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


November 5, 2015

MINUTES

The November 5, 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 Board members: Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reynolds, vice chair Reilly, Mr. Renner, Mr. Loder and Mr. Davis
Absent – Struncius and Dixon
Also present, - Andrew Leimbach, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills

Memorialize Resolutions –
Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorializes the action and vote approving application #2015-47 of Kathleen/Gregory Galinskie – 200 Forman Avenue with conditions
In favor – Loder, Spader, Kelly and Reynolds
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Renner to approve the 2016 meeting dates –
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Loder to allow the Clerk to advertise for Professional RFP’s for 2016
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None

Application #2015-58 – Anthony/Roberta Vellucci – 215 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 31; Lot 7 – Applicant wishes to construct a deck with stairs in the front of a single family residence.
Anthony Velucci, applicant, sworn, stated that he is proposing to square off the front of the home with a 9 foot by 10 foot deck and replace the existing steps with steps that will be re-oriented off the deck to the east and west, increasing the front yard setback by 3 feet from what currently exists.

Audience questions/statements

John Jackson – Commented that Anthony Vellucci was a previous neighbor, their home is immaculately maintained and they do a very nice job with it and hopes the board will take that into consideration.

Deliberations

Spader - Beautiful addition – will be very nice and is in favor.
Kelly – Believes the new stairway will look a lot better
Reynolds – WE are gaining two feet in setback and it will look better.
Renner – Echoes Mr. Reynolds.
Loder – sees changes as diminimus and believes that it will look a lot nicer.
Davis – Agrees – Certainly meets the positive criteria – it is an enhancement to the property
Reilly – Sees this as nothing but plusses

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Loder to approve application #2015-58 of Anthony/Roberta Vellucci – 215 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 31; Lot 7 with conditions

In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Conditions
1. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the Board’s Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.

2. The Board shall maintain landscape jurisdiction for a period of two years from the issuance of a building permit.


Application #2015-59 – Jeanene B. Miller c/o Ward Home Services – 117 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 30; Lot 9 – Applicant lifted existing single family dwelling and would like to add a deck/porch to front of house.

Jeanene B. Miller, applicant, sworn stated that the revised steps extend down to a midway landing and then turn towards the existing driveway on the east. This increases the front yard setback compared to the old design as the new stares and porch extend 11.5 feet from the face of the home whereas the old steps extended 16 feet out. Providing a landing midway creates a safer condition. The proposed porch and step design is consistent with the setbacks and design of the neighboring properties porches and steps. The garage underneath the home is necessary for the applicant to access the home due to her disability. However, drivable access to the existing garage in the rear is still necessary for storage purposes and therefore will need to maintain access to both garages utilizing one curb cut. Access to the garage underneath the house will be accessed from the existing driveway and curb cut by constructing a paved extension from the existing driveway that cuts across the front of the home into the new garage. Cars will not be parked in that driveway extension. The applicant will install the chosen siding within three feet of the adjoining exterior grade, around the perimeter of the home, so as to comply with Point Pleasant Beach’s Ordinances.

Craig Alsdorf, builder, sworn stated that the old plans had a door on the side of the home that would have made the existing driveway useless and prevented access to the rear garage. The old steps and porch configuration were impractical and unsafe. The revised plans provide for a 5 foot by 12 foot covered porch that extends across the front of the home and is completely within the front yard setback. The revised steps extend down to a midway landing and then turn towards the existing driveway on the east. This increases the front yard setback compared to the old design as the new stares and porch extend 11.5 feet from the face of the home whereas the old steps extended 16 feet out. Providing a landing midway creates a safer condition.

Deliberations


Spader – Very familiar with property – seeing what is going on with the neighbors think this is a wonderful addition and will be in favor.

Kelly - Much rather see the stairs that you are proposing. The problem with driving on the front lawn has been solved – in favor

Reynolds – I would still have rather seen you move the curb cut – the parking issue has been resolved but I am still not a real happy camper.

Renner – Looking forward to seeing a nice home in that spot and hopes you get back in your home soon – in favor

Loder – No comment

Davis – Would like to commend the builder on taking an unfortunate design and making it attractive. Would not be in favor of splitting the driveway but considering that you have a condition that makes it necessary. Overall positives outweigh negatives.

Reilly – Bottom line is that we have an attractive house that will fit well in the neighborhood.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Renner to approve application #2015-59 – Jeanene B. Miller c/o Ward Home Services – 117 Philadelphia Avenue – Block 30; Lot 9 with conditions

In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions



Conditions
1. The applicant may not park any motor vehicles, trailers, or other such similar objects in the driveway directly in front of the home; parking outside of any garage on the property is strictly limited to the driveway to the east.

2. The applicant shall record Condition No. 5 against the property in the form of a Deed Restriction, which is subject to review by the Board’s Attorney and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits.

3. The applicant shall install the chosen siding within three feet of the adjoining exterior grade, around the perimeter of the home, so as to comply with Point Pleasant Beach’s Ordinances.


Application #2015-60 – William/Gayle Abendschoen – 502 Riverwood Park – Block 91B; Lot 1A – Applicant wishes to add half story to the existing single family dwelling.
William Abendschoen, applicant, sworn, stated that the lot contains a pre-existing residential home that is located in a commercial district. He is proposing to renovate the house by raising the roof line to create a uniform single ridge with dormers, add a half story with two bedrooms and one bath, eliminating a bedroom from the ground level, and rearranging the floor plan to create more open space.

Joseph Kociuba, P.E., P.P., applicant’s Professional Planner stated that the application requires bulk variances for pre-existing conditions, including lot area of 8,760 square feet where 10,000 square feet is required, lot frontage of 67.11 feet where 100 feet is required, side yard setback of 2.55 feet where 10 feet is required, and a rear yard setback of 4.5 feet where 25 feet is required. The property is zoned for commercial purposes but is more suitable for the SF-5 Zone because it has a significant front yard setback of 70.6 feet from Arnold Avenue. The footprint of the home is being maintained so the conforming building and impervious coverage will not change.The applicant’s home is a particularly suitable use for this area because it will fill a need in the community and the existing residential home is occupied On the other hand, the applicant’s home is not suitable for commercial purposes as it is significantly set back from the street, is undersized, screened from other commercial uses, and faces other residential properties in the area. The bulk variances can be granted as a hardship because the home is located on a corner lot that is irregularly shaped and undersized. The application provides a benefit to the community because renovation of an existing home promotes recycling and reuse of materials, provides a desirable visual environment and the side yard setback from the elks club helps to maximize the front yard setback against the road. The application provides for minimal reduction in light, air and open space, does not change the homes footprint, and does not substantially increase the height as the proposed height is 6 feet below what the ordinance allows.

Overall, the application does not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone, has special reasons to justify the use variance, does not impede the master plan, and provides a benefit to the community.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Spader – This certainly is an example of something that is better suited for expansion of something that is already there. While I was looking t the property I think 4 people asked me if they could get the road paved. It is a beaut9iful addition to that area – little hidden treasure in that part of town - in favor

Kelly – I always thought it was residential – surprised to find out it was commercial – I guess you could fit a lemonade stand there – no problem with this application – in favor

Reynolds – Has no problem – footprint not expanding – you said something I had never heard before about recycling of materials – so simple but makes sense.

Renner – I like Mr. Spader’s statement of being a hidden treasure – in favor

Loder – The use variance is caused by the uniqueness of the property – in favor
Davis – Concur with all that has been said – The use of the shed dormers will provide light without making it an imposing structure.

Reilly – Walked around a bit and said “it is a residential area” and these improvements are significant improvements and will only help the area– will be in favor

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to approve application 2015-60 – William/Gayle Abendschoen – 502 Riverwood Park – Block 91B; Lot 1A with conditions
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions


Condition
1. The attic space may not be used for habitable living space.

Application #2015-55 – Visionary Developers/Luxury Financials, LLC – 6 Water Street – Block 120; Lot 17:04 – Applicant lifted existing single family dwelling and would like to add deck and stairs to both front and back of house
Paul Amelchenko, Professional architect, sworn, stated that the home has three bed rooms and approximately 800 square feet. The home is located in the AO zone, which requires a two foot elevation from grade. However, the neighboring home is in the V zone and any storm surges will likely affect the applicant’s home to the same magnitude. As such, the home is being raised further up to provide added protection. The height of the raised home is 24 feet 11 inches, which is within the ordinance requirements. Additionally, due to congestion and limited parking spaces on the street, raising the home allows the addition of a garage. The applicant obtained approval for a curb cut to gain access to the proposed garage. Since the curb cut is being placed where parking was not permitted previously, no on-street parking is being lost, and the applicant is gaining two off-street parking spots.
The original plans provided entrance stairs on the eastern side of the home with a zero foot setback. However, that design impeded upon the neighbor’s access easement located on the applicants property. As such, the applicant agreed to revise those plans by constructing the entrance stairs inside the home, which reduces the livable square footage of the home. The revised entrance stairs are accessed from the front of the home through a foyer inside the garage area.

The proposed dormer creates a half story loft area above the main floor that is accessed by boat steps. The loft is approximately 200 square feet, provides approximately 7 feet of head room, and maintains the existing roof line. Since the loft is intended for storage and as a secondary hang out area, plumbing will not be installed, it will not be enclosed, and does not include any closets.

The proposed porch extends out four feet from the front of the home and utilizes a sold floor. It is an aesthetically pleasing enhancement over the steps that the applicant’s would have constructed pursuant to State law, provides increased functionality, and offsets the reduced square footage that resulted from moving the entrance stairs inside the home.

The roof line, which currently extends out approximately 18 inches from the home, will not be extended to cover the porch. Although the porch extends into the front yard setback, the impact is minimal at grade level due to the cantilevered design.

The applicant has agreed to reduce the width of the porch by 2.5 feet on each side from the width of the home to minimize any visual impact on neighboring properties. Additionally, the porch is not higher than the peak of the first story roof on the neighbor’s home.

Audience questions/comments
Roberta Yuzek, 5 Water Street, contested that she has no issue with height of the house, but indicated that the proposed porch would alter the front yard setbacks, creating a staggered look compared to the surrounding homes. Furthermore, she has a view of the ocean from her side window and is concerned that the porch will block her view. The Board considered Ms. Yuzek’s concerns and found that reducing the porch by 2.5 feet on either side would minimize the impact upon light, air, and space. Furthermore, the porch is less intrusive than the steps the applicant would have been required to install pursuant to State law.

Raymond Bogan, Esq., appeared on behalf of the easterly neighbors, and verified with the applicant that the porch will not extend past the width of the house; and that the dormer will be added by lifting up a portion of the existing roof, will maintain the ridge line, and will be set back 5 feet from the property line.

Catherine Totin, 3 Water Street, contested that any existing porches in the surrounding area have been constructed within the footprint of the existing home. Ms. Totin is concerned that the applicant’s porch will extend further out than the other homes and will impede on light, air, and space. However, she acknowledges that the home does need to be elevated and improved.

Deliberations
Spader – We are in the bungalow section again – I do not think that this is being over built. It is still a three bedroom home. The ridge line has not changed. The stairs have been moved to the interior and we are gaining parking under the home. The sower is being moved into the lanai area. In favor
Kelly – Would like to commend the applicant and Mr. Amelchecnko for an attractive building and the changes they have made. When I see older homes being raised and what we could have this is a great alternative to what could be there without the board’s approval.
Reynolds – I agree with what Mr. Kelly said – I like that the stairs were moved inside. The stairs could have just been put straight down. I like that front porch.
Renner – I am conflicted on this – not really sure – the only thing I don’t like is putting a deck on the second floor when no one else has one. Not sure how I feel about it.
Loder – I give a lot of credit to the architect and owner for coming up with a nice design. Very nice property and will be voting in favor.
Davis – Most of what can be said has been said. Reference to the balcony – I think it is a nice feature and adds to the enhancement pf the house. I understand that it is not common on the street and is affecting a neighbor’s air and light but the law that has been passed allows the property owner to build something else that would be more objectionable. If it weren’t for the fact a law has been passed we would be arguing for the deck to be moved back into the home. In consideration of this the positives outweigh the negatives.
Reilly – A lot of plusses and minuses here. First of all I think it is a very attractive home and likes the facts that 2 cars are coming off the street and the stairs are being moved inside the house. I do not like what this is doing to building coverage. I can be convinced to go along with this if we limit the length of the deck.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Renner to approve #2015-55 of Visionary Developers/Luxury Financials, LLC – 6 Water Street – Block 120; Lot 17:04 with conditions
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Renner, Loder and Davis
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Conditions
1. The proposed entrance steps located outside on the east side of the home shall be eliminated and relocated inside the structure.

2. There shall be no plumbing installed in the loft.

3. The proposed grade level exterior shower shall be placed, and have access from, within the foot print of the lanai.

4. The chosen exterior façade of the home shall be brought within three feet of the adjoining exterior grade or constructed using a decorative material so as to be compliant with the Beach’s Ordinances.

5. The grade level breakaway walls shall be tethered to the pilings.

6. The porch shall be constructed so as to maintain a 2.5 foot offset from the front face of the home on both sides.

7. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for review and approval prior to adoption of this resolution and prior to the issuance of any building permits.

Meeting adjourned at 10:21pm
Next meeting December 3, 2015

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


Published January13, 2016 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2240


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