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

January 19, 2017


January 19, 2017 BOA minutes

The January 19, 2017 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. Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Schneider, Mr. DePolo and Mr. Davis
Absent – Reilly and Crasper
Also present – Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills
Denise Sweet, Court Reporter

Memorialize minutes –
Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of December 1, 2016
In favor: Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to memorialize the minutes of January 5, 2017
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Letter request – Removal of condition “I” Resolution #2015-43 Benedetto/Harvey
James Benedetto – addressed the board to the hard ship he has had finding someone to repair the curb cut. No one wants the liability on the state highway and the job is too small for larger contractors. Has secured permit from State but can get no one to do the work. At this time there is no access for vehicles. James Benedetto would like to have a gate so he can get out to rake and shovel instead of walking around the block.
The Board has no objection to a small access gate that will be locked for pool safety. The Board Engineer explained the work that is needed to replace the curb cut. There is a lot of work that goes into this small job. Mr. Dixon inquired how the State feels about this – Ray Savacool stated that it would not be a concern of the State and does not feel there is a risk to allow the curb cut to remain. Mr. Spader feel that this has turned into a bigger deal than need be- let’s let it be and move on. Mr. Kelly is in favor of amending the resolution and removing condition “I”. Mr. Struncius feels it should remain in the resolution but since he is out voted he would like language added to the resolution that in the future should the State require the curb cut be replaced that the applicant is responsible.
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to allow condition “I” be removed from the resolution
In favor: Spader and Kelly
Opposed: No
Approval of Resolution amendment

Application #2017-02 – Michael/Coleen Flately – 57 Sanborn Avenue – Block 157; Lot 17 – Applicant would like to extend deck.
Greg Gillespie, applicant’s attorney. Colleen Flately, applicant, sworn. Greg Gillespie, explained that the applicant had been before the board previously, but after feedback from the board they withdrew their application and was going to build to code. Somehow the wrong plans were approved by the building department and when the applicant realized he builder was building the wrong deck he stopped construction and applied for the deck variance. The attorney stated that the building coverage overage is deck. Collen Flately, applicant, stated the a/c units will be located on the deck and the deck is 13 feet in the air.

Spader – Not big on forgiveness. Project was not completed and they applied for variance. Does not see this as a major problem – fits in the neighborhood. in favor

Kelly – Not a big one for forgiveness also – appears there was consideration on what was discussed previously – not a detriment to the area – in favor
Reynolds – I fdo not think it is a negative impact to the area – gut s instinct is we were previously concerned with building coverage – application was withdrawn – but built the same – but will be in favor
Dixon – Do not see negative – in favor
Schneider – Do not see it as a negative - think it is an asset to the property – in favor
DePolo – commercial property in rear – trees to the side – feels the extra decking is diminimus – in favor
Davis – Complete agreement – positive impact on property - infavor
Struncius – In complete agreement – the first thing I ask is would we have approved this – the home is under 26% - plus deck brings it over – the deck gives it usability from the home. It makes sense – the neighbor has a deck that high.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2017-02 of Michael/Collen Flately, 57 Sanborn Avenue with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
1. The deck is to remain open and the area below the deck is to remain permeable.

Application #2017-01 – Anthony/Joan Graceffo – 17 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 18.10 – Applicant wishes to construct a new addition and deck to the existing single family dwelling.

Ray Bogan, attorney for applicant stated that the applicants are proposing to renovate and expand the existing three-story single-family home on the property. Due to the height of the home it will require a D6 variance. Exhibits entered – A3 – Color rendering A4 – Phot packet

James Giordano, applicant PE, sworn, credentials accepted, stated that
A. There is an existing 10 foot wide easement on the adjacent property to the north of the subject property, to provide vehicle access.
B. The applicants are proposing to construct a 22 foot by 23 foot wide addition on the ground floor and first floor above.
C. The ground floor addition will create a new garage, to accommodate two (2) cars; and the first floor addition will be used for living space.
D. The applicants are proposing to construct a six (6) foot bump-out addition on the second floor for additional living space.
E. There will be a new 4 foot by 2.15 foot balcony constructed on the first floor of the rear of the building to store the air conditioning units.
F. There will be a new 5.25 foot by 23.5 foot balcony constructed off of the second floor.
G. The existing lower porch on the ground floor will be reduced to 23.5 feet by 24 feet.
H. There will be no bedrooms located on the ground floor.
I. The front yard setback will be brought into conformity as a result of this proposal, because the front deck will be reduced in size.
J. There are no proposed accessory structures for this property.
K. This proposal will reduce the amount of impervious coverage on the property.
L. The proposed detention system will substantially reduce stormwater runoff on the property, and will have the ability to handle the 10-year storm.
M. The existing pool on-site will be removed.
N. The area in front of the garage, as well as the driveway, will consist of pervious materials

Verity Frizzell, applicant’s Professional architect, sworn, credentials accepted stated that:
A. The property currently has decking on the first and second floor of the structure.
B. The backyard currently has a deck with a pool attached to the rear of the home on the ground floor, which will be replaced by the new garage.
C. The existing gable roofing is proposed to be replaced with a hip roof.
D. The existing stucco will be replaced with Hardi Board and a layer of stone on the bottom.
E. The rear deck on the ground floor will be independent of the house, and will be reconstructed on pilings in order to comply with FEMA regulations.
F. The visual impact of the home will be lessened by reducing the size of the deck (facing the Boardwalk) and by removing the ramp attached to it.
G. An elevator and adjacent staircase will be added to the home. On the ground floor, it will replace one of the existing bedrooms.
H. The other bedroom and closet on the ground floor will be replaced by a work-out room.
I. The applicant is proposing to add a master bedroom to the first floor, to accommodate Mr. Graceffo, who is handicapped.
Joan Graceffo, applicant, sworn stated variance relief was granted in the 1980s to permit the existing third story. The two bedrooms on the ground floor will be eliminated to make room for the proposed elevator and staircase. The remainder of the space will be used mostly for storage with a recreational area.

Jill Hartman, Professional Planner, sworn credentials accepted, stated that -
A. The subject property is located on an oversized parcel of land with a sloping topography.
B. The proposed renovation of the home will be similar in height and setbacks to the surrounding properties.
C. As proposed, the structure will maintain the same height.
D. The additions and improvements will be consistent with the diverse pattern of development in this neighborhood, and will be a visual improvement to what currently exists.
E. The structure has existed at the current height for many years and has added value to the Boardwalk streetscape, and therefore the site can accommodate the deviation from the height standard.
F. This proposal will provide a benefit to the neighborhood by eliminating nonconforming conditions on the site in relation to front yard setbacks.

Audience question/Comments
Steven King – neighbor, sworn, stated he has no objection. Thinks the application is great.

Ray Bogan – Closing statement

1. The board was made aware that the V-zone map touches this lot but not the home. The Board accepts that the applicant does not have to meet FEMA flood zone requirements however, the applicant remains responsible to conform with FEMA requirements, if applicable.

2. The applicant agreed that there is to be no overnight accommodations within the first (ground) floor of the building. This condition is to be enforced by means of a deed restriction which must be reviewed and approved by the Board’s attorney prior to being recorded and it must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.


Spader – The Boardwalk area is very delicate area; main concern is that there is always a crowding situation– the area where they are has a little bit of open space. The plusses on this is can remember when the home was originally done; the upgrade here is it offsets the concerns of overcrowding – inclined to be in favor with restrictions
Kelly – Would like to commend the architect for an outstanding design - The first go around we were very concerned with the depth of the home. The architect removed one of the problems (the vista). Eliminated that overpowering look of three stories that went all the way back. Still has concerns with the setbacks but the materials today are safer. In favor of application.
Reynolds – Commended the presentation – easy to follow – took this as a new application. The improvement of the hardie board and the deed restriction looking favorable.
Dixon – Architect did a great job – owners have disability so the larger garage makes sense.
Schneider – Excellent design – most of the variances are preexisting – it is an improvement to the area. Will not be a detriment to anyone in the neighborhood. Will be in favor
DePolo – Also in favor – aesthetically it fits right into the neighborhood. Increase the amount of light. Removed the handicap ramp from the front – reduced non-conformities – great plan and design.
Davis – also in favor –Here we have a non-conforming house that is expanding. The applicants have come a long way to alleviate the boards concerns. Complimented the planner and applicant. Aesthetically the home is improved/happy to see removal of the pool. The positives far outweigh the negatives.
Struncius – This is a difficult place to be. The decisions on these are hard – it is important for me to understand the approval process. We have a preexisting condition that works. When you do grant variances that go into these setbacks that we all feel that this is part of the improvement from what is standing here. The topography certainly lends to the aesthetic improvements and safety. The applicant agreed to deed restrict the lower floor. For all of those reasons I am in favor.
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2017-01 –of Anthony/Joan Graceffo – 17 Boardwalk – Block 121; Lot 18.10 with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 10:50 pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board

Published February22, 2017 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2493

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