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


September 17, 2015

Minutes

The September 17, 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, vice chair Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis

Absent: Chairman Struncius


Also present: Andrew Leimbach, Board Attorney, Ray Savacool, Board Engineer and Karen Mills, clerk.

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet


Memorialize Resolutions –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-51 of Inger Dooley - 116 Sanborn Avenue with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Renner
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Renner to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-29 of Frank Cocuzza Sr/Frank Cocuzza Jr 6 Inlet Drive with conditions
In favor- Kelly, Reilly, Dixon and Renner
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Renner to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-48 – Jenkinson’s Pavilion – 300 Ocean Avenue with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Reilly, Dixon and Renner
Opposed: None

Application #2015-31 – Mahasagar Properties LLC/Aruna Viradia – 1409 Oceanfront – Block 17.01; Lot 9 – Applicant constructed a 12 foot by 14 foot deck.

Aruna Viradia, applicant, sworn, stated that she used the existing foundation for the deck. She believed that this would be ok and built the deck around the trees to preserve them. The applicant believed that this would help dune erosion. Mr. Reynolds inquired if she had professional testimony to support her statements. (No). Mr. Renner stated that it is up to the homeowner to secure a permit before they start building; the issue is that you built the deck on the property line. Mr. Spader inquired if it would not have been easier to take five (5) feet off of the deck to comply with the side yard setback. Mr. Reynolds said that the deck has not been inspected and it might not even be safe; Ray Savacool informed the board that if approved they would still need to get a permit and it would be inspected. A- 3 Photo - shows foundation under deck.

Audience questions/comments

Maryann Mongello – 1407 Oceanfront - issue is when she built her home that she had to come before the board many many times and had to conform. I think she should have come to get approval before they construct something. The issue is you build it to conform to the code. She thinks they are marvelous people. The deck is right on the property line.

Robert Rinaolo – 1411 Oceanfront – Agrees with everything Maryann says – basically we follow the rules. History of no permit and ask permission later. There is another deck on the property; this makes 5 decks - it is illegal.

Deliberation

Loder – leaning to vote against it. Certainly didn’t build it for erosion reasons and it is a rental property.

Spader – Based on comments from neighbors- it is an ocean front corridor. Not the biggest deck but you should conform.

Kelly – Worried this deck would float away in a storm. The decks caused more damage in Sandy.

Reynolds – Deck is built right on property line; that is reason enough to vote against it. It is an environmental sensitive area. There are plenty of decks on the property.

Dixon – Not sure what it is constructed of or built on; we do not need another deck floating through someone’s home. In the “V” zone area. Not in favor.

Renner – I think the safety issues are the most important and almost as important is that this is right in someone’s living room. We have regulations to give us a little space.

Davis – We certainly have a negative criteria issue – there is a safety concern with construction.

Reilly – One positive thing is the neighbor’s say you have been working to improve the property. You cannot just go and build something; especially if it is right on the property line. Will be voting against this.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to deny application #2915031 of Mahasagar Properties,LLC

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

Application Denied


Application #2015-45 – Nascimento/Maria Ruela – 330 Richmond Avenue – Block 110; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new single family dwelling.

Nascimento Ruela, applicant, sworn and Tina Brey, applicant’s daughter sworn, stated that they purchased the property and want to build a new home in line with the other homes on the block which encroaches the front yard setback. Robert Burdick, applicant’s Professional Planner/Engineer stated that this is a simple application. Home is in the SF5 zone just north of McLean Avenue. He stated that in comparison to the other homes on the block they are setback a little more. The average setback to the steps for the homes located here is 7.5 feet. Front deck is 13 feet from property line. Home is aesthetically pleasing and he believes based on the architectural and proposed variance plan that it complies with the Municipal land use law by providing significant aesthetics and improvements. Believes the approval can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance, master plan or public good.

Mr. Dixon has concerns about the cars backing out on the highway and inquired if the garage can be moved back and an area for a “K” turn be added. (Yes) The plans will be changed and submitted to the engineer for review prior to memorialization.

Applicant agrees to plant three (3) trees in the rear yard. Applicant stated that they wanted to save the trees but the demolition crew cleared the lot.

Richard Tokarski, Professional architect, credentials accepted. Mr. Davis questioned the width of the front porch and inquired if they could make it eight “8” feet wide. It would make it more functional and consistent with the neighbors -Applicant agreed. Building coverage is now 31%.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Loder – Looking at the plan and presentation will be looking favorably on this.

Spader – That was one of the more beautiful homes and I cringed at the thought of it being torn down; then when the package came and I saw the actual drawings it had a lot of similarities which was a redeeming fact. The family has done a couple of homes in town that turned out to be beautiful and will be supportive of this application.

Kelly – I too had sat on the other two homes; all came out wonderfully and I don’t doubt that this home will be similar.

Reynolds – I don’t see any real negative impact with keeping the house in line. You are not over building the lot and I think it will be a nice improvement.

Dixon – I like the architecture drawings of this home; it is not a square box. Nice looking home and wishes the applicant good luck.

Renner – Would like to thank the applicant’s for really cooperating with the suggestions from the board; it is refreshing to see that kind of cooperation. Also looking forward to seeing this home being built.

Davis – Likewise I appreciate the applicant for their willingness to cooperate; believe all the positive criteria has been met. Although the porch is a small detail it creates a very beautiful space which will add to the value of the home.

Reilly – Your cooperation was very very helpful and Mr. Burdick’s testimony was on point. Will also be in favor.


Conditions

1. Home shall be moved back one “1” foot to allow for a paver “K” turn drive. “K” turn area is not to be used for parking.
2. Landscaping plan to be submitted with 3 trees to be 2 ½ inch in diameter.
3. Porch is to be changed to eight “8” feet in width and moved back an additional two (2) feet for a total of three (3) feet.
4. Plans to be submitted to engineer prior to memorialization.
5. Building coverage is not to exceed 31%.

Motion by Mr. Renner, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2015-45 of Nascimento/Maria Ruela – 330 Richmond Avenue – Block 110; Lot 3with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions


Application #2015-36 – The Moose Group Development LLC – 301 Newark Avenue –Applicant propose to elevate existing single family dwelling and would like to add wrap around porch.

Michael Rubino, attorney for applicant, stated that the family purchased the home in 2011. The mother lived there for a while, mother passed on and the FEMA issues are resolved and they want to raise the house and add a deck. Access on Chicago Avenue will be removed from the plans to alleviate that variance. Most of the excess building coverage is open deck with pervious gravel underneath. Photos entered as A-3 – Photos taken by Mike Rubino.
Alan Robinson, licensed architect, has appeared before the board previously, credentials accepted. Home will be elevated and propose to have stairs off of rear deck down to grade. From an architectural standpoint adding the decks will improve the aesthetics. Newark setback will be 16ft to stairs. The tree on the Chicago Avenue side will remain. Mr. Reynolds inquired if the stairs on Newark Avenue could be redirected to the side instead of straight out to alleviate that setback. (Yes) Also commented that the deck on Chicago is not aesthetically pleasing to him and thought it should be removed. Mr. Renner likes the deck on the side of the Chicago side of the home. Deck is to remain on Chicago side. Mr. Dixon would like to see slats covering the foundation instead of lattice. Vice chair Reilly clarified the size of the decks. The outdoor shower will conform.
No audience comments/questions
Deliberations
Spader – Pleased to see that the actual house is being preserved. Deck is not impeding on any neighbors. Thrilled cannot wait.
Kelly – I agree – I think it is wonderful and will enhance the place.
Reynolds – I like the idea of changing the front porch stairs; starting to be in favor.
Dixon – The side deck did concern me at first because we have seen other side decks that intruded on the neighbors but this is a completely different application and there are not neighbors on that side of the home it being a corner lot. It will give it a nice look; and you are very cooperative with our suggestions. In favor
Renner – We are happy seeing this house being preserved- happy to see the tree being preserved. In favor
Davis – I cannot say it any better than that. In favor
Reilly – I agree with what everyone has said; we are preserving an old part of the town and will be in favor of this.


Conditions
1. Shall remove the stairs of the deck on the Chicago Avenue side.
2. The deck shall not be enclosed and shall be constructed with impervious material.
3. Applicant shall take steps to preserve tree on Chicago Avenue side of home.
4. Applicant shall enclose foundation of home with a louvered / 50% stone screening.
5. Shower shall comply with building code.
6. Front stairs on Newark Avenue shall be re-oriented to east/west.
7. Deck and ground underneath will be permeable.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Renner to approve Application #2015-36 of The Moose Group Development LLC – 301 Newark Avenue with conditions

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

Application approved with conditions

Next meeting is October 1, 2015

Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm

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


Published October20, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2194


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