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 21, 2016

Minutes

The July 21, 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, Mr. Reynolds, vice-chair Reilly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Davis, Mr. DePolo and Ms. Crapser
Absent – Chairman Struncius, Mr. Dixon and Mr. DePolo

Memorialize minutes – Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of May 19, 2016
Memorialize Resolution

Motion by vice-chair Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action approving the extension of 2012-30 – Morgan McLachlan – 1810 Beacon Lane –
In favor - LK and BR
Opposed - none
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-52 – Allison/Patrick Sheehan – 309 New York Ave – with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly and Schneider
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2016-05 – John/Karen Recchia – 206 Chicago Avenue – with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2016-22 – Thomas Macagnano – 107 Griffiths– with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly and Schneider
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2016-23 – Stan Osofsky – 101 Atlantic Avenue with conditions
In favor – Reynolds, Reilly, Schneider and Crapser
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application # 2016-25 – Steiny Girls,LLC – 1301 St. Louis Avenue – with conditions
In favor – Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider and Crapser
Opposed: None

Amend Resolution 2016-20 – Deborah Seaberg – 124 Randall Avenue – Block 146: Lot 39 – Applicant is looking to move approved dwelling 9 inches north in order to provide the required side yard setback to one side of the structure so as to permit windows.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant proposes to slide home 9 inches north to allow for windows on the south side of the house. Setback on south side will be 1.9 feet on the north side property line. The home north of this home is set far off the property line.
Eric Seaberg, sworn, brother of applicant, stated that the builder had over-looked that the home did not have a three-foot side yard setback which meant his sister could not have windows because of the fire rating requirements. Eric Seaberg stated that the original print had windows – this was an over site on the builders end.
Audience questions/comments
Nancy Brokaw, Randall Avenue, neighbor on south side questioned about the fire safety code. (Yes)
Deliberations
Spader – Very sensitive to side space, but very satisfied with the explanation.
Kelly – Will support
Reynolds – Have concerned moving it over 9 inches. Not saying I am against it – just concerned.
Schneider – Well designed house – all the houses down there are very tight.
Davis - Nothing substantial to add – no complaints
Crasper – no issues
Reilly – almost diminimus and it improves safety.
Motion by Mr. Spader to amend Resolution 2016-20 to move house 9 inches north, second by Mr., Reynolds.
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis Crasper and Reilly
Opposed: None
Resolution amended

Application 2016-19 – Brock/Paula Watzich – 113 Harvard Avenue – Applicant constructed a new single family dwelling and would like to retain existing shed. Requires building coverage variance.
Brock Watzich, applicant sworn, stated that when they were finished with building their home that it came out that they were over on building coverage and that the shed was the culprit. Brock stated that it is convenient having a shed to store things and that the area the shed is located in is drainage area. The shed is built on a concrete slab. Mr. Spader commented that the applicant has a two-door garage to store items and a basement and does not see the necessity for a shed. Mr. Reynolds questioned if the house is for sale. (Yes) Mr. Reynolds questioned if the shed could be moved to conform to the setbacks (No because it is on a cement slab) Brock Watzich said he does not want to crush the drainage. Mr. Reilly inquired how removing the shed would crush the drainage. The applicant just felt that it would.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Spader – Tried to work with you – going to listen to the rest of the board and decide.
Kelly – Shed presents 2 problems. My suggestion would be to remove the shed.
Reynolds – Expressed my concerns - it is just that it would be easy to move to a conforming location.
Schneider – I am not sure that we have a case for hardship. I would want it to conform.
Davis – These are the kind of cases I hate – we have a non-conformity. We are offering to meet you half way and the answer is no. We are just perpetuating a non-conformity.
Reilly – My view is this is a relatively small thing small amount of coverage– not the end of the world – but I am uncomfortable saying yes.
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Spader to deny application 2016-19 of Brock/Paula Watzich – 113 Harvard Avenue
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis, Crasper and Reilly
Opposed: None


Application #2016-24- Suzanne P. Onyskow – 11 Stony Road – Block 121; Lot 13.02 – Applicant wishes to raise existing single family dwelling. Dwelling would require height variance.
Michael Landis, attorney for applicant. Don Roberts, applicant’s builder explained the project. A-3 – Photos of existing house. Builder explained damage from storm and the plans to raise the home and the improvements that will be made. House will be the same size with addition of second floor deck. Mr. Davis inquired why the need for the height variance. (Applicant wants a garage underneath). There will be a slight squaring off of the deck, the concrete stairs will be removed. Second floor deck will be 18.5 feet off of grade. Mr. Spader is concerned about elevated decks in concentrated areas because the sound carries.
Ray Carpenter, applicant’s professional engineer, credentials accepted. Introduced new site plan – A-4. Impervious coverage – 90.63% No change from existing to proposed. Applicant is seeking use variance for height because she would like to have a garage under the house. Parking is a luxury in that area. The board is concerned about the applicant not having the required turn radius into the garage. Ray Savacool struggled to understand how the applicant can back out of the garage without impacting the neighbor across the street. Mr. Spader questioned if the neighbors sit out in front of their homes. Ray Carpenter explained that he can eliminate the pier in the garage to open it up to make it easier.
Susan Onyskow, applicant, sworn, stated that she has a small car and presently parks on the side. Has owned the home for twenty (20) years. Home presently is not very attractive and she is looking forward to upgrading the aesthetics and house. Ray Savacool inquired if she will make it a one car garage. (Yes) The center column will be eliminated. A-5 Google Earth photo. Applicant’s home is the second one off of Ocean Avenue on North side. Mr. Reilly inquired if the home located across from her has a number of young visitors (Yes) this is a safety concern for him with the addition of a garage. Home is being raised three more feet than required to provide for the garage.
Audience questions/comments
Joseph Luizzi, 10 Stony Road – Stated that there is always a problem parking with the easement. He feels that a garage is a good idea.
Deliberations
Spader – visited the site and there were no cars parked. Quite frankly he thinks that it is a great idea but his problem is the location. He has a safety concern with neighbors sitting in the easements with cars coming out of garages. Riding the fence at this time
Kelly – Getting a building, a better deck and the second floor will be more attractive. Thinks the turn will be a little tight but in favor. He has trouble with the 94% impervious coverage. Hoping the applicant will get rid of some of the concrete and plant flowers.
Reynolds – Only variance is the height for the garage. They have every right to raise to base flood but I do feel this would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Not for the extra three feet in this neighborhood.
Schneider – as far as raising the house and the second floor deck he is fine but has a problem with a two car garage. (Reduced to one door). Neighbor across the street is in favor.
Davis - Mr. Reynolds spoke his mind to a “T”. This was a lane that was never developed for vehicles. It is a bungalow thorough fair for pedestrian traffic and socialization. Sorry that she has been flooded three times. I think the garage and decks make a perfect scenario for what this street will become.
Crasper – Agrees with the one car garage – it will make it easier to navigate. Thinks the neighbor helped the situation by being in favor.
Reilly – Likes the concept – drives the lane a lot. The lane is not maintained well because it is not an association. Tending to be in favor.
Motion by Mr. Davis second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2016-24- Suzanne P. Onyskow – 11 Stony Road – Block 121; Lot 13.02 with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Schneider, Davis, Crasper and Reilly
Opposed – Reynolds
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
1. The applicant is to remove enough surface concrete to reduce the impervious coverage to 78.8%. The revised impervious coverage plan is to be submitted to the Board’s engineer for his review and approval.

2. The applicant is to revise the plan to provide a single large garage door, a minimum of 12 feet.

Application #2016-27 – Judith/Victor Lolli – 1301 Oceanfront - Block 17.01; Lot 26 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling. Requesting side yard, rear yard and second floor limit variance.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the home had substantial damage during superstorm sandy. Applicant seeks to build modular home on the ocean front. Home will be slightly small. Tim Lurie, applicant’s professional engineer/ professional planners. The subject lot is 50x117 feet, which is smaller than most of the neighboring oceanfront lots. The fact that the lot is both a corner lot and oceanfront lot contribute to the variances needed for this proposal. The existing driveway on the property will be removed and closed off with new sidewalk, and a new driveway will be created. The applicant agreed to replace the sidewalk in consultation with the Board Engineer. A majority of the building coverage that is being requested is attributed to the proposed decks; after discussion the plans will be revised to show the proposed second story deck will extend throughout the entire width of the house, and that there will be sliding glass doors. The new home will be built on pilings. Applicants are seeking the following variances: front yard setback of 7.67 feet (to steps) and 11.67 feet (to covered porch), whereas 25 feet is required, rear yard setback of 5.5 feet, whereas 30 feet is required and building coverage of 33.9% where 30%$ is required.

Conditions
1. The break-away walls are to be tethered.

2. The sidewalk must to be restored, done in consultation with the Board’s Engineer.

3. The applicant is to remove the existing curb cut.

Deliberations
Spader – Mr. Spader used to play in this house, sad to see it go but damage from storm makes it necessary. The new home will be save and compliant.
Kelly – Pet peeve on Washington is the sidewalks – lets get them back - years ago he was required to install sidewalks. Other than that he likes the home.
Reynolds – Wonderful presentation – rendering of home is nice. Lots of homes are larger than befor the storm. Nice addition to the area, we are getting a good deal.
Schneider – Nice addition to the beach front. Good design – looks good.
Davis – For all of the reasons stated he concurs.
Crasper - I also agree – it is beautiful
Reilly – Nothing to add
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2016-27 – Judith/Victor Lolli – 1301 Oceanfront - Block 17.01; Lot 26 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis, Crasper and Reilly
Opposed: Opposed: None
Application approved with condition




Application #2016-26 - Maria Sikorsky-Pavia/Anthony Pavia – 313 Carter Avenue – Block 13.04/Lot 7 – Applicant would like to raise existing dwelling and add small addition to one apartment and a deck. Application requires Use variance, building coverage variance, front and side yard setback variances.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that the applicants purchased the property in 2008. The existing home was constructed in the 1930s, and is the result of two homes being connected together. Because two homes were connected together, the back of the home features a duplex unit that is separated from the rest of the home. This unit features two bedrooms and a kitchenette. The applicants do not use this unit as a rental and it does not have separate electrical wiring, heating or cooling; it is utilized by the applicants’ family members to stay as guests during the summer. The applicants seek to maintain this nonconformity to be able to continue to utilize the back duplex unit as a guest unit for visitors.

Marilyn Yuknus, the applicant’s neighbor stated that she was born in 1944 and has been a resident of 309 Carter Avenue since the 1950s. She indicated that as far back as the 1950s the subject property has been utilized as a two-family home and that the back duplex unit had been previously utilized as a rental unit for many years.

Paul Ward, local realtor, sworn, stated that he has been a Realtor since 1977 and he had previously been the Realtor for the property responsible for the back duplex unit, which was utilized as a rental unit.

Deliberations
Spader – Found the testimony credible. Concerned what they are what they are going to do with the property in the future. Dennis Galvin explained that they would need to come back to the board if they wanted to expand. Mr. Spader then stated that he favors the pre-existing non-conformity status.
Kelly – Mr. Kelly personally knows that since 1962 that there was a rental unit in the rear.
Reynolds – Also accepts the testimony.
Schneider – Accepts the testimony.
Davis - Concurs
Crasper – Also concurs

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to bifurcate the application and approve the pre-exiting non-conformity of application 2016-26 Maria/Anthony Pavia – 313 Carter Avenue
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis, Crasper and Reilly
Opposed: Opposed: None
Application approved with condition



Karen L. Mills, LUA, Clerk of the Board


Published August25, 2016 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2388


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