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

July 2, 2015


The July 2, 2015 additional 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis

Absent: Chairman Struncius and Mr. Renner

Also present: Andrew Leimbach, Board Attorney and Karen L. Mills, Clerk

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet


Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to memorialize the action and vote approving resolution #2015-21 – Barbara R. Walsh – 155 Ocean Avenue
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Dixon, and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2015- 44 – Jon/Barbara McManus – 114 Randall Avenue – Block 149; Lot 34 – Applicant is going to be lifting existing single family dwelling and would like to add deck to front of dwelling.
Jon Davis, applicant, sworn, stated that he would like to add a porch on the front of the home so he can enjoy the outdoors. The rear yard area is a right away for cars. It is not a safe area for children. This is very similar to the neighbor’s home; homes in this area all have the same setback. Once the home is raised they will be able to park two cars underneath.
Audience Questions/Comments
George Gallo – 404 Broadway – Discussed lifting his home and his FEMA dilemma – had nothing to do with the McManus application

Loder - Sorry for the applicant’s loss and what he is going through – Based on request and testimony in favor of approving application.
Spader – Randall was one of the hardest hit areas. We now have a changing face of that area. Does not have a problem with the encroaching porch. Parking underneath is nice – You now have a nice place to sit and enjoy the outdoors. Sees this as a win win.
Kelly – Sees this as a positive change. In favor
Reynolds – Raised house straight up. To me this is a no brainer – in favor
Dixon – Agree with what has been said – sorry we are losing a parking spot.
Davis – Concurs with all that has been said. Like to add that the applicant has done a nice job; looking at all the little details. This is an excellent design that has become the norm on Randall.
Reilly – Agrees with everyone else; it is a reasonable request.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2015- 44 – Jon/Barbara McManus – 114 Randall Avenue – Block 149; Lot 34 – with conditions
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None
Application approved with standard conditions
1. The ground floor may not be used or converted into habitable space.

Application #2015-14 – Daniel/Margarita Raimondo – 405 Richard Avenue – Block 161; lot 16 – Applicant installed a 12 foot by 23 foot above ground swimming pool with small deck too close to rear setback.
Daniel/Margarita Raimondo, applicants, sworn. Apologized for erecting the above ground pools without permits. He believed that you did not need permits if you did it yourself. The board heard the testimony but for safety reasons would not grant the variances needed to have it closer to the fence.
Ray Savacool explained that you grant variances for a hardship or special reasons which do not apply in this situation.
The applicant stated that he will change his fence so it is conforming.

Audience questions/comments
George Gallo – 404 Broadway – Stated that he has no problem with the pool.

Loder – Unfortunately – believes you did the work without considering the town.
Spader – We take for granted the applicant is telling the truth; this is the type of mistake we cannot overlook. You bought a pool that is too big for the back yard. If the proper steps were taken we would not be here. Cannot support this application
Kelly – I think the whole problem could have been avoided if someone made a quick phone call to the town.
Reynolds – Good intentions, honest people – but the ordinance does not leave any gray area. A pool is not a hardship – it is a pool.
Dixon – Feels bad for the situation – you didn’t do it purposely – the ordinance is very clear – we have the setbacks for a reason.
Davis – Concurs with his colleagues – if this had before us as a new application it would not have been approved. The hardship criteria has not been met.
Reilly – It is a shame and you have a very helpful explanation but this is a safety issue.
Motion by second by to deny application #2015-14 – Daniel/Margarita Raimondo – 405 Richard Avenue – Block 161; lot 16
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2015-20 – Ronald/Judith Skiff – 59 Harvard – Block 152; Lot 14 – Applicant demolished single family dwelling and wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

(Skiff carried from June 24, 2015 meeting without notice)

Dan Popovich, attorney for applicant went over the plan revisions and reductions. The stairs and entry way has been adjusted to reduce the front yard setback to 23.6 feet. Ron Skiff, applicant, sworn, stated that he has added a window to the east side of the home. Ron Skiff had considered eliminating a garage but once he looked at the plans it was not as aesthetically pleasing to him. Pavers in the driveway are accountable for 6.7% of the permeability of the property. Mr. Spader feels the home looks more like a duplex and questioned when you are starting from scratch why can’t you build a home that complies with the ordinance. Ron Skiff stated that the front and side of the home will be a combination of grass and gravel. Exhibit A-4 entered – 4 photos depicting neighboring homes with two garages. Mr. Dixon questioned why with new construction that the applicant needs a rear and front yard variance. Ron Skiff said that it would be a real hardship to change the plans. Mr. Dixon replied that the professionals should have been aware of the building requirements.
Dan Popovich believes this application serves the purpose of zoning and preserves light and air. It will be an aesthetic approvement to the area. The home will be appropriately landscaped; it is a modest home that fits in nicely with the neighborhood. Exhibit A-5 entered – Photo showing landscaped stairs. Dan Popovich suggested that the steps might be considered landscaping and then there would not be a front yard encroachment.

Loder – Not at first meeting, listened to CD will listen to what the other board members have to say.
Spader – We are building a home that is too big on a 50 foot by 100 foot lot. It specifically mentioned on the tape that council said we are trying to get away from the two garage look. Going to hear something convincing from the other board members.
Kelly – You added one window but it still looks pretty stark. I do not think this is a modest home; it is a decent sized home. Harvard Ave is changing dramatically; especially on the lake side. We are looking for front yard and rear yard variances. The landscaping step is a solution as far as I am concerned. I haven’t seen a pre-fab that I really like but that is me. Have to search my soul to vote against this; what I don’t like will be your problem.
Reynolds – Couple of points – Clean slate and we are asking for more – huge part of last meeting was eliminating one garage door and getting away from this townhouse look – 100% this looks like a duplex. It is too big or the lot for me. There is a lot more you could have done. This is your second home – it is not a hardship because grandma is coming to live with you.
Dixon – Commend the applicant for trying to come up with alternative solutions; have concerns about a blank lot, rules are set and very easy to follow. Have major concerns that not one modular home has come in here and fit in the lot. I do not see the hardship. I feel your professionals did you an injustice and now you are here scrambling.
Davis – I am not sure that there is a lot here I can add. I am willing to give the front yard for stairs when we have an applicant who is willing to work with us to reduce the impact of the front stairs. I thought that is where we were going if he removed the impact of the front stairs at the last meeting; this applicant is surrounded by people who have this very thing; very disappointing to see all these yard like driveways. The applicant has tried to reduce the impact of the double driveway; am very torn.
Loder – Listened to tape and there was a lot of discussion about reducing the front yard stairs. You have been poorly served by your professionals.
Reilly – Struggling with this one; I have heard a lot of points on both sides. Also would like to see one of the garages eliminated, but on the other hand Mr. Skiff has made attempts to reduce the front and rear yard setback. I do not like the two garages, but is that what I should be considering or should I be focusing on how serious the variances are. I drive over there and this is not any worse on than the other homes in the area. Am leaning to be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to deny application 2015-20 of Ronald/Judith Skiff
In favor: Spader, Reynolds and Dixon
Opposed: Loder, Kelly, Davis and Reilly

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2015-20 of Ronald/Judith Skiff with conditions.
In favor: Loder, Kelly, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: Spader, Reynolds and Dixon
Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 9pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA

Published September09, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2168

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