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 17, 2008


The January 17, 2008 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Moberg, Struncius and Leonard Alternates: Reynolds, Reilly and Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of the January 3, 2008 Reorganization meeting.

In favor: Moberg, Reilly and Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2007-11 of the First Presbyterian Church with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Struncius, Leonard, Reynolds, Reilly and Ardito

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote extending Resolution #2006-50(a)2 of the White Sands.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Struncius, Leonard, Reynolds, Reilly and Ardito


Motion by Mr. Struncius and second by Mr. Palisi to nominate Greg Moberg as Chairman

At this time Mr. Moberg declines the nomination for personal reasons.

Motion by Mr. Palisi and second by Jim Wolfersberger to nominate Paul Struncius as Chairman.

In Favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Moberg, Leonard, Reynolds and Reilly

Motion by Mr. Moberg and second by Mr. Wolfersberger to nominate Mike Palisi as Vice-Chair

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Chairman Struncius, Moberg, Leonard, Reynolds and Reilly

Motion by Mr. Palisi and second by Mr. Leonard to nominate Jim
Wolfersberger as secretary.

In favor: Pasola, Chairman Struncius, Palisi, Moberg, Leonard, Reynolds and Reilly

Application#2007-15 – Frank & Christina Ranuro, 1 River Vista Lane; Block 118; Lot 3.06; Applicant wishes to construct a new single family dwelling. Applicant requesting to be withdrawn without prejudice since the plans for their home now comply.

Motion by Mr. Leonard and second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the withdrawal of application #2007-15 without prejudice.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Leonard, Reynolds and Reilly

Application #2007-17 – Kadri Mirzo, 106 Forman Avenue; Block 63, Lot 17; Applicant wishes to construct a 22’ by 22’ two car garage.

Mark Madaio, attorney for applicant.

Exhibits entered:

A-1 – Application
A-2 – Survey
A-3 – Plot Plan
A-4 – 2nd survey submitted (1 already on file)
A-5 – diagram of garage

Mark Madaio, stated:
a. 2 car Garage with dimensions of 22’ by 25’. Driveway will consist of crushed stone. This will prevent an increase in impervious coverage.
b. Trees will be preserved.
c. One holly tree will be removed for the garage. Client is offering to replace tree.
d. Utilities will be electric with simple breaker box.

Mark Madaio stated:
Benefits outweigh detriments by adding parking in a difficult area. It will occupy valuable play space. Fully conforming garage structure that requires a variance due to 3% overage in building coverage.

Board comments:
1. Mr. Leonard stated a 1 car garage and gravel driveway would also help the off street parking.
2. Mr. Wolfersberger clarified that coverage is 34.9% and that the plot plan is not to scale.
3. Mr. Pasola, commented that with 13 grandchildren wouldn’t the play area be more valuable? 32% or33% doesn’t cut it for me; I would like to see you get it down to 30%.
4. Mr. Palisi questioned the need for 35% building coverage. We battle with mass and rarely do we approve 35% building coverage. Doesn’t it make more sense for a 1 ½ car garage?
5. Ray Savacool stated that he has about 243 square feet to 30%.

Kadri Mirzo, applicant, sworn, stated:

a. Garage is 30’ from rear of home. (Mr. Savacool corrected the statement that the garage is 18’ off the corner of the home.)

Mark Madaio inquired about a 22’ by 22’ garage. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that it would still be 33.8%. Chairman Struncius stated that the board is not going to design the garage. Mark Madaio stated that the applicant would like to amend the application to have the garage 18 feet in width, 15 feet in height and bring coverage to 32.4%. The garage is going to be sided in stucco.


Mr. Reynolds – I would like to thank you for listening to our concerns and making the amendments. 18’ by 22’ will fit much better.
Mr. Wolfersberger – My perspective is that a 1 car garage and gravel in the back would take care of any parking concerns. There are no hardships; as it stands I will not be in favor.

Mr. Pasola – I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger. I do not see why they cannot go with a 1car garage. It is very tight back there. I would not be agreeable to this application.

Mr. Leonard – I feel that for the benefits of off street parking we would be better off with a one car garage. You are covering a lot of that backyard with a structure.

Mr. Reilly – 30.6% I might say maybe but down here that is a big difference.

Mr. Moberg – A lot of times that applications are granted for 1 or 2 percent over 30% it is for a deck because water passes through it and it percolates into the ground below; a deck is recreational, this is true building coverage. I would not be in favor.

Mr. Palisi - It is a beautiful home; but the thing that does concern me is that it is a big structure. Unfortunately for you I am going to agree with my fellow members. I think you could do a great job with a one car garage.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to deny application#2007-17 of Kadri Mirzo.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Moberg and Leonard
Opposed: Mr. Reynolds
Application denied

Application #2007-19 – – Helena Vinhas, 206 Baltimore Avenue; Block 125, Lot 17. Applicant installed brick pavers on a concrete base and extended a masonry front porch in the front yard setback.

Helena Vinhas and Krys Koszykowski, sworn and stated.

a. Applicant previously installed pavers over a concrete base which increased impervious to 57%.
b. Applicant stated they were misled by their mason who was recommended by previous owner. They tried to do everything correctly.
c. After cement slab was poured they were shut down by the zoning officer. Applicant did not understand rules and did not understand what impervious was.

Board questions

Mr. Palisi – Would this of met code if there was not a cement slab underneath? (Yes)

Mr. Ardito – How much concrete has been placed on your property? (quite a bit) Mr. Ardito inquired if it would be possible to remove concrete to bring to 50%. (Yes, but would be a hardship).

Mr. Palisi – Although each case is treated separately; are we setting a precedent? (DG-when you make interpretations you are setting a precedent)

Mr. Wolfersberger – It is over 7% - What is the size of that? (RS – 560 square feet; 10 feet off the patio width)

Mr. Leonard - inquired if they were willing to remove the concrete to comply. I would rather see you bring the cement in five (5) feet off the fence. I am not comfortable with you having fence to fence concrete.

Helena Vinhas stated that it would be a hardship because the pavers have already been cut.

Jay Reynolds – My major concern is that this property is on the lake and there is nowhere for the silt, sand and yard dirt to go except into the lake.

Dennis Galvin explained that if you are going to grant the variance you can ask them to trim the sides. If you are going to deny and make them comply at 50% you cannot ask them to do anything particular. They will just have to figure out how to comply.

Audience comments -

Christine Rierdon, 208 Baltimore Avenue – this property has been an issue for the past 9 years. These people have been lovely and tried to improve the environment. I also believe that he was not familiar with the environment. It didn’t even occur to me what the mason was doing. My concern is that this might cause a problem. It hasn’t yet; their yard is a about a 10 inches higher in height than ours. I know they did not intend to do this.

Herbert H. Keller – I feel badly about these people buying this place and not realizing what they are doing. Their patio is about 11 inches off the ground and then drops off into sand. The water has nowhere to go into the ground. I am concerned about the runoff and where it goes.

Board comments

Steve Ardito – We (New Jersey) have adopted a Flood Plane management plan that states your neighbors are not to adversely impact your property. Point Pleasant Beach is in the process of getting back in the rating system. FEMA will come in and check the type of variances we are granting.

Mr. Struncius – This is a unique case since the work has already been done. Should this be a case where the applicant gets more professional guidance?

Mr. Galvin – this is a difficult case. Which way is the water going to flow? We can let the applicant provide us with a storm water management plan.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to carry application #2007-19 of Helena Vinhas to April 17, 2008 without notice.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Moberg, Leonard and Reynolds.
Opposed - none

Meeting adjourned at 9:35pm
Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published February12, 2008 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 509

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