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


January 21, 2010

Minutes

The January 21, 2010 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:32pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Struncius, Reilly, Leonard, Spader and Kelly Alternates: Reynolds and Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve the minutes from January 7, 2010.

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

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2009-20 of James Ivchenko located at 317 Trenton Avenue.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to appoint Ben Montenegro as conflict attorney, and John Ernst as conflict Engineer in the Ingenito/Ammirata matter.



Application #2008-30 – Ann C. Varosi – 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.

Carried from December 3, 2009 without notice

Steven A. Pardes, Attorney for applicant. Albert Varosi, Professional Engineer and applicant’s son. Steven Pardes briefly reviewed first hearing in this matter. Albert Varosi prepared a report addressing the board’s previous concerns and also prepared a density report of the surrounding properties. Albert Varosi stated that the homes surrounding his property average a density of 6 to 8 ½ units per acre. His property will be 4.665 units per acre; the property will still be the lowest in density in that block area. Steve Pardes stated that there are two homes that have their garage placed right on the property line; the new homes would not have an impact on those properties. Steve Pardes also stated that whereas most the surrounding homes have non-conformities that these new homes will comply. A-7 – Photo 304 Chicago; A-8 Photos depicts rear garages (214,212,210 and 208 Parkway) on neighboring properties and how they will block the view from the property. A-9- rear garages of 208, 210 and 212 Parkway. A-10 – Photo of 307 and 305 Chicago. Albert Varosi gave a brief history of the property .Albert Varosi agreed with Steve Pardes statement that this property has an unusual topography. Mr. Kelly questioned the cement wall in Exhibit A-7 (Not Varosi’s wall). Mr. Spader questioned reducing the home in mass to balance out the 3 foot shortage in lot width. Mr. Reynolds inquired if there is a utility easement. Albert Varosi replied that there is not a utility easement and that he is not responsible to provide access for his neighbors. He said the poles are located on the neighbor’s property; not his. Albert Varosi stated that the section of his property( 78 feet by 100 feet) located behind 208 and 210 Parkway will be remaining in its natural state. Albert Varosi submitted a tree survey depicting the trees that will remain. Steve Pardes commented that he is not quite sure that this application should have landed before the Board of Adjustment. He said his applicant is actually improving these two lots; if the applicant was not requesting to move the lot line they would be before the Planning Board. Dennis Galvin explained to the Board that moving the lot line created needing a “use” variance because there are two principal structures are on the one lot; also because they are before this board one of the reasons it could be approved is aesthetics. Chairman Struncius was concerned about access if there was a fire. Steve Pardes commented that there previously was a fire on the property and it was accessed from Baltimore Avenue. Albert Varosi would agree to a 5% reduction in height; then the height would be in keeping with the reduced width of the lot.



Audience Questions

John Szyfranski – Is there any agreement that was signed by Bell or Jersey Central? (Albert Varosi stated there are no utility lines on his property. Dennis Galvin stated he believes that someone has a utility easement but would need a title search.

Larry Yankopoulos - I believe that utility companies have eminent domain and they can access the poles from anywhere.

Gregory Cox – You are increasing the original lot; why are you making it so big? Aren’t you setting up a scenario for something in the future? Have you considered a deed restriction to have the garages in the rear? (AV - No-Keeping the home sloping to the street will keep the water flowing to Chicago).

Robert Krasowski – 206 Parkway – Do the picture depict where the utility easement is? Ray Savacool states that a licensed surveyor drew the utility poles to be located on the properties on Parkway.

Audience Comments –

Frank Stiso – Has pictures from the 1990’s taken by him entered as N-1 through N-4. He is worried about more water.

Larry Yankopoulos, Arnold Avenue – the watershed is creating the problem. With all this snow my neighbor’s and I cannot walk in our back yard. It is the way it is. Whatever endeavors the Varosi’s are looking to do will benefit the town.

Steve A. Pardes concluding comments.

Chairman Struncius has concerns about Lot 21. In the future they could remove both homes and build one monstrous home.

Mr. Wolfersberger is concerned with the lot on Chicago; you can build a skinny long mansion without asking anyone.



Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger: For me to approve anything I have to have control on the height. We need to control the development. I would like to see the fire Marshall look at the plans and see what they would advise.

Mr. Ardito – I also have some concerns. I do not have a concern with movement of the back boundary line; I do have concerns with lots 23 and 22 and what the home are going to look like. I have concerns with the drainage.

Mr. Kelly – I do not like to micro manage. My suggestion would be to build one home and leave it alone.

Mr. Reynolds – Moving the property line is not going to cause drainage issues. I would also like to see just one home on the lot on Chicago.

Mr. Struncius – I could see the subdivision. I would like to see a condition to control building coverage; for me this is an aesthetic thing. I would like to have architectural approval.

Mr. Spader – I do not have a problem with the subdivision at all. This is not a perfect town; because of a couple feet each way. Eventually most of those homes on Parkway when they rebuild with have to conform. We live in a flood plain. People are entitled to utilize their property.

Mr. Reilly – I have no problem with the “use “variance part of this. Ideally I would rather see one house than two. I thought the application was lacking. There should have been more information on access and drainage. I find it hard to penalize someone for three feet; but we do need some controls. We need to worry about this – I am inclined to approve this with a lot of conditions.

Dennis Galvin suggested that the applicant may create an open space easement in the back of the lot and do a title search on one of the neighboring lots to confirm if there is a utility easement. Dennis Galvin asked the applicant if they can provide proof that drainage will be improved.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Spader to carry application #2008-30 to March 18, 2010 without notice.



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.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito.

Dennis Galvin stated that the 500 lb guerilla in the room is the town ordinance section 5-4-6-D marked B1 Provided by Mr. Reynolds. Any business required to maintain off street parking space for the operation of their business are not allowed to charge for these parking spaces. This is from the general administrative ordinances and the board cannot grant relief from this; only the governing body can. Steve Pardes would like to move forward at this point to try to get the variance and the board could make a condition to get the governing body approval. Mr. Wolfersberger thinks that if it needs to go before the Mayor and Council that it should go there first. Mr. Spader believes it is a waste of time and it should go to Mayor and Council. Mr. Spader believes it is unfair to the applicant when the town has said it so clearly.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Frank Ditullio, applicant and shareholder in business. Proposing to use parking lot during the day until 5pm as a paid lot for beach access. Applicant stated that his parking lot is not fully utilized during the day. Business costs are rising and they could use the revenue from the paid parking. Applicant stated that in the past they have done this. Applicant stated that prior to the fire they utilized 35 spaces for paid parking during the day and just had 10 spaces for the restaurant. Chairman Struncius inquired how the applicant controls that the people leave by 5pm. Frank Ditullio replied that it has never been a problem; if it ever was an issue they would discontinue parking cars. Applicant stated most people arrive by 11:30am until 12pm and leave by 4-5pm. We get our 30 cars and someone sits there and watches that no one else parks; that was it.

Public comment

Joanne Frank – lives directly across from the Offshore. The Offshore does a terrific business and the lot is always full. It is a very used facility. If it is a paid parking lot the customers will be clogging up our streets because the lot is full. This will have a negative effect on our neighborhood. Ocean Avenue is very narrow when cars are parked on both sides. Now we will have additional cars blocking the street while they are waiting to pull in the lot. The Offshore has already received a variance because they are already short 10 parking places. When the lot is full where are your customer’s going to park?

Bill Knapp, Harvard Avenue – I believe if you approve this that other businesses will say “hey, what about us?” I have no problem with the private parking if the town gets a piece of the action.

Albert Varosi, 52 Harvard Avenue – He believes that parking should be utilized throughout the town and we should run a shuttle business.

Steve Pardes stated that it will benefit the town by providing more off street parking.

Steve Pardes waived the time for the application to be heard and stated he will now appear before Mayor and Council.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to carry application #2009-14 to February 18, 2010 without notice.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito



Meeting adjourned 10:45pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published February19, 2010 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 964


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