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 19, 2007

MINUTES

The July 19, 2007 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: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Simon and Mrs. Tooker Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialized the minutes from June 21, 2007.

In favor: Moberg, Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard, Reilly and Ardito……………Yea
Opposed: None

Let the record reflect that Mr. Struncius has joined the meeting.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-52 of Ron Keller with conditions.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Reilly and Ardito….…..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Simon to memorialize the action and vote memorializing the action and vote approving application #2006-53 of the Residences at Bay Pointe LLC with conditions.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Leonard and Reilly…. ………………….Yea

Opposed: None

Letter from Dean Daley Re: Massood Resolution #2005-38 – Mr. Daley explained that at the time of the application the rear stairs were not included in the building coverage calculations. Requesting to amend the resolution to include the rear stairs at a total of 30.3% building coverage.

Motion by Mrs. Tooker, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to amend application #2005-38 to approve building coverage total of 30.3%.

In favor: Moberg, Struncius, Wolfersberger and Tooker
Opposed: None

Application #2007-03 – Dennis & Denise Gesumaria, 415 Richard Avenue; Block 161, Lot 21; Applicant wishes to add a second story to existing single family dwelling and install a 15 x 27 foot in-ground swimming pool. (Carried without notice) Denise Gesumaria, not having attended the previous meeting was sworn. Pictures entered

The applicants having listened to the suggestions of the board revised the application as follows.

a. The building coverage request was reduced to 37.92% from 38.5.

b. The proposed front yard setback to the stairs, which was increased from 18 feet to 20 feet. 25 feet is required.

c. The proposed rear yard setback to the new deck is 22 feet, whereas 30 feet is required.

The reduction and relocation of the pool eliminate the side yard setback violations. The Board felt the 5-foot deviation in the rear yard was offset by the existing easement on the property to the rear of the dwelling.

Ray Savacool, Board Engineer commented that the applicant reduced the impervious coverage and eliminated and need for that variance.

Deliberations –


Mr. Leonard – I am really glad to see that you made the changes we had suggested. I was concerned about the pool. I would be in favor with the changes.

Mr. Struncius – Anytime I face these decisions it becomes a volume issue for me in terms of going up on the property line on the setbacks. Here I think the volume is in the main pitch of the roof and the architect did a good job with the dormers. I do think you worked with us and made some changes. I would be in favor.

Mr. Reilly – I was quite critical last time and I am glad that you made the changes. I would be in favor.

Conditions

1. The applicants will comply with the FEMA requirements.

2. The shed is to be removed.

3. The tree in the front yard will be trimmed but is to be retained.

4. The pool mechanicals shall not be more than 5 feet of the property line and will otherwise be placed in a conforming location.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2007-03 with conditions.

In favor: Simon, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Leonard….Yea
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2006-54 – George Walsh, 103 Atlantic Avenue, Block 63, Lot 2; Applicants property currently has a variance that allows five (5) apartments. Applicant would like to reduce the number of apartments to four (4) and utilize habitable attic space. Applicant would like to enclose existing wood porch and existing upper balcony on west side to be included in apartment's habitable space. Ray Bogan, attorney for applicant. Dean Daley, Professional Architect. According to the application the applicant is looking for the following the variances; Front setback of eight (8) feet; Proposed building coverage of 35.9%, where 30% is required; 4 parking spaces where 8 are required; Impervious coverage of 52.2% whereas 50% is required; and for the proposed expansion of a non-conforming use. Application is a use variance; property presently has a use variance to operate as a 5 unit apartment and applicant wishes to reduce to “4” units. The first and second floor will have two units. The total bedroom count will be “9”. The drive way will consist of pavers and stones. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner testified that this is an expansion of a non-conforming use. The proposal furthers the MLUL as the renovations and improvements enhance the quality of the building. The building will be upgrade to meet safety codes. The proposal will meet Federal Flood Hazard requirements.

The Board found the applicant’s proposal to be attractive and that the plans should be revised so that the four parking spaces will head in a northerly direction.


Deliberations –

Mr. Wolfersberger – Use previously approved 15 years ago and purchased with that permitted use. My understanding is that setbacks and building coverage will remain the same and reducing one unit. In favor

Mr. Struncius – Building being brought up to code and the reduction in density is a plus. I am in favor.

Mr. Reilly - This is a tough one for me. I appreciate the improvements but I am not so sure about the density argument. On balance I can agree with this based on the improvements. I would be in favor.

Mr. Leonard – I too am not sold on the reduction because the numbers of bedrooms are increasing. With that said I would be in favor with the improvements.

Mr. Moberg – I have been forever against the use of more than one rental unit in an SF5 zone but this was preexisting condition. The improvements are a necessity. Mr. Daley’s work is miraculous when it comes to taking less than appealing homes and turning them into show pieces. Since the use is there I will also reluctantly be in favor of this application.



Conditions


1. Prior to gaining any building permit, the applicant shall provide a certification from the Borough Treasurer that all taxes, municipal assessments and penalties are paid to date.

2. The Lighting Plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer

3. The parking layout is to be reviewed and approved by the board’s engineer to ensure that it complies with the testimony at the time of the hearing. The four spaces will be revised to head in a northerly direction. The revised plan must also comply with the impervious coverage requirements of the ordinance.

4. The parking spaces are to be delineated and designated as one (1), two (2), three (3), and four (4), with one each being dedicated to the four dwelling units.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application#2006-54 with conditions.

In favor: Simon; Struncius; Wolfersberger; Moberg; Tooker; Leonard; Reilly

Opposed: None


Application approved with conditions


Application#2007-09– Jim Liotta, 317 Central Avenue, Block 107, Lot 9; Applicant proposes to continue the existing residential use of the subject property. Two dwellings currently exist at the site and applicant is proposing demolition of one of the existing dwellings and the construction of a new dwelling in its place.

John Jackson, attorney for the applicant stated that the prior owners filed an application for interpretation (application 2002-21) that the two (2) principal structures were a valid preexisting nonconforming use. The Board approved the application on August 1, 2002 and was memorialized on August 15, 2002; the dwelling in the rear yard will be continued to be used as a rental. The applicant will utilize the second residence on the property until the new home is constructed; the proposed home will be constructed with hardy plank siding with a tin roof over the hip roof.

The Applicant’s Professional Planner/Engineer, Timothy Lurie stated that the applicant seeks to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling, while retaining a second residential dwelling on the property; A use variance is required because there are two (2) principal dwellings on the property, whereas only one is permitted. The existing home and detached garage are in violation of the setback requirements of the zone. The proposal is consistent with the surrounding property owners. The proposal furthers the Municipal Land Use Law, as the new home will comply with all setback and coverage requirements of the zone. In addition, the new home will comply with all current building and safety codes. The proposed home will comply with the Flood Hazard Regulations. The storm water management has been designed to accommodate the 100-year storm standard. The proposed home is aesthetically pleasing and will have no substantial negative impacts on the surrounding property owners.

Jim Liotta, applicant; He stated that his first home that he built on Sanborn was natural materials and the new home will be similar. This new home will be hardy plank with a tin roof. The home will be in the “green” family and he will be occupying the front home.

Tom Heighton, 314 Parkway – Owns property at 400 Central. Thinks this would be a great improvement to the neighborhood.

David Cavagnaro , 118 Parkway – Spoke in favor of the applicant. Excellent opportunity for the town to have someone that is committed to the community stay as a resident.

Deliberations –

Mr. Leonard – We will be replacing a home that is in disrepair and replacing with an aesthetically pleasing home that is up to code and meeting the flood elevation regulations. It is an improvement to the neighborhood. I am not that concerned with the renter because Mr. Liotta has 3 children and he will be careful about whom he rents to. I am in favor

Mr. Reilly – I do not see any negatives here; pretty simple for me. In favor

Mr. Wolfersberger – I think it is a great improvement to what’s there. I am in favor of what was represented here.

Mr. Moberg – Very much in favor of the application as presented. I recommend that we have foundation plantings.


Conditions -

1. The applicant is to provide a recharge trench in lieu of drywells.

2. The applicant’s Engineer is to submit the Drainage Plan together with drainage calculations to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

3. The applicant is to install foundation plantings. A Landscape Plan showing the foundation plantings is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2007-09 with conditions.

In favor; Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly

Meeting adjourned


Published September18, 2007 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 455


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