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


February 21, 2008

Minutes

The February 21, 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 and Alternates; Reilly and Ardito present.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize February 7, 2008 minutes.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Moberg, Struncius, Leonard and Reilly

Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorializes the action and vote denying application #2007-17, 106 Forman Avenue of Kadri Mirzo

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Palisi, Moberg

Let the record reflect that Chairman Struncius has arrived.

Application #2008-04 – Conrad J. Vuocolo, 9; Lot 8. Applicant wishes to construct a handicap ramp to a new deck in rear of dwelling. Ramp and deck will be in place of concrete patio.

Mike Vuocolo, speaking on behalf of his father who is too ill. He has power of attorney in this matter. Pictures taken yesterday entered as A-3 (1 through 9)
Mike Vuocolo stated that:

1. Father is 86 years old and suffers from Multiple Myloma. He also has a broken arm and leg with steel rods in both legs.
2. Deck is 16 feet at its widest point. Ramp is 4 feet wide.
3. Proposing to end ramp no further than front of flower box.
4. Slant of ramp is quarter inch a foot.
5. Will not have a negative impact on neighbors.
6. Can remove ramp when no longer needed.
7. Removing concrete patio and flag stone.


Mr. Palisi inquired if there is any way to reduce the deck to get closer to 30%? Mike Vuocolo stated that it would create a hardship.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Pasola: I have no problem at all with the application.

Mr. Reilly: I think this is a very reasonable request considering the circumstances.

Mr. Wolfersberger: I have no problem with the application.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Pasola to approve application #2008-04 with conditions.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2007-20 – Cathy Windt, 1619 Ocean Avenue. Block 179.02; Lot 13.05. Applicant constructed outside shower.

Cathy Windt, applicant, sworn. Pictures entered A-3 (1 through6). Pictures taken in February of 2008. Applicant stated:

1. Applicant built outdoor shower without prior approval.
2. Claims she did not know that permit was necessary.
3. Built shower for parents.
4. Pictures show that it is within side setback.
5. Water drains to the town sewer system.
6. Shower is .6% building coverage increase.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Palisi – If you came before us with no shower I would of said yes. It is deminimus. It does not have a negative impact.

Mr. Reilly – Do you still need this if you build your new bathroom? (CW – I would like it)

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Pasola to approve application #2007-20 with conditions.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2007-21 – William McGowan, 111 Riverside Place. Block 152; Lot 10. Applicant wishes to construct a partial second story.

William McGowan, applicant, sworn.
John Amelchenko, Professional architect, stated:

1. Home is single level ranch.
2. Approximately 1,400 square feet
3. Open front porch that faces Riverside Drive.
4. Increase square footage and enhance the home aesthetically.
5. Undersized lot (4,924 square feet)
6. Existing non-conformities: building coverage, lot size and setbacks
7. Not adding to existing non-conformities.
8. Addition will give a total of 1,900 square feet.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations


Mr. Palisi – It is a pleasure to have an applicant come in with challenges and present something that has sensitivities to mass. It isn’t an eyesore. I think it is beautiful.

Mr. Reilly – I think it is beautiful as well.

Mr. Pasola – I agree that it is a beautiful addition. In favor.

Mr. Moberg – It is deminimus. Mr. Amelchenko has put addition within the existing setbacks. In favor.


Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2007-21 of William McGowan with conditions.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None


Application #2007-22 – Thomas & Mona Waivada, 13 Trenton Avenue. Block 81; Lot 8. Applicant had previously received a variance to construct a deck that exceeded building coverage. Applicant was granted another variance (2000-35) allowing 39.6% building coverage. Applicant would now like to construct a second floor bedroom over existing deck.

Thomas Waivada, applicant sworn, stated:

1. Proposing to build addition over existing deck.
2. Addition will be built on stilts over the top of the deck.
3. Deck will remain open.
4. Windows will be facing lake and one window facing the north.
5. Will not be blocking neighbor’s light or air.


Mr. Wolfersberger is concerned about the pool being located so closely to the addition.

Mr. Waviada said the pool is located 16 feet away from the existing structure; the addition will extend 12 feet so it will be 4 feet from the pool. Ray Savacool explained that it looks to be 2 feet away from the addition. Building coverage is now figured at 36% because pools are no longer calculated into building coverage. Mr. Moberg stated that the Board previously approved the building coverage because it was a deck. Now the water will be sent somewhere else. Thomas Waivada commented that they live on a lake and that the water is probably going there. Mr. Wolfersberger is not happy with the quality of the rendering; he wants to know exactly what it is going to look like. Mr. Palisi commented that a building structure is much more intrusive than a deck. Mr. Palisi wants architectural drawings; that will not be a guarantee of an approval. Mr. Reilly concurs.

No audience questions/comments

Chairman Struncius clarified that the applicant has a choice; to come back with professional testimony and architectural drawings or the board can vote right now. You have the opportunity to come back; there is no guarantee. We want to avoid having a massive structure on the back of the house.

Motion by Mr. Ardito second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2007-22 to March 20, 2008 without notice.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2007-16 – 308 Boardwalk, LLC. C/o Dave Bassinder. 308 Boardwalk, Block 212; Lot 1.01. Applicant installed retractable roof enclosure over portion of the Tiki Bar.
Applicant is looking for interpretation of ordinance 19-8.4.

Ron Gasiorowski, attorney for applicant.
1. Applicant is seeking relief.

David Bassinder, applicant, sworn, stated;
1. He is the owner of Martell’s.
2. Martell’s is a Bar and Restaurant that has been in business for over 50 years.
3. A-4 – Pictures of Tiki Bar and enclosure
4. Picture 1 - Shows structure in closed position
5. Roof will remain retracted in nice weather; solely for inclement weather
6. Roof will make it a safer environment in rainy weather.
7. It does not allow more people on deck.
8. Roof must be retracted when the sun is out because it is too hot underneath.
9. Structure is open on the sides.
10. Roof is 16 feet off the deck in height.

Mike Palisi inquired about the safety of the structure in a Northeastern. Dave Bassinder replied that he has one of these roof enclosures at his other business for 6 years and has not had a problem with it.

Gordon Gemma, Professional Planner, sworn, credential accepted, stated:

1. Reviewed Master Plan and the Master Plan reexamination Report
2. Reviewed Ordinance 19.8-4A
3. Referred to picture board and the fact that the roof structure cannot be seen from the boardwalk or beach. The structure is surrounded by building.
4. Referred to appellate case “Pennsauken b Shad 307 NJ Super 493”. When a Board interprets an Ordinance it has to look at the intent.
5. Look at intent of ordinance and he believes it was not meant for this.
6. Master Plan is to encourage recreational uses.
7. Believes this would be a D-2 variance. Use is clearly permitted.

Gordon Gemma went on to conclude:

In this instance because it is an interior structure, on an existing building
and does not violate any bulk ordinance and I do not believe it is applicable. This use is clearly permitted in this zone. If we needed a use variance it would clearly be a D-2 for an expansion of a non-conforming use. It does not increase the square footage of the deck. The extension will be like an umbrella and only utilized during inclement weather .The extension will promote safety because no one will run when it starts raining. This meets the criteria for a D-2 expansion of a non-conforming use. Any construction of a permitted use that does not require a bulk variance and does not obstruct the view should not require a variance east of the boardwalk. If it doesn’t impact an ordinance you shouldn’t be here.

Mr. Wolfersberger – the opposite is that you want an interpretation from us that impacts the other properties east of the boardwalk.

Mr. Struncius – You are asking us to draw a line and define it in black and white. You need a grey area.

Ron Gasiorowski – You might feel that in this case we do not need a use variance.

Mr. Pasola – I feel that you should not have to come here every time you want to put a nail in or a window. You should come when you have a massive addition.

Mr. Galvin believes that if you are feeling ok with this structure as Mr. Moberg pointed out -you look to the requirements of the RC zone to reconcile the Master Plan because it cannot be seen and is not blocking any views.

Ron Gasiorowski believes that the ordinance does not pertain to this structure. If the board rules adversely to the interpretation the applicant is ready to go forward with the “use” variance to allow this structure.

Mr. Galvin – The board does not make policy. We need to figure out what the legislative intent was. We are not making law here.

Deliberations on Interpretation

Mr. Wolfersberger – I believe the intent of the ordinance meant no building east of the boardwalk. I agree with the zoning officer. This does not mean I would not agree to the structure. I think that anyone who wants to develop east of the boardwalk should before us.

Mr. Palisi – This isn’t fixing a window or fixing a door. I believe it should come before us. This does not mean I would not be in favor of the variance.

Mr. Moberg – This item here has no impact on what the master plan says. It preserves the view of the beach and the ocean. It has no impact at all. I feel this does fit this. I believe the town fathers in my opinion meant that if the applicant was going to expand and build something that blocked the view of the ocean;

Mr. Struncius – Our interpretation has life beyond this particular structure. This particular structure puts scale to things for me; it says to me that “wow” you can put up something up that is fairly significant and it can be a real architectural element and I am thankful that I can vote on it. What we are talking about is an interpretation that goes on beyond this application. That is what grounds me and that is what I am concerned with is what goes on.

Mr. Pasola – I am going to agree with Mr. Moberg. I don’t think the intent was for items that do not add to the non-conformity. These pictures do not do it justice. It does not violate height ordinance.

Mr. Reilly – I think this is a reasonable proposal; but I believe this is a structure and I cannot believe that the father’s behind this were only concerned with the view of the ocean. To say it is fine because it is there and over another structure and it doesn’t violate the height ordinance; I am having a terrible time with that.

Motion by Mr. Moberg, second by Mr. Pasola that ordinance 19-8.4 does not effect this site or canopy in any way using the statements made in the Master Plan as his basis.

In favor: Pasola, Moberg
Opposes – Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly and Ardito

Motion denied

Motion by Mr. Palisi second by Mr. Reilly that the ordinance 19-8.4 applies to this location

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: Pasola, Moberg


Deliberations for Variance

Mr. Pasola – I have no problem with the application as presented; for safety reasons.

Mr. Reilly – I agree, I see no problems with the application.

Mr. Palisi – I believe the application meets the positive and negative criteria and promotes the master plan. In addition it provides an important safety component. I am in favor.

Mr. Moberg – This variance in no way impairs the intent and purpose of the zoning plan. It does not affect the light air or view of the ocean front. In favor

Mr. Struncius – As technology evolves this allows the owner to enhance the site. I do believe this expands the use; but it is a positive because it promotes safety. I do not see any real negative to surrounding properties.

Mr. Ardito – I do not have a problem with the size; there is no negative impact. I am curious how you got it constructed without a permit. Perhaps we have found part of our ordinance that needs to be addressed.

Motion by Mr. Pasola second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2007-16 as presented with waiver of site plan.

Variance granted

Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published March12, 2008 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 526


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