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 14, 2008



Chairman Ammirata 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: Chairman Ammirata, Vice-Chairman Tom Neumaier, Jason Shamy, Jim Harris, Tom Spader, Mike Brodeur and Jeff Dyer, Mayor's Representative.
Also present was Dennis Galvin, Esq., Planning Board Attorney and Raymond Savacool, Planning Board Engineer.
Motion by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Shamy and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present: Vouchers submitted approved for payment.
Motion by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Spader and carried by roll call vote of those members present: Minutes approved as submitted. (Mr. Dyer abstained.)
Motion by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Spader and carried by roll call vote of those members present: Minutes approved as submitted. (Messrs. Ammirata and Dyer abstained.)
Chairman Ammirata announced that the Risden's application would not be heard this evening and would be rescheduled for the Planning Board's meeting on August 11, 2008.
Hearing carried from the June 9, 2008 meeting. Chairman Ammirata stated he was not present at the June 9, 2008 meeting but listened to tape of the hearing and signed the Certification.

Steven Pardes, Esq., attorney for the applicant, stated as a result of the hearing and request by the Board, there was a redesign of archectural plans and the subdivision plans showing site improvements, landscaping etc.

John Amelchenko, Architect/Planner, sworn in and stated changes were made to the plans as a result of comments from the Board and neighbors; met with the neighbors directly across the street; hired a landscaping consultant. Mr. Amelchenko advised the Board
1 gazebo structure which was part of the front porch has been removed; overall length of structure was reduced by 11feet which addresses concers about size of home; this additionally reduced the percentage of lot coverage;
2. removal of gazebo also allowed us to move the swimming pool eliminating one of the variances previously requested and which addresses the qualify of life concerns raised by the neighbors; allowed for a small enlargement of the front yard set back which previously was 15 ft. and is now 16.2 ft;
3. height of structure was reduced; prior height was 34.4 ft. from top of curb; now proposing height of 32.4 ft. from top of
4. provided rear elevation from the 6 ft. fence; showed evergreen buffer of 10-12 ft. tall along south property line to further buffer structure; 25 ft. tall crab apple treet will remain and 16-18 ft. tall dogwood tree to remain
5. plans show eave height now 23ft from grade; shows 10-12 ft. plantings
6. to satisfy concers of neighbors to the south, reduced number of windows in rear bedrooms two and three; windows reduced to two from 3; bay window replaced with transom window; no dormers or windows in attic space to reduce intrusion;
7. landscaper ha indicated on site plan abundance of very large trees on adjoining property to the south providing further buffer;

A-5 - rear and front of proposed house as revised 7/2/08 prepared by Amelchenko
A-6 - revised site plan dated 7/2/08
A-7 - 1st & 2nd floor plan dated 7/2/08
A-8 - landscape plane dated 6/24/08 prepared by Robert James Landscapers
A-9 - colored rending of property
A-10 - improvement plan dated 6/27/08 prepared by Robert Burdick, P.E.

8. 3 dimension picture of what proposed house would look like; from Blodgett; shows hoe proce and roof lines have softened the appearance of the house;
9. Mr. Burdick's numbers for zoning requirements on his plan are correct; our calculation for the imperviose coverage is a little less than what it should be; 33.2 is the correct number

Mr. Amelchenko stated to the Board that we have all tried to get together and meet the needs of both the applicant and the neighbors and also to address the concerns of the Board and neighbors.

Mr. Neumaier asked for verification as to the height of the structure being measured from the top of the curb? Yes. Mr. Neumaier also mentioned that at the back of the house where the fence is it appears that it is not going all the way behind the garage and if the Board wants the fence to be extended would the applicant be willing to extend it. Ans. Yes.

Robert Burdick, P.E., was sworn in and stated the following: confirmed applicant reduced the height of the structure 2 ft.; reduced number of windows; removed gazebo; location of swimming pool was moved back; location of garage was moved backr, which is double what was previously proposed; applicant also provides architectural plans.

In response to report dated July 9, 2008 of Raymond Savacool, P.E., Mr. Burdick stated:
3. Variances: swimming pool variance was eliminated; confirmed 2 variances were required for Lot 2 for rear yard where 24 ft. is proposed and 30 ft. is required; building coverage were 31.6% is proposed and 30 ft. is required; lot line could be moved but would effect variance for Lot 1.0; new new variances were requested; variances required are solely as a result of the triangular shape of the property
6. Drainage: shown on landscaping archectural plans southeast side of property rear area showing 2 ft. high raised burm - must be eliminated in order to take care of drainage; gave location of proposed drainage systems (five) on property; each drain is lower than the property so any water from the south will drain; roof drains go to ground recharge system; we have raised the area over the recharge system 7 - 10 inches; most storms water will go into recharge system; discussed with Craig Jones, neighbor, in detail about the drainage system and the removal of the 2 ft. high burms; it is my understanding Mr. Jones was satisfied (letter received from Mr. Jones - not able to submit - hearsay)
7. Landscape: we feel proposed landscaping is adequate; not sure if the Board wants additional street tree plantings;
9. applicant is requesting a waiver of installation of sidewalks along Blodgett and also for waiver for extension of curb along westerly property line

Chairman Ammirata stated that looking at the plan and at the number of trees and type of trees pertaining the view of the pool and questioned whether they are actually the trees. Mr. Amelchenko stated they might not be exact but height of trees at time of planting would be 10-12 ft.

Mr. Spader noted that the existing curb goes down Blodgett gets to driveway; it would be an improvement to enhance Blodgett by extending curb about 40 ft.; Mr. Neumaier indicated that in the report it states that the curb is serviceable, not brand new but not falling apart. Further discussion was held regarding sidewalk and curb.

Chairman Ammirata opened the hearing to public participation:
Louis Wisniewski, 1405 St. Louis Avenue, was sworn in and stated: in her opinion Mr. Wenz has gone to a great deal of trouble to satisfy everyone's concerns; I think he has done everything he can, I am happy with it and other people I have spoken to are happy with it.
Suzanne Johnson, 407 Elizabeth Avenue, was sworn in and stated: looking at new plans the gazebo has been eliminated but now there is a deck; was it always there Ans. Yes.
Mark Johnson, 407 Elizabeth Avenue, was sworn in and stated: expressed concern regarding the deck - anyone could look directly over our property; concerned about height, where measured from; objected to setback of only 20 ft where 30 ft required; if height of structure lowered to 30 ft.

Suzanne Johnson: stated she objected to the size of house; number of variances; sheer volume; impact of being close to back property line; set back is of concern; proposal will have negative impact on light, privacy and our quality of life Mr. Amelchenko stated that they could eliminate the deck.
Raymond Roskas, 409 Blodgett Avenue, was sworn in and stated he is directly behind property; drainage behind his shed is poor always flooding, concerned about the water runoff

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

Mr. Pardes stated that his clients undertook a great deal of expense since the meeting in June; the triangular shape of the lot requiring a number of variances has been reduced, 2,300 square foot home is not a large house; impossible to reduce the height of the house without destroying the look of the house; impact on privacy of neighbors is minimal but the applicant would agree to remove the second story balcony if the Board wanted.

Mr. Harris questioned if the Board wants the deck removed to reduce the privacy concerns would the applicant comply. Mr. Pardes stated the applicant would agree. Mr. Neumaier questioned Mr. Savacool about extending the fence. Mr. Savacool stated if the fence is extended where plantings are it would be all boxed in and in his opinion would look better as proposed.

Deliberations by Board Members:
Mr. Spader stated applicant agreed to reduction of height of an additional 2 ft; another 2 ft would change the roof line and look of house; regarding deck removal, felt applicant was entitled to deck; Chairman Ammirata agreed; Mr. Dyer stated that even though he is not eligible to vote, he was impressed by the applicant's willingness to go the extra mile to please everyone; Mr. Brodeur structure has to be built at flood elevation; plans seem to alleviate several concerns; should work; Mr. Shamy stated applicant did a good job in attempting to alleviate concerns, believes it is a great plan; Mr. Neumaier stated that all his years on the Board, never have seen an applicant go to such great lengths. Mr. Harris stated since the applicant agreed to remove the deck, he felt it should be a condition.

Motion by Mr. Spader, seconded by Mr. Brodeur and carried by roll call vote of those members present: Application approved. Resolution to be prepared by Mr. Galvin for adoption at the Board's meeting to be held on June 9, 2008. (Note: Mr. Dyer did not vote; Mr. Harris voted no as he felt since the applicant agreed to remove the second floor deck, it should be a condition of the approval.)

Motion by Mr. Spader, seconded by Mr. Brodeur and carried by roll call vote of the following members eligible to participate in the hearing: Application carried for hearing to the August 11, 2008 Planning Board meeting with no further notice requirements by applicant. Members voting: Messrs. Spader, Brodeur, Neumaer and Harris.

1. minutes of the Ocean County Planning Board meeting of July 2, 2008; no action taken on property within Municipality.

Mr. Spader stated that it was his understanding that the Master Plan has not yet been approved and questioned where it was appropriate for the Board to have a further review. Mr. Galvin indicated that there should be some communication regarding Master Plan. Discussion was held.

There being no further business to come before the Board, on a motion by Mr. Spader, seconded by Mr. Brodeur and unanimously carried: meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane F. Johnson,

Published September02, 2008 | Planning Board Minutes | 638

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