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


March 17, 2016

Minutes

The March 17, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Spader, Mr. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Dixon, Mr. DePolo Mr. Davis and Ms. Crapser
Absent – Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the minutes of March 3, 2016
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Schneider, DePolo and Dixon
Opposed - None

Memorialize Resolutions

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2016-04 of Thomas/Denis McFadden - 16 Danby Place – with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2016-02 of Dawn/Robert Morano – 106 Trenton – with conditions
In favor - Spader, Kelly, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2016- 06 – Ed/Elise Previte – 1024 Gowdy Avenue – Block 36; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to install in-ground swimming pool.
(Previte carried without notice)
Ed Previte applicant, sworn stated that he has moved the pool so that the side yard setback has been increased to eight (8) feet. Everything else now conforms.

Deliberations
Spader – Certainly understand the situation but the 10 foot setback is a safety issue and I will not be able to support it. Reconsidered his position after listening to deliberations.
Kelly – Glad to see that you moved it away from the garage. So the children cannot climb on the garage roof and jump in. It will not be a huge pool will be in favor. You have made every effort.
Schneider – You have made effort and are playing your best hand. Will be in favor.
DePolo – Special circumstances on why you are putting the pool in – will be in favor
Davis - We just never give a variance on pools for safety reasons; you have a special situation with a child with autism and have squeezed a small pool in. Given the circumstances am compelled to support this application.
Struncius – We have given variances on pools before but not often. There is a special circumstance here and I am in favor.

Motion by second by to approve application #2016- 06 – Ed/Elise Previte – 1024 Gowdy Avenue – Block 36; Lot 3 with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2016-16 – Mary Ellen Thompson – 108 Randall Avenue – Block 149; lot 31 – Applicant wishes to erect a 8 foot high rear fence and side yard sloping to a four foot high fence in front yard on north side only
Mary Ellen Thompson, applicant sworn stated that her fence that separates her yard from the Broadway Bar and Grill is in disrepair and not doing its job since her home was lifted and is requesting an eight (8) foot fence on the north side of her home. The applicant will also maintain the hedge row that exists.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Spader – Very supportive of this – If it was me I would have been going for a 10 foot fence.
Kelly - I support this.
Dixon – Has no problem with this.
Schneider - Thinks that the applicant is being a good neighbor.
DePolo – Full support of the 8 foot fence.
Davis – Given the extenuating circumstances it certainly makes sense.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to approve Application #2016-16 – Mary Ellen Thompson – 108 Randall Avenue – Block 149; lot 31with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved


Application #2016-15 – Michael Godesky – 216 Baltimore Avenue – Block 125; Lot 12 – Applicant wishes to elevate existing single family dwelling and add a deck in front.
John Jackson attorney for applicant. Michael and Carrie Godesky applicants, sworn. The applicant’s home was storm damaged and they are seeking to elevate the home and have parking underneath. They would also like to install an elevator for future needs. Google Earth photo entered as A3. The lot is 75 feet wide which helps with the scale of the height variance.
Mike Godesky stated that he has owned the home for 20 years and lives there with his three daughters. The applicant went on to explain that he is looking for an additional 3 ½ feet in height. Looking to keep the driveway and garage on the left side of the home. Carrie Godesky stated that this layout would be the best solution for neighbors to the north and south. The garage will give the home some depth and character. The front of the home is landscaped and they are looking to only remove a small portion for the improvements. Being that they are located on the lake they will not be blocking anyone’s view. Footprint will stay the same; decking will give the home some depth.
Audience questions/comments
Richard Keller – 212 Baltimore Avenue – Inquired what were the actual numbers allowed/required. Gave some history on the property. No objections to this application. Will be looking to expand his home in the future.


Deliberations
Spader – Charming home. Looking at the roof line a few extra feet will not make a difference. In support of application.
Kelly – I would like to see this fixed. I do not think we will notice the height. In favor
Schneider – a little concerned about the height of the house but will be in favor.
DePolo – Also have concerns about the height of the home; it is an oversized lot so will be in favor.
Davis – Everything about the application fits the positive criteria. Although it is a considerable height variance it certainly works. You are being considerate to your neighbor and you are preserving the cherry tree. The first thing I thought when I looked at the plans is that it looked like a Madison Wisconsin lake houses. I think it is going to be a beautiful part of the preservation of Point Pleasant Beach.
Struncius – I think this is one that definitely goes to the unique characteristics of the lot. If you were going to try this in the middle of Parkway it wouldn’t fly. The fact that there is a lake behind you adds a few different things – there is no rear neighbor that you are impeding on; I would be scared of another flood anytime that you ae living on water. The ocean fills that lake and that is a scary proposition. You bringing it up to a safety factor makes a lot of sense and keeping the characteristics of the home are all plusses.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Davis to approve application #2016-15 –of Carrie/Michael Godesky – 216 Baltimore Avenue – Block 125; Lot 12 with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Schneider, DePolo, Davis, Crasper and Struncius
Opposed - None
Application approved with conditions

Application #2015-56 – John/Lisa Renzulli – 105 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 18.09 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing two family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling.
John Jackson attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant has owned the home since 1995. It is utilized as the family summer home. Joe Kociuba, Professional Engineer with KBA Services, credentials accepted gave an overview of the property. Home will provide a visually aesthetic addition to the neighborhood. Ridge elevation of 41 feet – substantially lower than neighboring homes. Believes that providing a V zone safe home will promote the safety of the area. The home provides adequate air, light and space. The egress of the home will be in the rear. The parking layout will be the same as today and allow for the parking of three cars. There is an easement for this property to exit on Pilgrim Parkway.
Ray Savacool questioned if the neighbor to the South has a legal right to cross this property. Not sure that there is an easement but they allow the neighbor to cross their property as a courtesy. There will be more room in the rear with the new home.
Audience questions/comments
Anthony Graceffo, attorney for his parents who own the home to the south at 109 Boardwalk. Beautiful home, improvement over what is there. Wants to address the easements issue. He believes that there is an easement over the rear of the property. He is worried that during the construction phase that debris might block access to his parent’s property. Packet entered as N-1. Looking for a condition that the easement is not blocked during construction. John Jackson agreed to that condition that access not be blocked but he does not believe that there is an easement he believes it has been a courtesy; the two-family use will be abandoned
Mary Ortman, architect, sworn, credentials accepted. Cedar shingles or hardy plank will be utilized, French doors and black metal railings. Wooden louvers will be utilized instead of lattice.
John Renzulli. Applicant, sworn, stated that he will not begin construction until after the season.
Deliberations
Spader – excused from this application
Kelly – Believes the rear of the home is obstructing views and is creating too much massing. Not in favor

Dixon – Very familiar with this area and aware there are limits. Mr. Kelly does have a point but the length was reduced by 4 feet. If the neighbors wanted a better view they should have bought on the boardwalk. In favor.
Schneider – appreciates Mr. Kelly’s concerns; the whole beach front is a concern – this is not an isolated incident. Believes that it is a good addition to the neighborhood.
DePolo – In favor of the application – pros far outweigh the cons. Reduced the non-conformity that is there.
Davis – Concur with what has been said; not really a lot of negatives. It is a long house. Overall it is a great improvement; in character with the boardwalk area. Modest intent.
Struncius- Agree with has been said – safety/flood compliance. Because of the unique character of the lots the homes are closer. The roof does step back and it is not a box. Things were done to create architectural enhancement. To me this had a lot of thought and care and a good fit for the zone.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2015-56 –of John/Lisa Renzulli – 105 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 18.09 with conditions
In favor: Dixon, Schneider, DePolo, Davis, Crasper and Struncius
Opposed: Kelly
Conditions
1. The driveway access to 109 Boardwalk and related parking shall not be obstructed during construction. The applicant will confirm whether a legal easement exists. Upon confirmation, the plans shall be amended accordingly.

2. The applicant agrees to abandon the two-family use.

Application approved with conditions
Application #2015-38 – William/Mabel Covey – 400 Central Avenue – Block 56; Lot 12 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family home and build new dwelling. Exhibit A-5 – Photo surrounding homes.
William Bajohr, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant purchased the property in August of 2014. The applicants needs additional living space for their family.
Marc C. Lieber, Professional Engineer, credentials accepted. Reviewed the Board Engineer’s letter. A-3, A-4 and A-5- colored rendering entered. The rear garage apartment is not going to be touched. There are some discrepancies with the engineer’s calculations and Chairman Struncius would like the engineer to be sure of the numbers.

Questions

George Loder – 812 Atlantic Avenue – Requested that the applicants engineer go over the calculations. (32.86% Building coverage)
Rob DeSocio – 804 Atlantic Avenue – Questioned the corner of the house and inquired if the new home is closer to Gowdy than the existing home? (Yes) Concerned over site triangle. Inquired where the plants are going. (Privacy screen on Side Street)
Micky Diaz – 711 Atlantic – Is there a terrace or are there pavers? The coverage is confusing. (Deck has been removed)

William Covey Jr., applicant sworn, stated that they purchased the home and it is smaller than they are used to. We need more bedrooms and bathrooms to meet the family’s needs. The applicant redesigned the home to come closer to compliance with zoning regulations. The appeal of the home was the rear rental unit to help defray the cost of the new home.

The Board would like the applicant to tighten up the calculations and gave the applicant sometime to rethink some options. The Board is also asking the applicant to have the condition that one dwelling will be owner occupied recorded by deed. Roof top deck will be removed.
Audience questions
George Loder – 712 Atlantic Avenue – He and his wife have lived across the street from the residence for 18 years and the apartment has been there
Laurie DeSocio – 804 Atlantic Avenue – Inquired if the applicant had visited the building department about keeping the rental unit.

Motion by Mr. Spader second by Mr. Davis to carry application #2015-38 of William/Mabel Covey – 400 Central Avenue – Block 56; Lot 12 to April 7, 2016 without notice to April 7, 2016.
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed – None

Next meeting April 7, 2016
Meeting adjourned at 11:10pm

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


Published May26, 2016 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2340


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