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


April 17, 2008

Minutes

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the minutes from April 3, 2008 meeting.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito

Application #2008-11 – John Olson – 215 Randall Avenue – Block 130; Lot 18 – Applicant wishes to construct an open front porch to existing family dwelling.

John Olson, applicant, sworn. Exhibits A-3 & A-4 entered, photos depicting home in current condition. Applicant stated that the home is in need of repair. Applicant will be renovating home in addition to the front porch. Applicant purchased this property two (2) years ago to protect boundaries of current property. Intention is to improve home and rent on a yearly basis. Home is consistent with other homes frontages in the neighborhood. Applicant did not realize that the steps were included in the measurement of the front set back. Upon further review it was determined by the Board that the applicant should return at a future date when architectural drawings are in place to show certain measurements and style.

Motion by Mr.Pasola second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2008-11 to June 19th, 2008 without notice.

In favor: Pasola, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Reilly and Ardito

Let the record reflect that Chairman Struncius has arrived.

Application #2008-02 – Robert Halter – 68A Inlet Drive – Block 176; Lot 11.02 – Applicant wishes to replace existing shed with 10’ x 10’ shed.

Applicant Robert and Nina Halter, sworn. Applicant is also requesting a certificate of non-conformity. Pictures entered A-3 through A-7. A-4 showing applicant’ home; A-3, existing shed; A-5 shows rear fence; A-6, Shrimp Box parking lot and their fence; A-7, cold storage shed facility owned by Gates motel. A-8 Tax appraisal document showing home built in the 1960’s. 2006 Ordinance passed making home non-conforming in the MC zone. Applicant’s existing shed is 5 x 8 feet; Height is 7’ x 6’. The new sheds height will be 9’ 7” feet. Shed was previously utilized as a shower house. Shed will be used for storing bicycles and beach things.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Pasola – I have no problem with an 8 x 10 foot shed.

Mr. Ardito – Looking at the drawing that Ray did it appears that the 8 x 10 shed would fit the best.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I am in favor of the 8 foot by 10 foot shed.

Mr. Reilly – I am in favor of the 8 foot by 10 foot shed. I would have been in favor of the 10 foot by 10 foot. I must say that it is the specific location that makes me in favor of it. You are surrounded by a motel and a parking lot; cannot get upset about it.

Mr. Moberg – That is why I am in favor of it because of the neighbors on either side; there would be no negative impact.

Motion by Mr. Pasola second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-02 with conditions and also to issue applicant a certificate of non-conformity.

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

Conditions

1. The shed will not have any utilities.

2. The shed will maintain the existing side yard setback on the northwest side; it will be set back 2 feet from the house and 5 feet from the fence.

3. The height of the shed is not to exceed 10 feet in height.

4. The Board decided that the proposed shed will not exceed 8 feet by 10 feet.


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 (2003-35) allowing 39.6% building coverage. Applicant would now like to construct a second floor bedroom over existing deck.
Applicant carried without notice

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. This is a continuation of a previous meeting. The applicant has had an architect draw the addition. It truly made a difference in perception seeing it drawn professionally; Impervious is still 48%. This is an elevated structure which maintains the open area underneath. This home has elevations with dimensions and cuts. This is an aesthetic enhancement; this is not a McMansion. The Waivada’s are planning on moving their elderly mother in with them.
Mr. Daley, architect, tied in the addition nicely with the home. Mr. Moberg stated that he is still struggling with the 36% building coverage.

Angelique Castin – Waivada’s next store neighbor on the west side stated that she is in favor of this addition.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Pasola – I do not rally like this application but I do not think it will be detrimental to the neighborhood. I would vote yes simply because I do not think it will hurt anybody.

Mr. Struncius – I think we are looking at a structure that is not at all boxy. It is architecturally a little nicer; the home at 30.3% and then decking. This home borders a lake; they are not intruding on other homes. I think it is an enhancement. I would be in favor.

Mr. Moberg – The case was presented as an addition over a deck. This is truly 6% over in building; the deck was already there. It has no negative impact but it is a lot of coverage.

Mr. Wolfersberger – Architecturally it is fine, but 36% is 36% no matter how you cut it. Our ordinance says 30%.

Mr. Reilly – Suppose this came in as a package; would I vote for this? I do not think so.

Mr. Palisi – I do frown upon applicants that keep coming back and asking for more. 30.3% does not concern me much; the other piece is the fact that the style and volume of this home is what we would like to see more of. The home has character.

Mr. Ardito – You made a compelling case for your client. I would be in favor with the condition that the bottom cannot be enclosed.

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Mr. Palisi to approve application #2007-22 with conditions.

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

Conditions

1. The Board was very concerned about granting this variance because it concluded that enclosing the porch would have a substantial negative impact. To assure the Board and to encourage their approval, the applicant promised never to enclose the porch, however, this promise does not preclude the applicant from making such a request to the Board.

Application approved with conditions

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, applicant; Krys Koszykowski, husband of applicant, sworn.
Applicant stated that she will remove enough concrete to comply with the 50% impervious. Applicant’s have taken into consideration the Board’s and neighbor’s concerns. Exhibits A-3- picture of patio & A-4 – picture of the driveway. Applicant is now just requesting variance for steps on the front porch.

Deliberations

Moberg – I think this is pretty straight forward. The applicant listened to us and made adjustments; I have no problem with it as it stands.

Ardito – The system works well when they hear what we say. This is a slam dunk in my opinion.

Motion by Reilly second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2007-22 with conditions.

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


Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board


Published May16, 2008 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 566


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