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

August 20, 2009


The August 20, 2009 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Spader, Leonard, Palisi and Reilly Alternates: Ardito and Kelly

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the minutes of the July 16, 2009 Board of Adjustment meeting.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Palisi, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2009-09 of John Fiorino.

In Favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Palisi and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving the amendment of resolution #2005-46(2) of Rick Surgent.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Palisi and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve the Board of Adjustments 2008 yearly report documented as Resolution #2009-50.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Leonard, Palisi, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None

Application #2009-10 – Greg J. Mazzatta – 202 Ocean Avenue ; Block120; Lot 16.01 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new two-story single family dwelling.

John J. Jackson, attorney for the applicant.
John Jackson states that many homes in the area are in disrepair and Mr. Mazzatta wants to upgrade his home which would require the following variances:

A. Side yard setback of 3 feet to the air-conditioner condenser units whereas 5 feet are required.

B. A rear yard variance of 1.75 feet to the deck stairs, whereas 5 feet are required.

C. For the building stories of 2, whereas only 1 story is permitted. (use)

D. For the building height of 31.94 feet, whereas only 20 feet is permitted.

Audience comments

Pete and Donna Specter are neighbors who are here to testify in favor of the application.

Donna and Peter Spector, Ocean Avenue, sworn - They live directly west from the applicant’s property. They would like to be looking at the proposed home in place of what is there now. They are in favor of people upgrading the area and they are in favor of this application.

Mary Ortman, Professional architect, credentials accepted. Mary states that Greg Mazzatta is looking to improve his home. The home there now is fine for a summer rental but he is looking to live here year round. Exhibit A-3 entered – Aerial photo of surrounding homes. Mary Ortman stated that she could see preserving the area if they were all bungalows, but that is not the case. Exhibit A-4 Colored rendering of elevations entered.

John Jackson stated that the property is a corner lot which is a hardship. Mary Ortman believes the home will provide a noise buffer to surrounding homes. Mr. Leonard stated that the home will be 15 feet higher than the home next door. Mr. Spader inquired what road the front door is facing. (Ocean Avenue)
Mr. Spader inquired where the a/c units would be placed. Mary Ortman stated that they would require a variance for placement of the units in the 5 foot side yard setback. Mr. Spader commented that the homes are so close now that the unit would be right under a neighbor’s window. Mr. Leonard stated that the units would have to be placed somewhere else because the applicant is trying to fit ten (10) pounds of candy in a five (5) pound bag.

Mary Ortman stated that the driveway is about 24 feet long. Mr. Reilly inquired if a new curb cut would be required to pull a car in the driveway? (Yes) The Board was concerned that 2 standard size vehicles would not be able to be parked on the driveway. It was suggested that the proposed front wall be moved back to afford a longer driveway. The applicant would have to reduce the size of the kitchen area, which does not seem possible.

Mr. Palisi stated that the applicant should take notice to the board’s comments. He believes it is a beautiful home but the Board has some serious concerns.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant, Greg Mazzatta, the Board heard the following:

A. The applicant purchased the house in 1995. He lives there and also at a residence in Brick, New Jersey.

B. The current house is a typical beach type construction. He would like to upgrade to today’s standard of living.

C. The lot is a corner lot and the right-of-way is always left open.

D. The old driveway will be used. It will not be necessary to move a utility pole to utilize the driveway, nor will the parking space in front of the house be lost.

Tom Spader – It seems that you want the most that you can get. I was wondering if you had considered 1 ½ stories (yes) Jim Wolfersberger – Building and Impervious coverage are within the allowable, it is the height we are concerned with.

John Jackson closing statements.

No audience questions


Bill Leonard – In this area I understand the FEMA regulations and that the home would need to be elevated. I look at this area and it is meant for summer rentals and bungalows. There is only 10 feet in the rear yard from your neighbor. I think that because of the area I think we are putting 10 pounds of candy in a 5 pound bag and I am not for this application.

Bill Reilly – I think it is very important that we improve and maintain the area but I also think it is important to have year round residents. Four variances are required and this is a big house for where it is situated. You need to have exceptional set of reasons to approve this and I am sorry but I am going to have to vote against this.

Tom Spader – I have a problem with the application because of the 2 stories. If it was 1 ½ stories I would have an easier time. The 35 foot house sticks out like a sore thumb. If all the neighbors were here asking for 35 foot homes that might be different but one home sticks out. We are talking about the look of our town.

Lee Kelly – I think the address Hendrickson Row speaks for itself. It is a row of houses. I am a little concerned about the easement. If we had 10 homes the same that would be one thing, but the one home concerns me.

Jim Wolfersberger – I wish I could vote in favor, but I have a problem with the height and the effect it would have on the light and air of the neighbor’s. I am going to have to vote no because it is not consistent with the area.

Mr. Ardito – I would like to see a home upgraded and brought up to FEMA compliance. I think it is too much massing. I am happy that you are looking to upgrade, but I still have to consider the size of a home on a corner. If there is any way for you to come back with different plans we would consider it.

Mike Palisi – We need to see extenuating circumstances to approve this and I do. I do not think the size of this home is unimaginable and I believe in the transformation of that neighborhood home by home. I believe that this home is on a corner that there is access for emergency vehicles. Because of those reasons I will fly solo, and vote in favor. It would be good if you could get the home under 30 feet.

The Board understands that due to FEMA requirements, it might require the applicant to slightly increase the height of the home, the Board found the applicant’s request of 31.54 feet to be potently unreasonable.

The Board determined that the lot in is too small to accommodate a two-story home and that this proposal would create massing that would impinge on the light and air of the surrounding properties.

The RR-1 Zone is comprised of single family one-story cottages on small lots. This proposal is substantially out of keeping with the neighborhood scheme and would have an adverse impact on the RR-1 Zone. The Board further found that the applicant’s request to construct a two-story dwelling will create massing and will impinge on the light and area of the surrounding property owners. The site is not well suited to accommodate this change and is not compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to deny application #2009-10 of Greg Mazzatta.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: Palisi

Application denied

Application #2008-30 – Ann C. Verosi – 307 Baltimore/302 Chicago Avenue – Block 108; Lots 21 & 22 – Applicant wishes to demolish a single family dwelling on lot 22 and subdivide the lot into two lots. Existing Lot 21 rear property line would be moved. There are two existing principal structures located on lot 21.

Due to personal reasons the applicant requested to be carried to December 3, 2009.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to be carry application #2008-30 of Ann C. Varosi to December 3, 2009 with notice.

In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Leonard, Palisi, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None

Application#2009-14 – Offshore Inn Inc. – Block 129.01; Lot 12 – Applicant wishes to utilize existing parking lot of the Off-Shore Restaurant as a paid parking lot.

Due to deficient notice the applicant was not heard and the application was carried to January 21, 2009 with notice.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to carry application #2009-14 to January 21, 2010 with notice.

In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Leonard, Palisi, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned 9:15pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, clerk of the Board

Published September21, 2009 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 870

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