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


August 17, 2017

Minutes

AUGUST 17, 2017 BOA MINUTES

The August 17, 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, Mr. Reynolds, vice chair Reilly, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis and Mr. DePolo
Absent – Chairman Struncius and Ms. Crasper
Memorialize minutes –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the July 20, 2017 minutes –
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed: None


Memorialize Resolutions –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Davis to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-14 of Richard Mina – 103 New York Avenue with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed – None
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2017-23 of Jeanne Itak – 339 Curtis Avenue with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds, Schneider and Davis
Opposed – None


Application #2017-32 – Morcat Development LLC – 500 Trenton Avenue – Block 71; Lot 14 & 10 – Applicant wishes to construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling requiring a front yard setback variance.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that this is property on Route 35 and Trenton. This is a corner lot which has a double frontage.

John C. Amelchenko, Professional architect, sworn, credentials accepted, stated that the property is a conforming lot in the SF5 zone. The zone requires a 25 foot setback for the front and since there are two frontages it would make a very narrow home. Requesting a 25 foot setback from Route 35. The home is providing an aesthetic upgrade and a safe code compliant home. There is a box window and gables on the Route 35 side so it is not a blank wall. Parking requirement is three parking spaces and they are providing three parking spaces. There will be manufactured vinyl siding and simulated stone finish. Applicant will comply with all height regulations.
Mr. Reynolds questioned the height of the fence – Proposing 6 foot fence in rear yard which is compliant.
No audience questions/comments

Deliberations
Spader – Very supportive of this – very nice way to do the corner.
Kelly – Lot is already safer with being cleared - nice design – in favor

Reynolds- Corner lot – nice place – it fits on the property
Dixon – Echo everyone else - not much you can do with a corner lot – nice design
Schneider – Great addition to the area – difficult to build on a corner lot – nice design – in favor
DePolo - Property is on the highway – I think it will be just fine
Davis - agreed – compliant with what we do for corner lots – site line will be appreciated
Reilly – Agree with Mr. Amelchenko - we have a lot of these cases – in favor

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2017—32 of Morcat Development LLC – 500 Trenton Avenue with conditions
In favor – Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2017-24 – Charles Groeschke – 313F Curtis Avenue – Block 92; Lot 19.06/07 – LR Zone – Applicant wishes to erect a six (6) foot fence in the side yard.
Charles Groeschke, applicant, sworn, stated that he has built a conforming dwelling but due to the location he is requesting a 6 foot fence in the front yard to block the view of the neighbor’s yard. It is a private lane and the homes a situated differently. Vice chair Reilly inquired if there is a particular reason for this request. Charles Groeschke commented that the neighboring tenants do not take care of the property and wishes to block seeing the illegally parked cars. A-3 Exhibit entered – photo packet – Photo depicted Police activity at the neighboring home. The fence will start at the end of the dwelling (westerly corner) to the northeast corner of property. The fence will be 6 feet high and the gate will be 5 feet. Charles Groeschke clarified that the plot plan was wrong and the fence would start from the rear corner of the house; he referenced the easements.

Audience questions/comments
Janet Bobb – Property owner of 311B – Just wanted it clarified that the fence will not go down to the river and impede the view. (No) She agreed the fence would be fine if it begins at the end of the structure.
Deliberations
Spader – Appreciate the explanations – the testimony is acceptable – in favor with the clarification that the fence does not go down to the river.
Kelly – Concerned with the construction fence – Applicant has down an outstanding job – In favor
Reynolds – Main concern is the site line of the river – in favor
Dixon – Neighbor is happy – everything else has been said – in favor
Schneider – Doesn’t obstruct anyone’s view and considering the location – I am in favor
DePolo - Inquired about tapering the fence from 6 feet to 5 feet. Is aware about long history of parking problems and calls to the police. In favor if it helps with the parking situation.
Davis – In agreement with all that has been said. It could have been a 6 feet fence legally on the neighboring property. It boils down to a case of good fences make good neighbors.
Reilly – Hearing the testimony and seeing the pictures I am in agreement but for appearances sake please taper it down near the end.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2017-24 – Charles Groeschke – 313F Curtis Avenue – Block 92; Lot 19.06/07 with conditions
Conditions

1. The fence will be constructed from the same materials as the fence on the south side of the property.
2. Fence will not extend past SW corner of the house.
3. East portion of fence will taper down to 5 feet for the last 8 foot section of the fence.

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider, DePolo and Reilly
Opposed: None
Chairman Struncius has arrived

Application #2017-16 – William/Sylvie Fairclough – 30 Niblick – Block 132; Lot 24 - Applicant is lifting existing single family dwelling and would like to construct a new deck in the rear of the dwelling. Applicant is requesting 5 bulk variances.

Adam Steuerman, attorney for applicant’s, stated that he has experts and the applicant to give testimony. William Fairclough sworn, stated that he is also the construction manager. Mr. Reynolds questions if the house is already raised and the deck is already constructed? (Yes) Mr. Spader inquired if they received a stop work order?
Daniel Wheaton, Professional architect, credentials accepted. William Fairclough, applicant, sworn. Daniel Wheaton stated that he has reviewed all documents and is prepared to testify. Existing home that has been raised would not have needed a variance if they had not removed the rear sun room. The only thing that is increasing building coverage is the stairs. Home is now in line with the other houses on the street. They were able to decrease impervious coverage by removing concrete. Chairman Struncius was concerned that there is only 5 feet between the home and the pool. (Homeowners responsibility). Daniel Wheaton reviewed the requested variances. The deck is in the location of where the sunroom was. William Fairclough stated that this will be their residence and not rented - The steps will have a mahogany trim and railing; they are trying to add as much wood as possible and the foundation will have stone faηade on front and sides. Mr. Reynolds stated his concern with the safety of the pool and the closeness to the deck. Daniel Wheaton stated the there is no variance required for the pool being close to the home. Chairman Struncius reminded the board that we are not supporting work done ahead of time but we look at the application with the mind set of “is this something that we would have approved”.
Adan Steuerman gave closing statement.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations

Spader - Basically has a couple concerns about the pool – but with the explanation am leaning towards approval.
Kelly – Once a gain we have a deck that was started without approval – have no problem – more concerned with people jumping off the garage into the pool. Just tired of the forgiveness cases. Just can’t see how people have rented these homes since the storm and are just elevating them.
Reilly – I think it is a nice house as well – with testimony and explanation about the deck I think I will be OK with it.
Reynolds – Beautiful design – you know how I feel about the deck – still think it is a little close to the pool. Once again these forgiveness cases – we have other things to do with our lives. Other than that I really feel it is a nice house.
Schneider – Considering the alternative and leaving it like that – you can only regulate safety so much – I think it is a good design.
DePolo – Obviously the additional building coverage is because the house got raised – I do not have problem with it.
Davis – The bulk variances are a result of the elevation of the house. In favor
Struncius – Remind the board – you are not forgiveness unless you are alright with the design. The last time someone came in we asked them to rip part of it down. There are applicants that are going to come in that will not receive forgiveness and get told to tear it down. We are agreeing with this because all they did was raise the home. We now have a safer compliant aesthetically pleasing home.

Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. DePolo to approve application #2017-16 – William/Sylvie Fairclough – 30 Niblick – Block 132; Lot 24 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved

Application #2017-21 – Ron Reid – 154 Baltimore Avenue – Block 132; Lot 12 - Applicant wishes to add a new deck in the rear of existing single family dwelling. Home previously received variance #2013-05 for Building coverage, height and rear yard setback.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the home is located on Lake Louise and the applicant would like to step out of there kitchen onto the deck. John C. Amelchenko, sworn, stated that this deck would enable them to enjoy the yard without having to go down the stairs. John Jackson stated that the yard is pavers which leads down to a beautiful beach and that impervious will remain the same. John
Amelchenko stated that the deck will be fiberglass with decking over it so they will be able to sit under it. Chairman Struncius said that we are truly adding building coverage because water will not be able to go through the deck – so the water will be pitched some way. Ray Savacool clarified that building coverage is increased by 2%; impervious coverage is increased by 1%.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberation
Spader - very simply put when you build a new house you cannot think of everything. A covered porch with a lake in the background is a natural. It is not imposing on anyone. The covered patio will be very popular.
Kelly – No problem
Reynolds – I’m good – it is diminimus and in the backyard
Reilly – I do not see a problem – it will be fine
Schneider – No problem
DePolo – no brainer
Davis – There is a water retention system in the back – in favor
Struncius – 32.67% may be diminimus in this situation because the home is on the lake but that might not be diminimus in other situations. It makes complete sense – in favor

Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Schneider to approve application #2017-21 – Ron Reid – 154 Baltimore Avenue – Block 132; Lot 12 with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo and Struncius+
Opposed: None
Application approved

Vice chair Reilly has recused himself from the Bamonte application

Application #2017-17 – Marc/April Bamonte – 6.5 Beachcomber Lane a/k/a/ unit #12 – Block 121 – Lot 6.05 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family dwelling.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated the applicant is looking to build a new FEMA compliant home which is a substantial upgrade to what is there. Mary Ortman, Professional architect, sworn, credentials accepted, described the zone and the existing bungalow. It will be replaced with a new two-story home. The home will now allow two cars to be parked.
Exhibit A-3 – Photograph depicting parking condition. The foundation will be cedar coverings. The home is slightly under 25 feet, which is conforming. The roof terrace will have a low wall and a railing. Ray Savacool explained why he determines this house to be a two story structure. Mr. Davis inquired why the home will not be moved forward to allow more room in the rear. Mary Ortman replied that the association wants the home built in the same foot print. Mr. Reynolds inquired where the compressors are going to be. (Behind the screen wall in slope of roof)

No audience questions comments

Deliberations
Spader – We have had a number of applicants from the bungalow section and I was reluctant to go to a story and a half and this is two story. Glad the association approves because they have to live there.
Kelly – Very concerned with fire calls – they are in such close proximity – nice design
Reynolds – Main concern is we are getting a beautiful design – thinks the parking is genius. It is in the same footprint – in favor
Schneider - I agree – having a fire rated structure replacing what is there is an improvement. The association approved it – over all it is an improvement
DePolo – Like the design of the home – the association approved it – stayed in the footprint
Davis – Find myself falling on the side of consistency – there are at least 4 on Beachcomber that are a story and a half. The association is happy – I think this is where everyone will be. I think it is a modest design and it would be a welcome improvement.
Struncius – Maybe there will come a point that we will not call it a bungalow district and it will be a small home district. I do think that aesthetically we get that improvement along with fire rating. We do get the upgrades that come with a new home. Most of the bungalows are not safe in their present condition. This is the modernization that is happening – this is a change that is slowly happening.
Motion by Mr. Spader second by Mr. Schneider to approve Application #2017-17 – Marc/April Bamonte – 6.5 Beachcomber Lane a/k/a/ unit #12 – Block 121 – Lot 6.05 with conditions

In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Schneider, DePolo, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions






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


Published October10, 2017 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2674


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