a lot of different sizes, but what I see in these, in this lot geometry, is that the zone requires 10,000 square feet and one is commercial, but commercial is not going to fit real well on a 2,100 square feet. It is particularly suited for the residential structure.
Again, the size of it, for one, is better suited for residential. The easement, impact, better suitedfor residential, you know, because the easement serves a residence behind us and next to us.
Deliberations

Mr. Izzo: Rear neighbor, question is, being that they're going up so high, that the power line coming from the pole to my home goes over their home. Who is going to pay to move it? (Applicant)

Deliberations

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the architect and the planner did
a really nice job on this property, knowing the uniqueness of its location and the actual shape and size of the lot. Certainly an improvement over the prior property, getting us a nicer housing stock here in town, as well as a safer, safer residence in town. So, I'll be inclined to vote in favor of this application.

MR. SPADER: I think I had most of what I had to say earlier regarding the second proposal. Listening to the conditions and so forth, I didn't see anything in there that the driveway in the front was mandatory parking or anything like that. So, park at your own risk. There's nothing
that says we're authorizing them to park there and so I'll be supportive of the application.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I'll congratulate the architect on tweaking the first design. I still maintain that the driveway could have been pushed back and probably would have relocated at least four, at least one story, the stairway, but considering where it's been and the condition it'sin right now, I would suggest that I'd be in favor of it.

MR. REILLY: I think the architect has done her job very, very well here and I like the design and look of the house, what you have to work with. Like Mr. Spader, I do have a concern. I don’t understand why we can't move this back. You would have three feet to the property line, plus the seven feet to the other house. That's ten feet. Ten feet to park in that area of two buildings is an amazingly big area, amazingly big. So, I tend to prefer that. I also, you know, I keep hearing. Wolfersberger in the back of my head saying to me, wait a minute, wait a minute, they had 37.5percent coverage of the building and you want to give them 49.7 percent? And I'd say, well, you know, what's required is 40 percent. He'd say no, that’s marine commercial. Well, what you've got to consider this, although it's a single family area.
Nevertheless, I would overlook that in this case.

MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. All right. Like everybody else said, I'm glad you came back with a nice plan. Took a lot of our thoughts into consideration. I know that I presented myself at different case about the short driveway, but in this case I wouldn't feel comfortable moving the houseback towards somebody else's property the way it's landlocked there to begin with. I think we would be encroaching on light and air. I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it without re-noticing the street that would be a big difference. As presented now with the conditions we have, I’m looking in favor of it.

MR. DIXON: Like I stated, I don’t really see why we're even discussing the extra parking, but being that it was brought up I guess we had to. I like the house. It's a nice looking house. The only concern I have is, as these houses get built, especially the one like this with a large upper deck like that was, there would be more outside living and I just hope that the people, I know it's marine commercial, and hopefully maybe will be changed to residential, but I just hope the people that are building these houses now realize that there's going to be noise from the boats, from the restaurants, and now that they're able to spend more time outside that they don't start calling the police complaining about noise. They'll have to get used to it for the last 50 years or so. Other than that, it's a very nice looking home and I would approve.

MR. DAVIS: Likewise, I think the applicant has presented a modern, attractive, flood compliant home. They've certainly have met the positive and negative criteria in this case and I think the issue with respect to the driveway is not a safety issue like we had seen in the previous application and I think it resolves itself properly. My concern with this house is the same concern I’ve had with so many of them is that we're going from an area, and it's allowed, but the impact is always very stark to me on the first one that we see. This house is significant impact on the light and air of the surrounding properties. Nobody's come forward to say that. So, I'm just going to say it, for my own belief. I guess, eventually Inlet Drive is going to look like this all the way up and down. It’s a substantial change to the community, but it is a very attractive change and we're all going to get used to it, I guess.


MR. FERGUSON: I agree with the panel’s comments I heard prior. I commend the applicant and the neighbor working together and coming to some common ground and getting along like good neighbors. We certainly see other people come before us where it's been nowhere near as civil and mature about it. And, again, I think Mr. Davis did say that the first one is a little stark. I think it is going to look like this when it's done, but it’s a good looking home and I'm sure it's going to be many more to follow and I would be in favor of the project.

MR. STRUNCIUS: So, a lot of kudos went to the architect. I want to give some to the engineer, because in order to put this here in the first place we have to get past the use variance that we have in front of us and I do think that points to unique lot in this zone, not really conducive or usable for commercial in terms of its size, its shape, its ability to sustain any type of commercial business and the fact that it is surrounded by all other residential buildings does make sense from there then. We do have a nice looking home. I was a little bit concerned about the height, not from a flood safety point of view, from an overall height, which had brought up. I think your point to maintain it, the grade, as it related to the easement helped me with that, because I, you know, I understand where you could have gone a little bit lower there potentially, but it wouldn't have made sense having the house lower than that. So, to keep it all level then you look towards the benefit of the parking, to be able to get two cars to be on the property in a garage that way is beneficial. I will be in favor of this application

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2014-29 of William/Arlene Sciarrino with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions


Conditions

1. The plan is to be revised to show the pavement curb and inlet adjacent to the access easement shall be modified so that a driveway is established at the easement’s intersection with Inlet Drive.

2. The driveway macadam in the easement area is to be repaired if damaged during construction as determined by the Board’s Engineer.

3. The applicant agreed to limit the use of the easement area by construction vehicles during construction to offloading materials, but there is to be no parking of construction vehicles on the easement.

4. The room on the plan delineated as storage is not to be used to house automobiles except for one (1) motorcycle. The applicant also agreed not to park cars just outside the storage area.

5. The house and its materials are to be constructed as described by the Architect at the meeting on the evening of January 15, 2015, except that the Architect agreed to add a band between the second and third floors.

6. The applicant agreed with the comments of Mr. Gasiorowski contained in this Resolution regarding the agreement of the parties. The applicant is bound to those representations and the applicant is to record this Resolution prior to the issuance of a building permit. The copy of the recorded Resolution is to be provided to the Board Attorney and the Secretary.

7. This approval is subject to the applicant seeking permission of its curb cut from the Governing Body.

8. The applicant is to be responsible for relocating the electric wire that crosses their lot.




Application #2014-30 – Dr. William/Deborah Focazio – 45 Inlet Drive – Block 175/Lot 23 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling with parking underneath.

Carried to May 21, 2015 WITH NOTICE


Application #2014-31 – Dr. William/Deborah Focazio – 41, 41A and 43 Inlet Drive – Block 175/lot 24, 25.01 and 25.02 – Applicant wishes to demolish three (3) single family dwellings. Three lots would merge and a new FEMA compliant two-family dwelling would be constructed on one lot with parking underneath.


Carried to May 21, 2015 WITH NOTICE



Mollema – There was discussion on the Mollema application and the interpretation. Dennis Galvin will re-write for approval at the next meeting.

Motion to adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 10:40
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board


Published February23, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2029


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