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

February 19, 2015


The February 19, 2015 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. Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis and Mr. Loder

Absent - Ardito, Kelly, Renner, and Ferguson

Also present – Karen Mills, Dennis Galvin and Ray Savacool

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of January 15, 2015

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

Memorialization of Resolutions –

Memorialize Resolution #2014-29 – Gary/Arlene Sciarrino – 74 Inlet Drive –

John Jackson requested that the board reconsider and remove the condition to record the resolution. The Board did not agree and the resolution was memorialized as is.

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

Memorialize Resolution of Interpretation – Patricia/William Mollema – 36 Central Ave

In favor: Spader, Reynolds, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2015-07 – Leno DeAlmeida III – 110 Baltimore Avenue- Block 153; Lot 11 - Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant dwelling.

Leno DeAlmeida the III, sworn stated that he and his brother bought the home ten years ago. He has since bought his brother out and now wants to build a new home for his family. He has moved the air conditioning unit to a conforming location. The home will have cedar impression or cedar shingles; and decorative foundation stone


A-3 – Photos of existing home A-4 Package of storm damage photos

The curb cut on Baltimore will be eliminated. The home is 24 feet wide by 38 feet long, including the deck. The hardship is the fact it is located on a corner lot. Mr. Reilly pointed out that the existing variances will be improved.


Spader – The home is going to be more compliant and safer. Will be in favor

Loder – Done a really nice job with the design; we are getting a new safer home. Exceeding the height but see it as diminimus. In favor

Reilly – See mostly improvement. In favor

Reynolds – Agrees with Mr. Reilly; Unusual for us to have an applicant who is not trying to over build on their lot. In favor

Dixon – Likes the style of the home..approves

Davis – Testimony has shown that the positive criteria has been met. We are getting a new flood compliant home and a family.

Struncius - A number of homes have gotten hit hard; there are quite a few new homes. In favor


1. The applicant is to seek the permission from the governing body for a curb cut along Harvard Avenue provided it eliminates the Baltimore Avenue curb cut.

2. The air-conditioner condenser unit is to be placed in the attic or in a compliant location.

3. The applicant is to provide the Board’s Secretary a copy of their Substantial Damage Letter.

Motion by Vice Chair Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2015-07 of Leno DeAlmeida III with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions

Application #2015-01 – Adam/Natalie Levy – 1324/1325 Ocean Front/Ocean Avenue – Block 17.01/Lots 14 & 29 – Block 17.02 Lots – 11 – Applicant wishes to remove existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

The applicant is seeking the following variances:

A. For front yard setback from Boardwalk ROW of 15.63 feet to steps, whereas 25 feet is required.

B. For side yard setback of 4.99 feet, whereas 5 feet is required.

C. For building coverage of 32.91%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted.

D. For building height of 41 feet, whereas 35 feet is the maximum permitted.

For Pre-Existing Conditions:

E. For lot width of 49.99 feet, whereas 50 feet is required.

F. For accessory structure (garage) – for height of 20.1 feet, whereas 16 feet is permitted.

G. For accessory structure (garage) – for side yard setback of 2.9 feet, whereas 5 feet is required.

John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for the applicant stated that the applicant is demolishing an existing 1-½ story house and is replacing it with a 2-story house due to significant storm damage from Hurricane Sandy.

Robert C. Burdick, P.E., P.P., sworn, stated that the existing house was declared substantially damaged and the applicant has the substantial damage letter from the Borough. The site consists of two (2) lots on the west side of the Boardwalk right-of-way that was combined. The site does have an existing nonconforming garage on Ocean Avenue, west of Boardwalk right-of-way that the applicant is keeping. The existing garage is nonconforming as to height, 20.1 feet whereas 16 feet is the maximum permitted and 2.9 feet side yard setback whereas 5 feet is required. The proposed house will have parking underneath the dwelling and will have two (2) habitable stories. A 20’ x 40’ deck will be constructed on the east side of the house. It will replace a smaller, lower existing deck. The applicant will remove the concrete from that deck. The proposed deck will allow for storm water recharge.

The proposed deck will be open and will not adversely affect the views of any other lots in the area.
The decks and stairs make up 6% of the building coverage. The building coverage is at 32.9%, whereas 30% is the maximum permitted. The lot width is deficient by one one-hundredth of an inch and requires a variance which is de minimus. With respect to the side yard setbacks, one side is 5 feet which is conforming and one side is short by one one-hundredth of an inch and will require a variance. This too is a de minimus condition. The existing structure is actually within 2.7 feet of the northern property line. The applicant will be moving the proposed house but it will still need the variance on the north side. The lot is unique because it has a front yard setback at Ocean Avenue and the Boardwalk right-of-way. The applicant needs a variance for 15.63 feet for a front yard setback to the southeast corner of the steps coming off the deck. The house is in excess of a 25 foot setback, the deck is what the reason for the variance. Since there is an unimproved right-of-way to the Boardwalk, the impact of the front yard setback deviation will be minimal. The existing home is 2,200 square feet in size. The proposed house will be 2,254 square feet in size. The applicant will need a height variance as the house will be 41 feet in height. The maximum height permitted is 35 feet. The height variance is driven because the Ordinance measures height from the top of curb. Ocean Avenue is 6 feet lower than the house at grade. The house needs to be raised to meet FEMA requirements. The applicant will put 8 foot high garages underneath the house. The height of the house will be consistent with the other houses in this neighborhood. The garage will be used for storage and for parking cars. There will not be any habitation below the first floor elevation. Having the additional parking will be a benefit to the area because on-street parking is difficult in this area. The first floor will be 9 feet in height; the second floor will be 8 feet in height. The applicant proposes to keep the existing garage to use for storage. The garage is buffered from the street by a row of trees. The applicant will maintain that row of trees. It also provides some privacy for the house and makes a nice little courtyard area in the back yard. The old house had five (5) bedrooms. The new house will have seven (7) bedrooms.

Ronald Rheaume, AIA, applicant’s architect sworn, stated that the location of the lot provides for wonderful views of the ocean. The front will have a nice entrance on the land side of the house. The façade of the house will be Hardi Plank shingles. The railing system will be of composite material. There will be lattice backed with a composite board around the base of the house and the garage walls will be break-away walls and will be tethered. The house will have an elevator that goes down to the garage level. The mechanicals for the elevator will be located in the attic; the house will have three (3) bedrooms on each level and also a master bedroom suite for a total of seven (7) bedrooms. Each bedroom will have its own bathroom. The house from the ocean side will only look to be 18 feet tall on top of a 6 foot grade and the house is set back from Ocean Avenue which diminishes the impact.
The proposed house will be aesthetically pleasing, will be safer as it will be FEMA compliant, and will be brought up to code.

Natalie Levy, applicant, sworn, stated that her family enjoy the house during the summer months. The applicant has no intention of renting the house. The façade will be Hardi Plank, clapper type shingles and the garage façade and the house will match.

Michael Sullivan lives directly to the south of the applicant. He supports this application and thinks the new house will be attractive and aesthetically pleasing. The house will be an asset to the neighborhood.


Spader – Very familiar with area – Sooner or later is going to change and certainly change for the better. Applicant will consolidate lots which is very very nice for the area. Architectural design is fitting for the shore area. Roof decks were eliminated – a positive. Happy to see that taken out. Positives certainly outweigh the negatives. In favor.

Loder - This will be a major improvement over what is there; it is a beautiful design. A new safe property for the town. Will be in favor of this application

Reilly – It is going to be an improvement. It will be a better safer house for you and your family. Will be in favor of this.

Reynolds – Beautiful home I was a little concerned about the height but after hearing the explanation of the dunes it makes sense. We are going to get a flood compliant safer home. In favor

Dixon – Was concerned about the garage; being the fact that you cannot see it from the street I am OK. Will be in favor

Davis - Positives certainly outweigh the very few negatives. What you have done with your plans it is nice to see community support and consideration. In favor
Struncius – You are planning for your daughters to have daughters; nobody will have to fight for a bathroom. In all seriousness when you look at deep front properties and you consider the dune height and also consider the extra pace underneath this is a good plan. Safety is added into play here is a very important factor. The deck is 6% of the coverage. We would be well below 30% without the deck. The bulk variances are diminimus. In favor


1. The applicant is to comply with the Board Engineer’s letter dated February 11, 2015.
2. The house is to be constructed as shown and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.
3. The concrete beneath the decking is to be removed prior to the construction of the new decking.
4. The lots must be consolidated by Deed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The house and garage siding are to match. The façade is to be Hardi Plank siding.
6. The ground floor is to have break-away walls that are to be tethered.
7. The tree buffer adjacent to Ocean Avenue is to be maintained by the applicant.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2015-01 of Adam/Natalie Levy with conditions.

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

Application approved with conditions

Application #2015=03 – Stephen Beer – 30 -34 Central Avenue – Block 99; Lots – 16, 17 & 18 - Applicant wishes to amend previously approved variance.

John J. Jackson, Esquire, the applicant’s attorney stated that the applicant would like to amend the previous resolution due to personal circumstances. The applicant now proposes to eliminate a couple of units, and instead of raising Building A, the applicant now proposes to demolish Building A and reconstruct it and add a deck. The applicant also proposes to raise the paving stone area around the pool on one side up about a 1 ½ feet to make it level with the rest of the paving stone area.

Stephen Beer, applicant, sworn stated that his house, Building A, was found to have a poor foundation so it was decided that it was necessary to demolish the structure. Building A will be reconstructed; it will have a deck on the first floor and one on the second level which will be sixteen (16) feet in height.

David Hartdorn, AIA, the applicant’s architect, sworn, stated that Buildings B and C have already been raised. The garage carriage door needed to be shifted a little to align better during construction.

Building B - 2 windows and a passage door and a powder room on the first floor. Building C - The applicant added 2 windows and a passage door below. Building D: This building is one of the front older houses. Originally the applicant was looking to make this into a triplex. Now the applicant is seeking to reduce that to a duplex and the stair that came across the covered deck will be eliminated. The internal units will be rearranged. The set of stairs proposed to come off the front deck will not be constructed as it was found to conflict with parking. Currently Building D has a rooming house license and the applicant is abandoning and surrendering that use. Building E: This building was approved to become a duplex. The applicant will change the licensing for a duplex back to a single family house and everything else will stay the same. On both Buildings D and E, the applicant is requesting that the approved decks on the back of these buildings be an option for the applicant. He is unsure if he will keep the roof line or will add decks at a later time. The architect stated the following will be adhered to.

A. The plans will be revised for clarity to show all the revisions to this proposal.

B. There will not be any changes to the parking arrangement.

C. The applicant verified that there will only be one kitchen in Building E.

D. The number of bedrooms will be as follows:
Building A – 2 bedrooms (no change).
Building B – 2 bedrooms (no change).
Building C – 2 bedrooms (no change).
Building D – Going from 3 units to 2 units; however,
The number of bedrooms will increase from 4 bedrooms to five bedrooms with 1 less kitchen.
Building E – Going from a duplex to a single family home but the number of bedrooms will still be 5.


Spader – Wow, 5 buildings..happy to say a lot of benefits to this. Elimination of the duplex. The new house (A) is good. This is an improvement and will be supportive

Loder – Glad that you are reducing some of units. See this as a benefit. Looking to be in favor of this application

Reilly - I think Mr. Jackson said it very well “coming to us with this proposal for less” and will be in favor of it.

Reynolds – Had concerns when I first saw it…My main concerns are we going higher (we are not). As presented I am in favor.

Dixon – I also am in favor

Davis – So for your hardships - from what I see we are fine tuning the property and will be in favor.

Struncius – We are lessening the density so as I said things are going in the direction of less intensity and will be in favor.

Motion by MR. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2015-03 of Stephen Beer, 3- -34 Central Avenue with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions


1. Unit A (Green Building) is only to be used as an owner occupied unit. This Deed Restriction is to be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Board Attorney is to review and approve this Deed Restriction prior to recording.

2. The wood shed is to be removed from the property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

3. On all of the buildings being elevated, the siding is to be brought down to within three feet above the ground level.

4. The plan is to be materially similar to the plans shown to the Board at the time of the hearing as determined by the Board’s Engineer.

5. In exchange for these approvals, the existing rooming/boarding house licenses were abandoned. The units are to be used as described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

6. The plan for Building E is to be revised to eliminate the country kitchen.

7. The Board hereby grants the applicant the right to construct a roof deck on Buildings D and E, at its discretion, provided the decks are code compliant.

8. The applicant’s Architect is to submit revised plans to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer confirming all required changes to the plan.

Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board

Published March27, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2062

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