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 16, 2015


The July 16, 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis

Absent: Chairman Struncius and Mr. Dixon

Also present: Dennis Galvin, Board Attorney and Karen L. Mills, Clerk

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the minutes of June 4, 2015
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Renner and Davis
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the minutes of June 16, 2015
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Davis
Opposed: None


Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-25 of Jeffrey/Stephanie Ciarcia with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Renner
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-26 of Robert/Lisa Mairowitz with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Renner
Opposed: None

Application #2015- 35 – David Schlosser – 304 Washington Avenue – Block 20; Lot 18 – Applicant redesigned front stairs and they now encroach in the front yard.

David Schlosser, applicant, sworn. Exhibit 3 – Photos entered. Home is 35 feet back, there is a landing that was supposed to be the bottom step, but when they built it, it was too steep. The applicant tried to go to the left with the stairs but it was in the way of the garage. Mr. Spader inquired why this happened, what professional determined the landing was the ground. (The architect)

No audience questions/Comments


Spader – We have had two properties there basically there with the same problem. We would hope that the professional would get a buzz in his ear knowing the problem he caused. In favor
Kelly – Have no problem here.

Reynolds – I agree that it is a diminimus and necessary change but I don’t know how we keep getting here and where these inspections are. Personally I enjoy this board but every week it is the same old thing. We need to find out what is going on with the inspections.

Renner – I feel I have to say it – we have talked to several home owners about front steps into the setback. We ask did you think about putting the steps parallel. I know you want two garage doors; but not everyone can have them. It was very clear where the setbacks were; an architect should understand where the stairs go. We are faced with this week in and week out. To me it is a dis-service to people who get the variance before building. There is something wrong with the system. Some people come and do the right thing. There should be a penalty to the professionals who do not do the right thing then someone might be more attentive. Really unhappy with this.

Loder – I think this applicant just made an honest mistake and was poorly represented by his professional. I think the changes here are diminimus.

Davis – Don’t think there is much more to add. I also think it is an honest mistake.

Reilly – I agree with most that has been said but I would point out that this might have occurred because of the change in the elevation and that is the responsibility of the architect. Shouldn’t the architect be required to be here to explain why this happened? Just a thought.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2015- 35 – David Schlosser – 304 Washington Avenue – Block 20; Lot 18

In favor –Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Loder, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: Renner

Application approved

Application #2015-27 – Michael/Coleen Flatley – 57 Sanborn Avenue – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.

Michael Flately, applicant sworn. Frank Jiblonski, attorney, filling in for his partner who was run over by his tractor and broke his pelvis. Mr. Flately has owned the property since 1999. Planning to build a new modular home. Michael Flately explained that more space is used between floors in Modular homes than stick built homes. Thought the home would look more uniformed being more forward to match the other homes on the block; could move the home back on the lot to conform. The applicant believes that the home looks better with the addition of the decks. The home will have decorative stone in the front of the homes foundation and decorative stucco on the sides. The deck would have to be reduced by 275.5 square feet to conform to building coverage. Vice-Chair Reilly let the applicant know that the board was having a real problem with the building coverage being a new home. Mr. Kelly said once again we have a modular home that is being prepared somewhere else and you are asking for a variances and there is no modular home people here to answer questions. Ray Savacool explained that under the new ordinance the home will be 8 inches over in height.

The applicant’s attorney requested that the application be carried without notice so that the applicant could consider the board’s suggestions.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds second by Mr. Renner to carry application #2015-27 of Michael/Coleen Flatley – 57 Sanborn Avenue to August 20, 2015 without notice

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

The attorney waived the time for the board to act.

Application carried without notice

Application #2015-34 - James C. Wittig, M.D. – 113 New Jersey Avenue – Block 48; Lot 7.01 -Applicant constructed a partial cabana in an existing garage and installed a six (6) foot fence in the side yard.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that they have discussed the application with the neighbor and have agreed to lower the speakers below the fence. The neighbors have exchanged cell phone numbers if there is an issue in the future. Dr. James Wittig is chief of orthopedic oncology at Hackensack Hospital. The applicant has not changed the dimensions of the house; but has added facilities to the garage and now it is deemed a cabana. James C. Wittig, sworn, stated he bought the home from the builder. Mr. Renner inquired if the 6 foot fence was preexisting. (No) James Wittig has a dog so the fence keeps the dog and children safe. A-4 – photo of garage. A-4 – photo of gates

Audience questions/comments

Spader - Does not have a problem with the cabana; pull the garage door down and that is it? We have done dozen of fences; board has been consistent in making the fences conform.
Kelly – No problem with the cabana at all. We have a fence ordinance for a reason. That fence should not have been built in the first place.
Reynolds – I have a problem even calling it a cabana. As far as the fence goes – every case has its own merits. In this case the homes are 10 feet away – it is more like an alley way and give him a buffer from the rental next door.
Renner – I think the cabana is a great idea; I do have a problem with how the fence got built. Mr. Reynolds makes a good point.
Loder – At the property today – I think the cabana looks nice and adds to the property. From the testimony about the fence with the factors looking to approve the application.
Davis – I am in agreement with everyone that cabana’s are very nice. We also have the whole positive/negative criteria – I am not sure I see positive criteria except that I like it. As far as the fence goes maybe we are on the verge of going for this one. There has been an argument that the scale of homes are changing quite rapidly and maybe a four foot fence is not the right height for a home that sits 40 feet in the air.
Reilly – I was shocked when I went to the property at how nice the cabana was. Do not see a problem. I can understand the concern about the fence; we are not setting precedent. I think I am going to be willing to go along with it.


1. The applicant will lower the sound speakers that will be attached to the cabana to below the fence line.

2. The cabana/garage is not to have a bathroom or shower and is not to be used for habitation.

Mr. Reynolds; Mr. Renner; Mr. Davis; Mr. Reilly


Mr. Loder; Mr. Reilly

OPPOSED TO APPROVING THE FENCE: Mr. Spader; Mr. Kelly; Mr. Davis

Meeting adjourned at 9:25pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA

Published September09, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2169

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