Borough of Point Pleasant Beach MINUTES
The November 3, 2005 regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:45. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard Absent: Moberg, Dyer and Cangelosi
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to approve the minutes of October 20, 2005.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-34 with Conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Simon, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-24 of Peter and Dyan Heineck, 610 Trenton Avenue with conditions:
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2005-25 of Richard and Jane McDonnell, 208 Elizabeth Avenue.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Struncius to memorialize the action and vote extending Application #2003-31, 205 Trenton Avenue with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry application #2005-11 to January 19, 2006 without notice.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry Applications #2005-28, of Andrew Labowsky and Ocean Ventures Application #2005-29 and 2005-30 to February 2, 2006 without notice.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Struncius to carry application #2005-22 of Wallace & Sons to December 1, 2005 without notice.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Application #2005-33,Andrew J. O’Connor, 58 Sanborn Avenue, Block 152 Lot 3; Applicant wishes to utilize existing third story space for game room. Applicant also wishes to place two air conditioner compressors in side yard setback. Steven Pardes, attorney for applicant. Andrew J. O’Connor, sworn. Tonight we are just dealing with air conditioner location and side yard setback due to the Ordinance for 3rd floor habitable space makes that point moot. There are no other locations in the back yard for the a/c units. The a/c compressors of the neighbor’s are basically in the same location. They will be right across from each other. This location makes the most sense.
No audience questions
Deliberations:
Leonard: Seeing that the only thing in the vicinity is a neighbor’s a/c compressor. He has agreed to landscape the units. In favor. Wolfersberger: ditto
Close deliberations
Motion by Mr. Simon, second by Mr. Leonard to approve Application #2005-33 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Palisi, Tooker and Leonard………….Yea
Opposed: None
Condition: A/C compressors are to be screened by shrubbery
Application #2005-38, George & Jacqueline Massood, 311 Baltimore Avenue; Block 108 Lot 1; Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with in-ground swimming pool. Steven A. Pardes, attorney, appearing on behalf of the applicant. Dean J. Daley, architect, sworn. Mr. Daley went on to explain architectural plans. Variances required –frontage on Baltimore Ave., only 7 feet are being encroached on by the stairs. Side yard setback 15.5 where bay window sticks out. Porch – 13.68 feet. Rear yard 27.33 feet to actual building. Side yard setback would be 6 feet to pool where 10 feet is required. Central Ave. – 13.62 Set back. Requesting lot coverage of 43.5% including pool.
Wolfersberger: Large, very large lovely massive home. We have a new home and we have all these variances. I do not see why a person cannot stay within the ordinance with a new home. It even looks large on the rendering. Leonard: This is a very massive structure and you are starting from scratch. Pardes: They are willing to forgo the pool if that would help. That would eliminate the variance for the pool. Palisi: Those changes I do not care about, the pool & the deck. It is the mass structure that is 35 feet high. Daley: I know you worry about massive structures that do not have breaks. Palisi: Is this going to be a summer home, rental or residence? Pardes: This is going to be a fulltime residence. Wolfersberger: I am concerned about massiveness. The home next door is massive but it is in the middle of the block. I was not on the board then. Wolfersberger: Setbacks I can deal with. Daley: I was looking at front and side yard setback on Arnold & Niblick you have roughly 12 corners and 8 of them are less that 18 feet. Tooker: There are no big houses like this. Wolfersberger: My concern is bringing the building coverage down. Daley: If we could get the coverage down to 30%. Galvin: I would suggest taking a break.
Any Audience Questions:
Virginia Cronin, 204 Central Avenue, Why is necessary for the building to be so massive? Where is fence going to be? I am worried about the ventilation around the properties. It is looking like a McMansion. Is this the feel we want for this town. We want to tear down and make these huge houses that dwarf the surrounding homes.
John Dearborn, 119 Central Avenue, I have the corner across the Street from these people. I have standing water all the time, 3 inches before I came over. You put all these pools in and the water level keeps going up.
Michael Murphy, 209 Central Avenue. How will this gigantic house taking up a high percentage of the lot impact the water level? Galvin: Is this house larger than the existing home. Daley: yes Galvin: Will there be more pavement than before. Daley: yes Galvin: What is the impervious coverage? Tooker: That should be taken into consideration because that corner is always under water. Struncius: The usual lot is 50 x 100. This lot is 75 x 100.
Break/Roll Call
Mr. Pardes: My clients are uncomfortable to agreeing to reduce the home without seeing the plans. We do not want to say we will comply with 30% and not know where it is coming from. Struncius: It is a beautiful home it is just too big. I think it can come down and still be a beautiful home. I think it is a little bit of a massing. Wolfersberger: This lot affords you the opportunity to conform to setbacks. I would like the house if it was a 200′ x 200′ lot. Everything is getting big, big, big. It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood Leonard: I do not want to see you removing porches and decks, I just want you to scale it back a little.
Audience Comments:
Max Gagnon, 304 Parkway: We are faced with a new situation with this 3rd floor deal. Thinks the Board should give input to town council on the habitable third floor space issue. Thinks council is lost on this.
John Dearborn, 199 Central; it would behoove us all to make recommendations back to the board. We have all this flooding and we are approving pools all over the place. Mr. Galvin: Applicants now have to get an engineering review before they can have a pool.
Mr. Szfranski; Homes are covering more of the ground area and the water is running all over.
Virginia Cronin, I think this home will impact surrounding homes negatively. I think this big home will be a problem with airflow and dangerous to summer people and their corner view. This is a massive house; I think they should stay to footprint percentage.
Michael Murphy, The other house that is there is too large and this house is more massive and on the corner. I believe it will be a safety issue and will increase the flooding. That corner has been blocked off at least 10 times for flooding; you can check with the police department. It is a beautiful home for a larger lot. It can be scaled back and still be lovely.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to carry Application 2005-38 to January 19, 2006 without notice.
Meeting adjourned at 9:25
