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

JUNE 9, 2008




Vice Chairman Neumaier stated that this is a regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Planning Board and adequate notice of this meeting was given by publication in the Ocean Star and by posting a copy of said notice in the front office of the Borough Hall.
Members present: Vice-Chairman Tom Neumaier, Mary Mossa, Jason Shamy, Jim Harris, Tom Spader, and Mike Brodeur.
Also present was Dennis Galvin, Esq., Planning Board Attorney and Raymond Savacool, Planning Board Engineer.
Motion by Mr. Brodeur, seconded by Mrs. Mossa and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present: Vouchers submitted approved for payment.
The Resolution of Denial was scheduled for adoption. Mr. Galvin advised the Board that he spoke with Wayne Peck, Esq., who advised him that Board Member, Mary Mossa, is married to Councilman Raymond Cervino and Mr. Peck believes this is a conflict. Mr. Galvin indicated he did not realize that Mrs. Mossa was married to the Councilman. He concurs with Mr. Peck that her participation in the hearing poses a conflict of interest. As a result, Mr. Peck agreed to have the application re-heard at the next Planning Board meeting which is July 14, 2008. Mr. Peck would present his case, witnesses etc. based on the revised application for a four lot subdivision. Mr. Peck will have to renotice to property owners and publish in the newspaper.

Additionally, after discussion by the Board members, it was the consensus that Tom Thomas, Planner, should also be present to give testimony on behalf of the Board.

Motion by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Brodeur and unanimously carried by roll call vote of those members present: Resolution approving amended site plan adopted. Resolution attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.

Motion by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Shamy and unanimously carried by roll call vote of those members present: Resolution approving amended site plan adopted. Resolution attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. (Mary Mossa not voting,)

Clerk advised Board members, Affidavit of Service on property owners and Affidavit of Publication of hearing notice in newspaper were reviewed and found to be in order.

Steven Pardes, Esq., attorney for the applicant, stated the application submitted before the Board is a "cleaner" version of previous application for a two lot subdivision with variances, which was denied by the Board. Applicant has made changes to proposed subdivision, has submitted architectural plans for the single family house proposed for new lot, which applicant intends to build and live in.

John Amelchenko, Architect/Planner, sworn in and stated prepared plans for proposed new single family dwelling and confirmed reviewed letter of Planning Board Engineer, Raymond Savacool, dated May 12, 2008. On questioning from Mr. Pardes, Mr. Amelchenko stated:
1 prior application did not include architectural plans for proposed new home; Mr. Wenz approached my firm to provide proposal for a new home including responding to concerns of both the Board and neighbors as a result of the first hearing;
2. some of the fears expressed from prior hearing was that the plans showed a building envelope for the house on the new proposed lot but no details of what would be in the building envelope were provided;
3. in response to comments regarding the original 10 feet rear set back; we felt we had to increase that rear set back to lessen the burden on the neighbor; we proposed two story home approximately 2,300 sq. ft, 4 bedrooms with a rear set back of 20 feet; structure was moved closer to Blodgett with front porch having a 15 ft. front set back which is consistent with the existing house; no habitable third floor or attic; structure will only be two stories;

4. neighbors to rear will not see to story wall; we suggested a step effect - rear of house juts in and out; closest to rear property line is 20 ft.; structure then moves further away from property line;
5. property is in flood zone; 11 ft.; we are about 5 ft above level; height of house is currently at 34.3 ft. from top of curb to top of ridge of house;
6. external appearance: house will be of cedar, have double hung windows, metal roof, white columns; shallow front porch approx. 5 ft.; small foyer overall room sizes not that big; entire house less than 2,300 sq. ft, which is not all that large;
7. applicant proposes a free-standing one car garage
A-1 - front elevation of house
A-2 - 1st & 2nd floor plan of interior of house
A-3 - site plan
A-4 - garage plans
8. one car garage proposed, which meets all requirements as an accessory building; sits in the narrower part of the triangle; same style and material as house;
9. swimming pool located in front yard; we would prefer to have pool behind the house but felt this would be an additional burden on the neighbors to the rear; our design scheme allows for porch to wrap around to gazebo and pool; we would provide fencing and screening
10. house outside envelope; based on unique shape of triangular lot; house would be less than 700 sq. ft. if within the envelope provided; proposed house although outside building envelope is very modest in size
Mr. Harris questioned if the pool location was considered the side yard. Mr. Savacool indicated that it is located in the front yard on Blodgett; proposed new house will sit/front on Blodgett. Mr. Harris questioned whether or not an additional variance would be required for the pool. Mr. Savacool stated the applicant would need a variance, pool itself is 18.61 ft. from the front property line. Mr. Savacool also stated that the plans for the house would not exceed building coverage of proposed new lot; Mr. Harris also questioned if the drawing before the Board accurately depicts what the front would look like. Mr. Amelchenko stated that the the front would be graded 15ft of walkway with 5 ft. increase gracefully and that the finished floor plan would be 28 ft. Mr. Spader questioned if the floor of porch was the same as house. Ans. One step up.

Vice-Chairman Neumaier opened the hearing to public participation for questions only of Mr. Amelchenko:
Susan Johnson, 406 Elizabeth Avenue; stated she appreciated the presentation; looking at plans, there is a proposed 3rd story window; is that decorative only? Ans. Yes There will never be any living space? Ans. No. What about rear of house? Ans. Rear would have some type of adournment also. 20 ft. rear set back is only 2/3 of required set back and could height of house be reduced to lessen the impact. Ans. Him roof recedes; tried to balance back of building with esthetics, jutting in and out; we could look at overall type of building. Mrs. Johnson stated reduction of total height would be appreciated. Mrs. Johnson questioned what will happen to the large shade tree on back of property, which seem to be subject to construction.
Robert Burdick, P.E, was sworn in and stated that the tree is going to have to go; pool and concrete around pool; 6 ft. fence; if I could keep it I would; Mr. Amelchenko suggested possibly changing the shape of the pool would help.
Mark Johnson, 401 Elizabeth AVenlue; questioned what percentage of house is not within building envelope? Ans. Less than 200 sq. ft . of the 1st floor blueprint; 1/5 of house. What is the tower? Ans. Pulldown attic staircase.

Robert Burdick, P.E., was sworn in and stated he has reviewed the review letter dated May 16, 2008 of Planning Board Engineer, Raymond Savacool.

A-5 improvement plan dated January 23, 2008
A-6 improvement plan dated August 18, 2005

Mar. Burdick stated the following:
1. property was previously before Board at which time no architectural plans were submitted; prior application provided for a 10 ft. rear set back where 25 ft. is required; concerns of neighbors were taken into consideration; new layout provides for a 20 ft. set back in the rear, which is double what was previously proposed; applicant also provides architectural plans
Page 2
3. plans will be amended to show correct/required set backs

4. variances required:
Front: existing house is 10 ft.; would have to be torn down in order to comply; undue hardship
Lot Coverage: existing lot coverage for Lot 1; house would have to be torn down
Building Coverage: existing Lot 1; requesting 31.6 ft. where 30 ft. required; somewhat diminish in nature; overall coverage of both lots is 27.9%; Mr. Savacool questioned proce off back of existing house; 25 ft. or 29 ft.; Mr. Burdick indicated back steps not conforming; stated he believe the appropriate set back would be from house; Mr. Savacool stated main structure is 29 ft. but I would prefer having a variance granted for the stoop so that applicant does not run into any problems with zoning; Mr. Galvin questioned if the applicant wanted to revise application to include. Ans. Yes.
Lot Depth: must be measured perpendicular; actual lot depth is 42 ft. vs. required 100 ft; shape of property is unique; new lot will be perpendicular to roadway; Confirmed what Mr. Pardes stated that the present dwelling is located at the base of the triangle helps mitigates; additionally, set backs are function of uniqueness of the shape of the; we will provide buffer in areas; 6 ft board on board fence with vegetation to help soften the effect
Swimming Pool Variance: if pool relocated the size would be about 5 ft.
Mr. Burdick stated, in his opinion, that the variances requested can be granted for the property; both proposed lots are well in excess of required 5,000 sq. ft.; there is appropriate density; complies with MLUL; currently a large site triangular in shape; granting of subdivision would be an improvement
5. architectural plans were submitted and addressed by Mr. Amelchenko
6. parking will comply
7. grading and drainage plan will be submitted; Point Pleasant Beach has a strenuous ordinance for grading and drainage; drainage to road and if necessary we will have to provide recharge system; Mr. Burdick provided detail testimony regarding recharge systems
8. street trees: several trees are located around proposed lot 1.01; if Board wants additional trees for new lot, applicant will comply;
9. applicant is requesting waiver regarding sidewalks; no existing sidewalks in area; also, existing pine trees are located in area where sidewalk would be installed;
Applicant is requesting waiver regarding curbing; proposing to use that open area for drainage
10. sanitary and water service plans will be provided for approval;
11. new home will comply with Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
12,13,14 applicant will comply

Mr. Pardes questioned Mr. Burdick whether he would agree that there is a hardship created because of the shape of the property and that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the deteriments; and would you also agree that granting approval for lot of approx. 13,000 sq. ft. where 5,000 sq. ft. lots and where each; by subdivision advancing purpose of zoning. Mr. Burdick indicated yes.

On questions from Vice Chairman Neumaer, Mr. Harris and Mr. Savacool regarding the pool, Mr. Burdick stated the pool would be a good amenity for the property; newly created lot 1.01 exceeds lot size requirement; inground pool would be far lesser impact than a building; buffering would be provided; impact of pool on surrounding neighbors i.e. noise etc. would be dealt with by adequate buffering; fence would be as per Ordinance requirements; some noise from kids etc. is to be expected; landscaping would help appearance for neighbors across the street.

Mr. Spader questioned the flood elevation; area very wet; how are you going to handle the water situation. Discussion was held regarding the drainage system, elevation, whether ground level consistent with other lots and if property was built up it would be a worse situation.

Vice-Chairman Neumaier opened the hearing to public participation for questions only of Mr. Burdick:
Sal Millazzo, 405 Blodgett: stated he lives directly across the street and questioned whether he was aware there was a water problem in the area; Ans. Yes; whether anybody looked at the way the street is draining today; Ans. No Mr. Burdick stated draining will be to rear of site; all storm water will remain on the property; we are not proposing any pitch and/or grading to street; questioned whether Mr. Burdick was aware of the pitch on St. Louis
Susan Johnson, how will the drainage system work with the water table so high? Mr. Burdick stated the recharge system will go along the south side of property to catch basin; Mr. Burdick gave further details. Mr. Savacool added that the applicant must submit plans.
Hal Espo, 407 Blodgett: questioned regarding 2 year storm; Ans. Every other year; further explanation provided regarding drainage system; concept that the perforated piping delays water onto street
Rosemary Johnson: how deep do you test? Ans. 18 inches because of water table; - test holes will be four to six feet

There being no further questions of Mr. Burdick, Mr. Pardes stated he had no further witnesses. Vice Chairman Neumaier opened the hearing to public participation:
Joanne Sindel Millazzo, 405 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: living in area a long time; character of town is changing; big houses going up; Board needs to take this into consideration, town is becoming wall to wall houses.
William Sedlacek, 411 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: I think there is still a water issue; already a problem.
Hal Espo, 407 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: live directly across the street where the pool and garage will be; concern we loose a green view and see a pool; wants assurances we will see fencing, landscaping etc.
Patricia Mennuti, 409 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: water problem in area is issue
Mark Johnson, 406 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: we have set back of 30 ft.; proposal is for 20 ft.; house not as tall but there will be an infringement on our property; confused one plan had height of 35 ft; other plan had 31 ft.; actual height proposed is 34 ft.; wouldn't mind if they would lower their height; we are giving up 10 ft.
Susanne Johnson, 406 Blodgett, was sworn in and stated: we would like to be good and positive neighbors; they are asking for variances; we would encourage Board fro some type of balance regarding a height adjustment; requesting also that window not be planned on third level

There being no further public participation that portion of the hearing was declared closed.

Mr. Pardes stated that he would agree that that there should be some balancing of neighbors concerns. Reason for coming back after we incorporated previous concerns and we increased set back from original request of 10 ft to now proposed 20 ft; applicant has tried to address concerns. Mr. Amelchenko indicated he would possibly reduce height 2 ft.; however, with a 700 sq. ft building envelope we tried to design a house with as little impact as possible. Regarding the drainage issue, Mr. Pardes stated standing water on street is not something applicant can correct; applicant can only see that we will not make it worse; street is Borough problem.

Vice Chairman Neumaier questioned whether the applicant would be will to submit a rendering showing the proposed landscaping - come back in with a plan at the Board's next meeting. Further discussion was held regarding also showing rear of house - what it would look like; front of house with window out; type of fence around pool, landscaping around pool; buffer landscaping in rear. Applicant agreed to waive time period in which Board must act on the application.

Motion by Mr. Spader, seconded by Mrs. Mossa and unanimously carried by roll call vote: hearing continued to the July 14, 2008 Planning Board meeting

1. minutes of the Ocean County Planning Board meeting of May 7, 2008 and May 14, 2008; no action taken on property within Municipality.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Diane F. Johnson,

Published July23, 2008 | Planning Board Minutes | 621

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