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


May 18, 2017

Minutes

The May 18, 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, vice chair Reilly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis and Ms. Crapser
Absent – Chairman Struncius and Mr. DePolo


Memorialize Resolutions –
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-08 of Lombardi Residential – 409 Richmond Avenue – with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Schneider
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to carry application #2017-12 of Carolina Carino - 305 Cooks Lane to July 20, 2017 without notice
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Dixon, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None

Applications

2017-03 – Kendall Keer – 602 New Jersey Avenue – Block 5.03; Lot 61 – Applicant wishes to add one story addition to front and rear of existing single family dwelling and add a new deck.
Kendall Keer, applicant, sworn, stated that he wishes to upgrade his home because he is getting married and wants it to be a home to raise a family in. Jeffrey Bell, Professional Architect, sworn, previously appeared before Boards in Lavallette and Bayville, credentials accepted.
Vice chair Reilly clarified that the front setback is not being changed. (Correct) Porch area is just being added to living space. Vice chair Reilly inquired what would be under the rear deck. (Stone)Mr. Kelly inquired if the garage was all concrete. (Yes)Mr. Davis inquired how the home was an enhancement to the neighborhood. (Aesthetic and safety upgrade) Mr. Spader inquired about the siding. Kendall Keer stated that the entire home is being resided with Vinyl cedar impressions in the front of the home and vinyl on the remainder.
Mr. Kelly inquired if the brick barbeque on the concrete slab is going to remain. (No – it is being removed)

Kendall Keer, applicant, sworn, stated that he wishes to upgrade his home because he is getting married and wants it to be a home to raise a family in. Jeffrey Bell, Professional Architect, sworn, previously appeared before Boards in Lavallette and Bayville, credentials accepted.
Audience Questions/comments
None

Spader – Looked over the area and plan – we have had a lot of new building, this proposal is modest and an enhancement to the neighborhood – has no problem with it – in favor
Kelly – It is nice to see one of the house in town being upgraded – in favor
Reynolds – The front setback is not going to change - I have no issues with this
Dixon – This is a very nice upgrade to an older home – what you are asking for is modest. Trying to update it to no a day’s standards – I have no problem with this – it looks nice.
Schneider – I think it is a nice update to an older home – it fits in the neighborhood – it is going to be much more functional - a little concern about the setback and the steps but there are a lot of homes with a close front setback – I will be in favor.
Davis – Nothing to add
Crasper – Agrees with the rest of the board – good luck
Reilly – At first I said wait a minute – it is 33% coverage – then I looked at what the coverage was and I was fine – good luck with it.
Condition

1. Existing concrete slab in rear will be removed.
2. Home to be resided with cedar impressions in front.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to approve application 2017-03 of Kendall Keer – 602 New Jersey Avenue – Block 5.03; Lot 61 – with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Reilly
Opposed – None
Application approved with conditions

2017-12 – Carolina Carino - 305 Cooks Lane – Block 105; Lot 6 – Applicant wishes to add second driveway curb cut on Cooks Road.
(Carry without notice to July 20, 2017)


#2017-10 – Thomas and Thomas C. Abraham – 1209 Oceanfront – Block 28.01; lot 1 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
Michael Rubino, attorney for applicant, stated that he client would like to remove existing home and replace it with a new single family dwelling. Reviewed the variances being requested – rear yard setback 10 feet where 30 feet is required – and front yard – 14 foot front yard setback where 25 feet is required – 4.6 feet to air conditioning where 5 feet is required. Height 54.7 Base flood elevation; where 48 BFE is allowed – D6 needed – Applicant would like a garage which forces the first floor up.
Bob McKuhn – Professional Engineer since 1989, sworn, credentials accepted. Reviewed zoning and explaining why the home needs to be moved per DEP. Proposed home is about the same footprint as existing because CAFRA would not let them move towards the dune. The height is driven because of the garage. Mr. Spader inquired why they needed the side yard setback variance – can’t they move the air conditioner (Yes) Mr. Spader commented that it will look better not being so close to the sidewalk. Exhibit A-3 entered – elevations of surrounding roof peaks. Ray Savacool stated that they are not survey elevations. Mr. Spader stated that this home is 10 feet higher than neighboring homes – Mr. Davis stated that it is a whole story higher.

Brian Keller owner of Coventry Home Builders, sworn, stated that he helped design the home. Floor elevation – 3rd floor ceiling height of 7 feet - pitch of roof is 10 on 12; Mr. Spader stated that the plans do not show much detail. Brian Keller said there is a bathroom and lots of windows to take advantage of the view. Mr. Spader said there did not seem to be much concern about the height. Mr. Spader said that if you gave up the loft area to reduce the height you would still have two floors of living space. The second floor height is 9 foot; First floor is 10 feet – vice chair Reilly commented there is three of the feet right there that can reduce the height. Mr. Kelly said that standard is 8 – 9 feet and that is a good ceiling. Mr. Spader inquired if there was a plan “B’ to alter that and be satisfactory to the applicant and would still conform to the neighborhood and allow for parking. Vice-chair Reilly inquired if any of the surroundings homes are even 50 feet high. (No)
Audience questions
John Jackson, objecting attorney, referenced the Grasso case. You cannot do an apples to apples comparison, we do not have the grade. Andrew Leimbach stated that the application has to be heard on its own merits.
Mr. Rubino requested to take a break so he can talk to his applicant
Roll call
Brian Keller offered that they could take one foot from every level and two feet from the loft for a total reduction of five (5) feet (49.7 feet) which reduces it to a bulk variance. Mr. Dixon said he would like to get off the height since it seems like there is a solution and inquired if the front was all brick. (Yes and a combination of cedar shingles). Mr. Rubino reminded the board that they also will move the air conditioner to eliminate the side yard setback variance. Mr. Spader stated that the home is still almost 10 feet higher than the home next door.
Audience questions

John Jackson said just to get your hands around what this will look like. Inquired what the first finished floor will be at. (21.3 feet). John Jackson inquired what flood regulations are. (16 feet) It is 5 feet higher than the minimum and what is required by FEMA. You do not need an 8 foot garage under the entire house John Jackson inquired how many bedrooms (5)- by RSIS standards you would only need three (3) parking spaces. John Jackson stated that the existing home would not need to be raised to meet flood elevation.
Audience questions
Christopher Kazior, 1206 Ocean Avenue – We are all in favor of having a nice home next to us. The distance between our properties is very small right now and is concerned about the placement of the air conditioner. Ray Savacool informed them that the a/c unit is being moved to a conforming location. There will be no variances between the lots. They want to be sure that everything is correct before anything is started. He was informed that he has a right to have his own survey done of his property.
Jim McGuire, 1300 Ocean Avenue, sworn – stated that he had not heard any testimony from a Professional Planner.
John Jackson stated that even “C” variances require statements about the hardships.
Thomas C. Abraham, applicant, sworn. Purchased the home approximately two years ago. This home made a lot of sense; it is in walking distance of the boardwalk and with two little girls it made sense. They have extended family; when you have a beach house you suddenly have a lot of friends.
Audience questions
John Jackson inquired what the square footage of the home is and how the parking is configured.
Mr. Reynolds inquired if the home is on pilings. (Yes, but the pilings will be set in such a way that 4 cars can fit) Mr. Spader said that the curb cut that is there is not 16 feet; it will be reduced from 20 feet. The applicant is not asking for two curb cuts. Mr. Kelly inquired if it was going to be 40 feet high of all brick (Yes) Mr. Kelly said he has seen some beautiful buildings on the ocean front and this is not one of them. Mr. Reynolds inquired what the building code is if the whole bottom level is a garage. Ray Savacool said I am not the building official but there would have to be double 5/8 across because you have to assume there are combustibles. The engineer stated that the brick is only in the center of the home with cedar shake shingles on both sides. Mr. Kelly said there are some homes in town that are a real eye sore. That is why we have the 85% rule now; to break it up.
Audience comments
Judith Lolli, 1301 Ocean front – lives directly across the street – I am building a new home and I managed to design a home with a garage underneath without needing a height variance. My roof is 6 on center and it is not a flat roof. We are becoming an area of very tall buildings affecting our view.
John Jackson - application is calling now for a 1.7 foot height variance which is a pretty significant height variance with no proof of a hardship. Not even sure what the aesthetic look of the home is; all we have heard is the owner wants to have parking underneath. Applicant has not sustained the burden of proof showing a hardship or showing that it advances the purpose of MLUL or that there is no detrimental impact to the neighborhood. They have not addressed the negative criteria at all.
Mike Rubino – Closing arguments – I think the board is very familiar with the area. Many cases with people looking to rehab their house – looking at previous resolutions from surrounding homes and there is a great deal of concern from the board with the parking and it is a benefit to the town to get as many cars as possible of the street. The home is in the same location as the old home. Home is well under impervious and building coverage and believe this is a reasonable application.

Deliberations
Spader – Thought the presentation was very nice. Starting with an empty piece of ground and I struggle with the proof of hardship and what somebody wants. Think it is nice that the applicant now tried to reduce the height. Other applicants have managed to have parking underneath without need a height variance. It is certainly nice looking if it was out there by itself, but it’s not out there by itself.
Kelly – I have indicated and am disappointed that the architect isn’t here. This particular property in that area of town could be a jewel– that house north of this is a jewel. When I hear this property was coming up I thought this is great that we will have another jewel, but I see this home appears that there is a hardship with CAFRA – this property is so long that they could build a garage on the left side of the home – but this home wants a garage the whole underneath. I do not know what the hardship is. I can’t really see the evidence of the hardship to build this house – and frankly I see all this brick and then there are 12 windows on the north side. There is no banding on this home to make it look nice. There are many things that can be done that are not done to make this look good.
Reynolds – I also do not see a hardship here – this property can very well sustain a home at the proper height – there are many ways to put in a garage and bring the height down. We do not have any color renderings here – you need a couple acres in Jackson to put in that kind of home. I truly believe that we can bring this home down to comply and have a nice home. I am struggling with it; my mind isn’t made up yet.

Dixon – There are definitely some hardships here dealing with CAFRA – one of the problems the board is having is this doesn’t’ look like your typical seashore home because of all the brick – some people do not like brick but the applicant does and that what he likes. Nowadays everyone wants to have parking off the street – they made their adjustments and tried to bring the home down lower – I do not think any person on the street would be able to tell that it is a foot and a half higher – I think people are hysterical over a foot and a half. There is plenty of air and sunshine – I do not think this foot and half is going to affect the neighborhood at all. I am not a fan of the style but if that is what the owner wants – right now I want to hear what other people have to say.
Schneider – I can appreciate the restrictions on the building from CAFRA – As Mr. Spader said we are starting with a blank canvas – I don’t understand why an architect cannot design a home to fit into the existing structure – not a fan of the stairs being that close to Washington – with a clever design that 14 foot setback would not be a disaster. I do not think the design of the home has given any concern to the neighbors. Not a fan of the outside but that is the applicant preference.
Davis – Think you did a terrific job making your case – everyone deals with CAFRA on the oceanfront – the bottom line is this is a three story home on top of a garage – it is a reach too far – it is too much house –
Crasper – I still have an issue with the height variance – Judith Lolli was thoughtful of her neighbors and got what she wanted with a garage underneath without a height variance. Something to be said about talking to the neighbors. I just think that they can make changes and not need a variance for height at all.
Vice-chair Reilly – I have to agree with a lot of the comments that have been made – but I guess for me the thing that really bothers me the most is I believe it the question that Mr. McGuire raised – does this really fit in the neighborhood – and it may but I don’t know because we haven’t seen any color renderings, had any discussion with the architect – I have a tough time evaluating that – I really do not think I can be fair about it – I think the architectural explanation was non-existent – I might be able to live with 49.7 fee, maybe it could have been better, but unless I really feel that it fits in the neighborhood and that it looks just right for the neighborhood – I really have a tough time voting for it.

Conditions

1. The applicant has to move a/c unit to complaint location.
2. Reducing height of home by 5 feet. Submit revised plans to Board Engineer for review.
3. Applicant would have to comply with the 85% rule

Motion by Mr. Spader to deny application #2017-10 of Thomas C. Abraham, 1209 Oceanfront, second by Mr. Schneider
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: Dixon


Application Denied






#2017-11 - Thomas and Thomas C. Abraham – 1208 Ocean Avenue – Block 28.01; lot 1.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family home and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
Mike Rubino requested to carry application #2017-11 to October 19, 2017 with notice and waived the time that the board has to hear the application.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to carry application #2017-11 of Thomas C. Abraham to October 19, 2017 with notice

In favor - Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, Davis and Reilly
Opposed – None




Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm

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


Published June29, 2017 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2600


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