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


November 6, 2008

Minutes

The November 6, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi Mr. Struncius and Mr. Leonard Alternates: Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Kelly

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the minutes of October 16, 2008.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Leonard, Ardito and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Palisi second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the landscaping plan for application #2008-23

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Ardito and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve Application #2008-23 of Michael Percelay & Florence Abrenica – 795 Gowdy Avenue; Block 74; Lot 14 with conditions

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: Leonard

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve the action and vote memorializing Application #2008-25 of Helen Giersz of 107 Forman Avenue – Block 68; Lot 4 with conditions

In favor: Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, and Ardito
Opposed: Leonard and Wolfersberger

Motion by Mr. Palisi and second by Mr. Leonard to approve the meeting dates for 2009

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Leonard, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2008-28 – R. Brett Madden – 815 Oak Terrace; Block 204; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to construct a new single car detached garage with an outdoor cabana and a 12 foot by 24 foot in ground swimming pool.

Exhibits entered - A-3 – Colored rendering; A-4 Elevations; A-5 (A-M) Photos. John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Proposed improvements will be under allowable building coverage. Rear yard setback will be three (3) feet where 5 feet is allowed; side yard will be 4 feet where 5 feet is allowed; front yard setback will be 18.6 instead of 25 feet. Richard Brett Madden, applicant, sworn. Hardship is created by being a corner lot. Garage will have cabana like components. Mary Ortman, professional architect, credentials accepted. Mr. Leonard commented that the setback to the new garage will be encroaching further into the front setback. Mrs. Ortman replied that it would but that the garage would now be smaller. Brett Madden commented that the strip of land between his and his neighbors property is approximately 30 feet wide and acts as a natural buffer. Mr. Savacool stated that this property would not be able to be developed. Applicant stated that his neighbors are in favor of this application.

No audience questions/comments

Mr. Wolfersberger – This is an odd shaped lot and it will be located next to an undeveloped strip of land. I will listen to my colleagues and make up my mind.

Mr. Palisi – There is a reduction in building coverage. If you know this property this is where to place the pool without having a negative impact.

Mr. Leonard – When it comes to a pool I have a problem with it being four (4) feet from the fence and because of that I am not in favor.

Mr. Reilly – The fact that the neighbors on both sides are in favor of this application gives me comfort.

Mr. Struncius – I can see Mr. Leonard’s concerns, but I cannot see a new owner wanting to change a beautiful pool. We are getting a 5% building coverage reduction which is significant. I am in favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-28 with conditions.

Conditions

1. The garage/cabana is never to be used for overnight accommodations or as habitable space.

2. The proposed garage/cabana stucco is to be sided in stucco to match the existing home.


In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Leonard

Application approved with conditions


Application 2008-27 – Cynthia and Jeffrey Kells – 801 Long Point Lane; Block 118; Lot 21 – Applicant wishes to install an in ground pool with heater.

Mr. Reynolds has stepped down from this application.


Exhibits entered A-3 Photos (A-H). John Jackson, attorney for applicant. This is a unique situation being this is a corner lot. There are historic trees on this lot and if they put the pool anywhere else they would have to remove the trees. They are going to remove the garage/shed and build a new one in another location. Mr. Savacool stated that the pool will be fifteen (15) feet off the Curtis Avenue property line. The home is Forty-four (44) feet off of Curtis Avenue. Cynthia and Jeffrey Kells, applicants, sworn. Jeffrey Kells commented that he feels the pool is best suited for that location. If they located the pool in their back yard it would be located in their neighbor’s front yard. Pool is 32 feet long by 16 feet wide. The existing shed/garage will be removed and a new one will be built 3 feet off the property line. Mr. Leonard questioned the width of the yard (98 feet wide); He wondered how the shed placement ends in someone’s front yard. (Jeffrey Kells reviewed plan). Mr. Palisi feels the placement of the shed is in the neighbor’s best interest. Mr. Struncius noted that the new placement of the shed will be located further from view. Cynthia Kells stated that no trees or mature shrubs will be removed.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – There are no building/impervious coverage issues; property is unique. Character of wooded area will be maintained. Shed will be moved; I would be in favor of application as it stands.

Mr. Reilly – I would be in favor with the condition that the six (6) foot concrete wall be maintained. Without the concrete wall, this would be a weak case.

Mr. Ardito – The wall is what tips this application in your favor. I am in favor with the wall being maintained.

Mr. Leonard – I do not like pools in front or side yards. I would like to see the shed conform - 10 by 12 feet.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-27 with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: Leonard

Application approved with conditions

Conditions
1. The applicants represented that the trees and the mature plantings in the rear yard are to remain.

2. The six (6) foot high concrete wall is to remain. In the event it falls into disrepair, the owners of the home will replace the concrete wall, in kind. This condition is to be confirmed by means of a Deed Restriction which is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney.


3. The existing garage is to be demolished and the new garage is to be located at least five (5) feet from the Curtis Avenue property line. The garage is to be removed prior to the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy.



Application #2008-31 – John and Elaine Millar – 214 Curtis Avenue – Block 118; Lot 6 – Applicant is seeking a variance to allow the accessory structure to remain on a vacant lot.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Applicant has purchased property next door with a garage that they have been renting for ages. (Assessory structures are not allowed on a lot absent of a primary structure. The garage is located right next to their property line. John Millar, applicant sworn. Exhibit A-3 entered (photo) Applicant has been renting garage for thirty (30) years and is willing to have the condition that if the applicant sells his home he will remove the garage.

No audience comments/questions

Deliberations

Mr. Reilly – With the conditions cited I do not see much of a problem with this.

Mr. Reynolds – I have no problem with this. It is a beautiful wooded lot.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I would also be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2008-31 with conditions

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Leonard, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None


Conditions

1. The applicant agreed that the garage will be demolished if the property at either 220 Curtis Avenue is sold first or if (Lot 6.02) at 214 Curtis Avenue is sold and a new single family home is not constructed on the lot, the garage will be demolished. If the new owner does not request a Building Permit within one (1) year, or if 220 Curtis Avenue is sold first, the municipality may demolish the garage and place a lien on the property. The applicant is to record this restriction on both the 221 and 220 Curtis Avenue properties.

2. The garage on 214 Curtis Avenue is to match the home on 220 Curtis Avenue.

Application approved with conditions


Meeting adjourned 8:50 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board




The November 6, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi Mr. Struncius and Mr. Leonard Alternates: Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Kelly

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the minutes of October 16, 2008.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Leonard, Ardito and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Palisi second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the landscaping plan for application #2008-23

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Ardito and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve Application #2008-23 of Michael Percelay & Florence Abrenica – 795 Gowdy Avenue; Block 74; Lot 14 with conditions

In favor: Wolfersberger, Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: Leonard

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve the action and vote memorializing Application #2008-25 of Helen Giersz of 107 Forman Avenue – Block 68; Lot 4 with conditions

In favor: Reynolds, Palisi, Struncius, and Ardito
Opposed: Leonard and Wolfersberger

Motion by Mr. Palisi and second by Mr. Leonard to approve the meeting dates for 2009

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Leonard, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2008-28 – R. Brett Madden – 815 Oak Terrace; Block 204; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to construct a new single car detached garage with an outdoor cabana and a 12 foot by 24 foot in ground swimming pool.

Exhibits entered - A-3 – Colored rendering; A-4 Elevations; A-5 (A-M) Photos. John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Proposed improvements will be under allowable building coverage. Rear yard setback will be three (3) feet where 5 feet is allowed; side yard will be 4 feet where 5 feet is allowed; front yard setback will be 18.6 instead of 25 feet. Richard Brett Madden, applicant, sworn. Hardship is created by being a corner lot. Garage will have cabana like components. Mary Ortman, professional architect, credentials accepted. Mr. Leonard commented that the setback to the new garage will be encroaching further into the front setback. Mrs. Ortman replied that it would but that the garage would now be smaller. Brett Madden commented that the strip of land between his and his neighbors property is approximately 30 feet wide and acts as a natural buffer. Mr. Savacool stated that this property would not be able to be developed. Applicant stated that his neighbors are in favor of this application.

No audience questions/comments

Mr. Wolfersberger – This is an odd shaped lot and it will be located next to an undeveloped strip of land. I will listen to my colleagues and make up my mind.

Mr. Palisi – There is a reduction in building coverage. If you know this property this is where to place the pool without having a negative impact.

Mr. Leonard – When it comes to a pool I have a problem with it being four (4) feet from the fence and because of that I am not in favor.

Mr. Reilly – The fact that the neighbors on both sides are in favor of this application gives me comfort.

Mr. Struncius – I can see Mr. Leonard’s concerns, but I cannot see a new owner wanting to change a beautiful pool. We are getting a 5% building coverage reduction which is significant. I am in favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-28 with conditions.

Conditions

1. The garage/cabana is never to be used for overnight accommodations or as habitable space.

2. The proposed garage/cabana stucco is to be sided in stucco to match the existing home.


In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Leonard

Application approved with conditions


Application 2008-27 – Cynthia and Jeffrey Kells – 801 Long Point Lane; Block 118; Lot 21 – Applicant wishes to install an in ground pool with heater.

Mr. Reynolds has stepped down from this application.


Exhibits entered A-3 Photos (A-H). John Jackson, attorney for applicant. This is a unique situation being this is a corner lot. There are historic trees on this lot and if they put the pool anywhere else they would have to remove the trees. They are going to remove the garage/shed and build a new one in another location. Mr. Savacool stated that the pool will be fifteen (15) feet off the Curtis Avenue property line. The home is Forty-four (44) feet off of Curtis Avenue. Cynthia and Jeffrey Kells, applicants, sworn. Jeffrey Kells commented that he feels the pool is best suited for that location. If they located the pool in their back yard it would be located in their neighbor’s front yard. Pool is 32 feet long by 16 feet wide. The existing shed/garage will be removed and a new one will be built 3 feet off the property line. Mr. Leonard questioned the width of the yard (98 feet wide); He wondered how the shed placement ends in someone’s front yard. (Jeffrey Kells reviewed plan). Mr. Palisi feels the placement of the shed is in the neighbor’s best interest. Mr. Struncius noted that the new placement of the shed will be located further from view. Cynthia Kells stated that no trees or mature shrubs will be removed.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – There are no building/impervious coverage issues; property is unique. Character of wooded area will be maintained. Shed will be moved; I would be in favor of application as it stands.

Mr. Reilly – I would be in favor with the condition that the six (6) foot concrete wall be maintained. Without the concrete wall, this would be a weak case.

Mr. Ardito – The wall is what tips this application in your favor. I am in favor with the wall being maintained.

Mr. Leonard – I do not like pools in front or side yards. I would like to see the shed conform - 10 by 12 feet.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2008-27 with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: Leonard

Application approved with conditions

Conditions
1. The applicants represented that the trees and the mature plantings in the rear yard are to remain.

2. The six (6) foot high concrete wall is to remain. In the event it falls into disrepair, the owners of the home will replace the concrete wall, in kind. This condition is to be confirmed by means of a Deed Restriction which is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney.


3. The existing garage is to be demolished and the new garage is to be located at least five (5) feet from the Curtis Avenue property line. The garage is to be removed prior to the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy.



Application #2008-31 – John and Elaine Millar – 214 Curtis Avenue – Block 118; Lot 6 – Applicant is seeking a variance to allow the accessory structure to remain on a vacant lot.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Applicant has purchased property next door with a garage that they have been renting for ages. (Assessory structures are not allowed on a lot absent of a primary structure. The garage is located right next to their property line. John Millar, applicant sworn. Exhibit A-3 entered (photo) Applicant has been renting garage for thirty (30) years and is willing to have the condition that if the applicant sells his home he will remove the garage.

No audience comments/questions

Deliberations

Mr. Reilly – With the conditions cited I do not see much of a problem with this.

Mr. Reynolds – I have no problem with this. It is a beautiful wooded lot.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I would also be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2008-31 with conditions

In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Leonard, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None


Conditions

1. The applicant agreed that the garage will be demolished if the property at either 220 Curtis Avenue is sold first or if (Lot 6.02) at 214 Curtis Avenue is sold and a new single family home is not constructed on the lot, the garage will be demolished. If the new owner does not request a Building Permit within one (1) year, or if 220 Curtis Avenue is sold first, the municipality may demolish the garage and place a lien on the property. The applicant is to record this restriction on both the 221 and 220 Curtis Avenue properties.

2. The garage on 214 Curtis Avenue is to match the home on 220 Curtis Avenue.

Application approved with conditions


Meeting adjourned 8:50 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published January07, 2009 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 717


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