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 16, 2009


The April 16, 2009 Special 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. Palisi, Chairman Struncius and Mr. Spader
Alternates: Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly

Application #2008-36 – Costas Kaiafas – 800 Forman Avenue; Block 56; Lot 12 – Applicant wishes to construct a second story above existing single story section of existing single family dwelling.

The applicant proposes to construct a 380 square foot addition to the second floor consisting of a master bedroom, bathroom and closet. The proposed addition will go over an existing deck which is built on pilings. The ridge of the addition will be 2 (two) feet higher than the existing structure.

The Board determined that the addition will not be visible from the streetscape and the two story addition does not create any massing. The board found the addition to be aesthetically pleasing and that it will improve the housing stock of Point Pleasant Beach. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal.


1. The addition is to be constructed according to the plans submitted to the board and the comments of the applicant at the time of the hearing.
2. The siding of the proposed addition will match the existing siding.

Motion by Mr. Spader and second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2008-36 with conditions.

In favor: Mr. Spader, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Kelly
Opposed - None

Application #2009-03 – Nichols Koles – 1607 Lake Avenue; Block 179-01; Lot 20.01 – Applicant wishes to construct a room over existing deck.

The applicant proposes to enclose the existing rear deck to make a sunroom/family room. The applicant also wishes to enclose the existing rear shower to make it more private. The shower will have a separate entrance and a shed type roof and will be 4’ by 4’. The proposed sunroom will have three windows. The existing kitchen glass will be removed but the framed opening will remain. The sunroom/family room will be a one story addition.
The board determined that the property addition will add usefulness to the home and that the home will be aesthetically pleasing. There are no negative impacts arising from this proposal.

1. Building coverage is not to exceed 30%.
2. The addition is to be constructed according to the plans submitted to the board and the comments of the applicant made at the time of the hearing.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to approve application #2009-03 with conditions.

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

Opposed: None

Recused: Mr. Spader

Application #2008-33 – Alison and Robert Ingenito - 1103 Gowdy Avenue in Point Boro –

Applicant is appealing the Zoning Officer’s ruling on property located at 1026/1028 Gowdy Avenue owned by William and Carolan Amirrata. Applicant is appealing the interpretation that the home occupation use at 1026/1028 Gowdy Avenue is permitted by Ordinance without a need for variance approval by Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Let the record reflect that due to a conflict of interest attorney Dennis Galvin has stepped down from this matter and Ben Montenegro will be the attorney of record.

Michael Wenning, attorney with Keith, Winters and Wenning which is located in Bradley Beach is representing Allison and Scott Ingenito. Michael Wenning explained what has brought his applicant to this Board. The applicant has filed an appeal to reverse the zoning officer’s determination that the home occupation being conducted at 1028 and 1026 Gowdy is permissible and that it does not require Board of Adjustment review and approval. The property is unique in which there are two principal structures on one lot which is nonconforming because zoning only allows one principal structure on a lot. It is the applicant’s position that there is a requirement for the Amirrata’s to come before the Board of Adjustment for a variance to expand a nonconforming use.

Victor Furmanec, Professional Planner with Beacon Planning – He has a Master’s in City and Regional planning from Rutgers. Credentials accepted. Victor Furmanec stated that the main issue here is for the Board to determine if the zoning permit was properly issued. The other key issue is section 11.6 of the ordinance which places restrictions on preexisting nonconforming uses. In essence it says you may not expand or alter a nonconforming use and that any action taken must go before the Board of Adjustment. It is not just the expansion of use that triggers Board approval it is the fact the use was changed to a use that is not permitted.

Mr. Palisi questioned if he knew for a fact that a home based business had not been run out of that residence before? Victor Furmanec replied that he did not know that as a fact. My understanding is that the residences on the property were always used as residential structures without a commercial use to them. Mr. Wenning stated that the applicant’s whole problem is that the matter was never brought before the Board of Adjustment for approval. Victor Furmanec reviewed parking and the requirements.

Mr. Spader posed the question of why the applicant went to court prior to applying to the Board to render a decision. (did not answer) Mr. Montenegro explained that the judge never made a decision but sent the applicant to the Board to exhaust their administrative remedies before proceeding to court. Mr. Montenegro explained that he believes to this point that the applicant is asking you to find Mrs. Petrillo’s decision to be in error because the applicant believes it to be an unlawful expansion which warrants an application and D variance relief before this Board.

John Jackson stated that there are two principal structures being utilized as a single-family operation or compound structure. The Ingenito’s complained about the traffic and disturbances but the proofs will show that it is a low impact situation that does not generate excessive traffic. John Jackson proceeded to cross examine Victor Furmanec as to his inspection of the property in question. Victor Furmanec stated that he has only seen the property from the outside. Victor Furmanec stated that the lot did have the proper density. He stated that he did not know if both homes had clothes in the closet, toiletries and food in the refrigerator or how the Ammirata’s utilized both homes. John Jackson pointed to the facts that in the number of years that the Ammirata’s have had the home occupation that only the Ingenito’s have complained.

Audience Questions

Stuart Fischer – 60 Harvard Avenue – Questioned whether the property had one or two addresses? Do they receive one tax bill or two? (one tax bill) He inquired how many houses a person can dwell in.

Mr. Pratt – 134 Edgewood Drive, Toms River. He is a client of Carolan Ammirata. He asked Mr. Furmanec if he could tell the difference between the cars that come if they are a client or a family member. (no)

Robert Ingenito, applicant, sworn. – Applicant’s home is located diagonally from subject property and located in Point Boro. He went on to explain the circumstance for which he found there was a home occupation and his reporting his concerns to Mrs. Petrillo. He states that there are four (4) cars there at a time and that they park across the street from his driveway and it makes it hard for him to pull out. He also complained that the car alarm bothers him early in the morning. (Mr. Palisi questioned whether other neighbors go to work and have a car alarm?)

Robert Ingenito went over to the Ammiratas’s and Carolan Ammirata gave me a tour and there were no beds or TV; just exercise equipment and yoga mats. He went on to complain that customers constantly park on the public street in front of his home. Robert Ingenito also stated that he has been videotaping their property since December 2007 until present time. He said that sometimes there have been seven (7) to ten (10) cars there for the business. Robert Ingenito stated that he is the only one that has the courage to point the finger at Mr. Ammirata and that he is silently supported by the neighbor’s and local businesses. Mr. Reynolds inquired if there are parking restrictions on Gowdy that the Board is not aware of? (no)

Mr. Ardito stated that if he is not mistaken that they are there to determine if we believe our Zoning Officer made right interpretation of our ordinance.

John Jackson proceeded to cross examine Robert Ingenito – He inquired if his wife also had a Yoga Business? (Yes) He stated he was not sure where his wife’s business is located, but then stated it is in Silverton. He stated that his business is located at 505 Ridge Road in Brick but when further questioned stated that he only stores stuff there and that is office is on his hip in the form of a cell phone. He also goes on to state that he never has deliveries at his home.

Motion by Mr. Spader and second by Mr. Reynolds to carry this application to June 18, 2009 without notice.

In favor: Spader, Palisi, Struncius, Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly.
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:40pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, clerk of the board

Published June19, 2009 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 817

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